Tom MacWood
My understanding is that White was the Greenkeeper at Ravisloe and Shawnee. White was hired by Tillinghast at Shawnee to oversee construction of the redesigned course in 1912 and became the Greenkeeper there. He also oversaw construction at North Shore at Tilly's request and later became the head pro there. Did not the American Golfer article by White state this:
"...Each green was built from a model carefully made of plastiscene."
I suggest that Tilly made these models as I understand that was his practice at the time since he did not oversee day to day construction of the courses he designed. Did White say he made those models?
If you come and visit the NY Historical Society archives, you will find the minutes of The Harmonie Club which I understand will reveal the hiring of Tilly to design the course. Perhaps that's where Dr. Bill Quirin came to write as I referenced above. How else would he know anything about Tilly's fee? Dr. Quirin is based in NY. I guess he had access to the records of The Harmonie Club.Not everything in the world is on in the internet via old magazine articles and newspapers.
Your version is contrary to MGA's historian's version that I have:
"... The original golf course proved inadequte for North Shore's membership. And so a relatively young (architectuarally speaking) A.W. Tillinghast was engaged in September 1915 to revise the original layout. Which he did, retaining only 5 holes of the original 18, including the present 8th, which was among the original 9. It is said, though, that 1000 trees were were felled to give the 16th its dogleg configuration. Tillinghast's fee,construction included, amounted to $75,000...."
I have not read the club minutes but I'm relying on Quirin's piece from his book. Take it up with him. Give him a call. He'll talk to you. He talked to me when I asked him a few years ago for information and recently when I had some questions about Quaker Ridge. He even talked to Ran. See his Feature Interview.
I'd like to read the club minutes in NY but I'm very busy in December and will be leaving for Arizona in early January and won't return until April.
White's article was from a Greenkeeper's perspective. It says nothing about designing the greens at NS.
Tom MacWood
Amazing that you call my reliance on the work of Quirin as "speculation." He is the historian of the MGA and author of club histories and other noted golf books. Do you think he fabricated the Tillinghast references? Do you think NS had some ulterior motive in attributing ITS course to Tillinghast? I think you owe an apology to both.
Are there contemporay accounts that White was HIRED by NS? Tilly hired White at Shawnee. NS hired Tilly. Tilly hired White at NS. Your purported connection between White and Ravisloe and NS is speculation. Did White ever advertise NS as one of his designs?
I suggest that you contact Don Zucker and tell him the bad news about his recent purchase:
www.newsday.com/long-island/nassau/developer-buys-north-shore-country-club-for-12-5m-1.1602746
This attribution problem has shown up before on various courses. I remember all the Philmont threads showing that Park,Jr. did the design work and that Gordon MAY have been Toomey & Flynn's construction manager on site and that no Flynn drawings exist for the course and that a member, Strouse, oversaw the construction for club and made in ground design changes while the course was being constructed.Even Bob Labbance danced around this issue in his club history. All of this evidence was presented to Philmont. Guess what? They didn't care. It's still a Flynn course to them. I suspect that the result will be the same at NS with Tillinghast only they have records that are discoverable.
Your version is contrary to MGA's historian's version that I have:
"... The original golf course proved inadequte for North Shore's membership. And so a relatively young (architectuarally speaking) A.W. Tillinghast was engaged in September 1915 to revise the original layout. Which he did, retaining only 5 holes of the original 18, including the present 8th, which was among the original 9. It is said, though, that 1000 trees were were felled to give the 16th its dogleg configuration. Tillinghast's fee,construction included, amounted to $75,000...."
Tom MacWood
Nice stuff but why do the club minutes, which you have never seen, and Quirin apparently has, reflect a payment to Tillinghast of $75000? Did White have a practice of making plastic models of greens?
To answer the question about Tilly not including North Shore on his list of courses in his 1925 advertising brochure... It isn't the only one he didn't include. There are a number of courses ranging from original designs to renovations that are not on that list. It is a large one but by no means complete.
As to why he didn't include North Shore in it, there are any number of "speculative" reasons ranging from he forgot to he purposefully chose not to.
Also, Tilly first used models in his design work in 1909 when he began his design of Shawnee. What has been forgotten in this discussion when the subject of models have been brought up is just how difficult they were to make from plasticene. It took a great deal of skill and artistic talent which is why most architects either didn't use them or hired someone to make them for them. Tilly personally made them and expected the workers to match exactly on the ground the details he put in the models.
Robert White was hired in 1913 by Tilly in his position as Shawnee CC Club Secretary. White was not used to redesign Shawnee; Tilly did. The first redesign was also a complete course rerouting and added 50+ yards to the course. The redesign and beginning of the work began in the summer of 1912 and continued through 1913. White came to Shawnee when the work was nearly complete and he was specifically hired because he was an outstanding turf specialist. Tilly wrote in the American Golfer about his hiring and stated that the "grow-in of the turf" of the new course was handed over to him to care for. This not only shows that the design and construction work was completed but that he was viewed by all at that time as one of the foremost greenkeeper/turf experts in the country.
White was later used by Tilly to oversee construction on a number of his designs and Tilly would actually aid White when he finally opened his own design business. To this day there are a number of White courses that believed that Tilly had actually designed them and White had built them when, in fact, White had been aided by Tilly to get the job. A good example of this is the Wolf Hollow CC which was the host site for the Eastern Open in the early 1920s. There was even a discussion on this exact subject regarding Tilly at Wolf Hollow on here a couple of years ago.
White wasn't the only person who worked for Tilly that he aided in starting out on his own at that time. Willard Wilkinson was another. Tilly actually turned over three contracted new designs to him for that specific purpose.
Finally, the Harmonie Club records at the New York Historical Society are quite detailed and specific. They include "The Minutes of the Board of Governors of the North Shore Country Club is composed of typed papers inserted into a three hole binder. The Country Club was established March 13, 1914 for the benefit of the Harmonie Club members and its Board of Governors was composed of Harmonie Club officers. The minutes include budgets, expenses, renovation plans, and description of the grounds."
Now even though the North Shore CC was legally established on 3/13/1914, as an entity it was in existence for nearly a year previously. Its purpose was to locate land or a club that the members could purchase on Long Island to serve as a private Country Club for use of the entire membership. We know this because the archive also specifically contains the "Minutes Board of Governors North Shore Country Club, Inc, 1913 March 31 - 1918 November 26."
One of the reasons that the records of the Harmonie Club can be trusted in this area is because of who the membership was and how, in years to come, they would use their historical records to protect their membership and community in the face of persecution. They therefore take GREAT pride in their history and are quite secure in its accuracy.
I intend for this to be my one and only comment on this thread as I certainly want to see the discussion continue on in the cooperative spirit that it has been maintaining...
I made a correction for those who noticed. Tilly began making plasticene models in 1909 NOT 1919 as I mistakenly Typo'd!
Tom MacWood:
Who do you think actually designed the comprehensive redo of North Shore's golf course in 1914/15? It appears you are implying it was Robert White. Is that correct?
Pat,
Yes, it's one and the same. It's still there and has been the center of some recent controversy concerning 2 of its high profile former members.
David,
As I wrote in #59 above:
"The truth lies in the minutes of North Shore located in the archives of the NY Historical Society.If I can, I'm going to squeeze in a day from my busy December schedule to visit there. Dr. Quirin had access to those minutes;otherwise, he would not have written what he did about Tilly being paid $75000 for his services including construction. See my post 9 above."
As of now, I'm planning a trip to NY this Friday if I can fit it in to view the minutes. I'll certainly advise thereafter or whenever I can visit.
David,
In response to your question above,I wrote in #50 :
"I might add that Quirin's piece starts out in quotes from Goldmark about the history of Harmonie. Quirin goes on to say "And so wrote Emil Goldmark..." Obviously, one can draw the conclusion that Quirin actually saw something in writing to put it in quotes,ie, the minutes. I'll gladly fax what I have to anyone who wants it as my daughter has the scanner that was previously in my house. Just PM me."
Goldmark was the President of the Harmonie Club in 1913.I now have it (Quirin's piece)scanned for emailing. I find it surprising that no one took me up on my offer to fax.
Here is just a PARTIAL list of courses NOT INCLUDED. They range from original designs to renovations and additions to examinations with proposals to Lilliputt Links, just as Tilly included in his list. All were worked on BEFORE the advertisement was published:
Cobb's Creek proposal
Atlantic Beach Hotel Lilliputt Links
Niagara Falls CC
Mountain View Farm (Zucker Estate) today known as Dellwood CC
Wolfert's Roost
Glen Ridge CC
Suburban Country Club (Maryland)
Elmwood CC
Marble Island CC
Rockaway Hunting Club
"What year did the Harmonie club disengage from the North Shore Golf Club ?"
Pat:
Excellent question.
I was talking with Steve today about this and it seem sort of complicated but I'm confident he is totally armed with the correct answers. Things seemed to get a tad complicated when one considers a development company that had to do with the NS property back then.
TEPaul,
The membership at the Harmonie club was filled with successful people.
I wonder if the developers were also members.
I find club histories, especially those that meet any form of demise very interesting.
Clubs are usually created by men of action and vision, but, what's far more fascinating to me is how clubs lose their way, get sold, or simply fold, especially when the clubs demise had nothing to do with conditions created by the Great Depression or WWII.
North Shore's is a little difficult to get to, so perhaps, location, location, location had something to do with it.
It's a pretty neat course, one that's enjoyable to play day in and day out.
Cobb's Creek proposalAtlantic Beach Hotel Lilliputt LinksNiagara Falls CC
Mountain View Farm (Zucker Estate) today known as Dellwood CC
Wolfert's RoostGlen Ridge CC
Suburban Country Club (Maryland)
Elmwood CC
Marble Island CC
Rockaway Hunting Club
Cobb's Creek proposalAtlantic Beach Hotel Lilliputt LinksNiagara Falls CC
Mountain View Farm (Zucker Estate) today known as Dellwood CC
Wolfert's RoostGlen Ridge CC
Suburban Country Club (Maryland)Elmwood CC
Marble Island CC
Rockaway Hunting Club
Once again, and for the final time, GLEN RIDGE and ATLANTIC BEACH LILLIPUTT LINKS are NOT included in the list. Glen Ridge is listed under "Examinations and Reports". This is separate from the reconstruction work that Tilly did in there in 1920 as he clearly listed in his 1920 advertisement. The 1920 work at Glen Ridge was not included in the 1925 advertisement.
Glen Ridge is listed. You may not like where it is listed or how it is listed, but it is listed nonetheless. We are attempting to discover why North Shore is not listed at all; that is why I asked you to identify other projects he did not list. By the way Tilly's partner Peter Lees took credit for Glen Ridge for whatever that's worth.
The Atlantic Beach Lilliputt Links course for the Atlantic Beach hotel was a SEPARATE and DISTINCT course & project. It is NOT listed under the Lilliputt Links section. If you want to believe that it is included under the "Original Design" section, then you must clearly recognize that it ALL of the other Lilliputt Links courses were Original Designs and NONE of them were. Finally, if it were part of the same Original Design reference, Atlantic Beach would have been listed under "27 Holes" which it was not. The Atlantic Beach Lilliputt Links was not included in the 1925 advertisement.
It was the same project. Tilly wrote an article dated February 1916 in which he explained both courses were planned in August 1915, the Lilliput links opened before Xmas 1915 and the full 18 on January 8, 1916. Have you read that article?
Cobb's Creek WAS clearly Hugh Wilson. I NEVER stated that Tilly designed it. I stated that Tilly gave several complete design PROPOSALS to the Park Commission in 1913. This should then have been included in his "Examinations and Reports" section. It was not.
I have my doubts about any proposal he did in 1913 for Cobbs Creek. But even if Tilly did present a proposal that was rejected, why would he list it 12 years after it was rejected, especially since the ultimate design was not something he collaborated upon or contributed to? That makes no sense.
From the Niagara Falls CC website - "Originally designed by A.W. Tillinghast in 1919 updated by Robert Trent Jones, Geoffrey S. Cornish and Brian M. Silva." Of course that isn't enough for you, so lets take it further. You give credit to Nicol Thompson. Here is what the club's official history states about Thompson and Tilly:
"Thompson subsequently engaged A.W. Tillinghast... during the summer of 1917 to assist in the design of the golf holes. For his work in the design, Tillinghast was paid the princely sum of $254.90... The course as designed by Tillinghast would be eighteen holes with the first tee located where we now have the tenth tee. The first nine holes of the course are now the back nine and contained a 195-yard par 3 as hole #3. Holes number four and five were located... The course at the Niagara Falls Country Club was among the first courses that A.W. Tillinghast designed... On May 10, 191, the new home of the Niagara Falls Country Club formally opened its doors... At the time of its opening, nine holes were available for play and were deemed to 'compare favorably with the best in the country.' The full 18-hole course would be opened by June 1 [1919]." Tilly designed Niagara Falls CC and it wasn't included in the 1925 advertisement.
$254 is a princely sum? Nicol Thompson was an accomplished golf architect in his own right. The fact that Tilly assisted Thompson should be explanation enough as to why he did not include the design.
Elmsford CC - When you state, "At the end of his list Tilly has sites he has examined and reported upon, the last site he lists is White Plains, NY" you ASSUME that he is referring to Elmsford when he makes that statement. Tilly not only visited other sites in White Plains he BUILT other courses in White Plains. Yet going beyond that, the problem with your reasoning on this one is that you are missing what Tilly listed in the ENTIRE advertisement including the FRONT PAGE. There he listed 11 courses that he was CURRENTLY on. This work ranged from the design process to full construction but not open for play. This is easy to do as I ALSO made this mistake for the Rockaway Hunting Club is listed there and I should not have included it in my list. In 1925 Tilly was working on the design of Elmsford and it should have been listed on the front page. It wasn't.
Use some common sense. How many of those White Plains projects were in the developmental stage in 1925?
So Tom, not a single course that you claim has been eliminated has.
In fact, the only one that should be eliminated is the Rockaway Hunting Club from the list of courses that I gave you. That was a mistake and I clearly admit it.
As I said when I originally posted the list, I was giving examples of courses from every category and did so. I also stated that there are a number of other courses that weren't included and state such again.
This whole exercise is to simply help you understand that Tilly's not including North Shore in that 1925 advertisement was reasonable for HIS OWN PURPOSES as it is NOT an exhaustive or complete listing of all his work to that time, something that you take it to be.
I will not argue over this and as I feel I've been quite clear in explaining each and every disagreement you take to the list, will not comment again about it. Accept my explanations or not.
Cobb's Creek proposalAtlantic Beach Hotel Lilliputt LinksNiagara Falls CC
Mountain View Farm (Zucker Estate) today known as Dellwood CC
Wolfert's RoostGlen Ridge CC
Suburban Country Club (Maryland)Elmwood CC
Marble Island CCRockaway Hunting Club
The Atlantic Beach Lilliputt Links course for the Atlantic Beach hotel was a SEPARATE and DISTINCT course & project. It is NOT listed under the Lilliputt Links section. If you want to believe that it is included under the "Original Design" section, then you must clearly recognize that it ALL of the other Lilliputt Links courses were Original Designs and NONE of them were. Finally, if it were part of the same Original Design reference, Atlantic Beach would have been listed under "27 Holes" which it was not. The Atlantic Beach Lilliputt Links was not included in the 1925 advertisement.
"TEPaul,
The membership at the Harmonie club was filled with successful people.
I wonder if the developers were also members."
Pat:
That's a very good question. I'm tending to doubt it. There may've been some kind of development company that was in the process of selling to a couple of interested entites----one being the Harmonie Club people and some other group. Or perhaps there was just another group interested in the same land at that time (there's some mention of a Crescent Club or a Brooklyn Cresent organization) I'm not totally sure about it but I think one member of either a development company or perhaps the other group interested in buying that Scudder land was H.W. Hollins.
Do you know who H.W. Hollins was, Pat? ;) NO, I don't.
But, I do know who H. B. Hollins was.
Who was H.W. Hollins ? ;D
Among other things he was a founder of NGLA, he was very closely connected to Vanderbilt and he was married to a Knapp---eg Joseph Knapp an even more prominent founder of NGLA who was actually sort of part of CBM's design team. He had a big 600 acre place in South Islip called Meadowfarm and he was a big Wall Street player. He was Harry Hollins, and he was also Marion's father. I'll check it out but I think he pretty much went broke right around that time.
TEPaul, I think you're confused.
Harry W Hollins was a con artist often posing as Harry B. Hollins.
While the discussion about what Tillie did or did not do may be informative, I am much more interested in these Lilliputt Links courses. Philip or Tom (or whoever) could you explain a bit more about what these were? I think I get some of it but would appreciate more information.
Cobb's Creek proposalAtlantic Beach Hotel Lilliputt LinksNiagara Falls CCMountain View Farm (Zucker Estate) today known as Dellwood CC
Wolfert's RoostGlen Ridge CC
Suburban Country Club (Maryland)Elmwood CC
Marble Island CCRockaway Hunting Club
Tom MacWood:
Do you think perhaps the evidence seems to point more to Robert White being the construction foreman and greenskeeper at North Shore in 1914/15 rather than the golf architect? And if not, why do you think not?
Cobb's Creek proposalAtlantic Beach Hotel Lilliputt LinksNiagara Falls CCMountain View Farm (Zucker Estate) today known as Dellwood CC
Wolfert's Roost?Glen Ridge CC
Suburban Country Club (Maryland)Elmwood CC
Marble Island CCRockaway Hunting Club
Cobb's Creek proposalAtlantic Beach Hotel Lilliputt LinksNiagara Falls CCMountain View Farm (Zucker Estate) today known as Dellwood CC
Wolfert's Roost?Glen Ridge CCSuburban Country Club (Maryland)Elmwood CC
Marble Island CCRockaway Hunting Club
Cobb's Creek proposalAtlantic Beach Hotel Lilliputt LinksNiagara Falls CCMountain View Farm (Zucker Estate) today known as Dellwood CC
Wolfert's Roost?Glen Ridge CCSuburban Country Club (Maryland)Elmwood CCMarble Island CCRockaway Hunting ClubNorth Shore
Anyone care to venture what the last Raynor design was??
I should have posted my big news in this thread:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42476.0/
Tom,
My reading of the minutes indicates that North Shore hired Raynor to design the course and that White,in his capacity as superintendent, assisted and cooperated with Raynor. Furthermore, Mac Donald apparently visited the course while it was under construction and may have made some contribution as well, given his relationship with Raynor.
Here is the timeline taken from another thread:
"The following represent my findings concerning attribution of the golf course from the Minutes of North Shore CC (hereinafter “the Club”) from May 13, 1914 onward:
1. On November 5, 1914, the Club authorized the sum of $400.00 to hire Seth Raynor in an advisory capacity for possible improvement of the existing course on the property.
2. On November 12, 1914, the Club hired Robert White, at $1200.00 per year, to begin on December 1, 1914, with an option to terminate after 6 months with 30 days notice. His duties were: To take charge of the present golf course and to superintend the building of a new one, if undertaken, and to perform such other duties as the Board may direct.
3. On December 23, 1914, the Club noted that a contract with White, pursuant to the action of the previous meeting of the Board, had been made, that progress had been made on the plan for a new golf course, taking the sense of the Board as to the possible use of the woods at the easterly end of the club property as part of such course. An estimate for the upkeep of the course was made in the amount of $12,00.00 per year.
4. On January 26, 1915, the Club approved plans by Raynor for a new golf course with $37,500.00 to be expended under supervision of the Greens Committee, subject to the approval of the President. Raynor was to be paid a fee of $1800.00 for carrying out this work.
5. On March 13, 1915, at the Club’s Annual meeting, it was reported that the original course was under 5000 yards and that Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club. This course will measure about 6400 yards, will take 15 acres of woodland and take full advantage of the vantages offered by the rolling ground, which we own.
6. On May 25, 1915, the Greens Committee reported to the Board that progress is being made on the course construction.
7. On June 22, 1915, the Greens Committee reported that favorable progress has been made on the rebuilding of the course showing a considerable saving as the work so far completed as compared with the original estimates.
8. On December 28, 1915, it was noted that golf course should be playable by Decoration Day 1916.
9. On February 29, 1916, it was noted that a letter from Raynor was referred to the Building Committee.
10. On March 12, 1916, at the Club’s Annual Meeting, the President, Henry Calman, noted that the links were now complete with the exception of some bunkers and traps and that the course should be opening by Decoration Day. He said the results are the product of the deep thought of Robert White, our greens expert, Seth Raynor, the leading golf architect in the United States and Charles B. Macdonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction and the well considered work of our Greens Committee. He went on to state that although the Board appropriated $37,00.00 for the work, the work will not exceed $32,000.00.
11. On June 27, 1916, the Greens Committee was authorized to invite newspapermen to play the course during the summer if the course was in good condition.
12. On February 18, 1918, at a Special Meeting of the Board, the Greens Committee was authorized to engage Robert White as Consulting Expert at $50 monthly for not less than 4 visits. It was noted that this motion was carried with 4 negative votes
The only item I found pertaining to the Club in the scrapbooks was a copy of the Annual Report of the President dated March 13, 1915 referenced above.
I reviewed the Harmonie Club history, “One Hundred Years- The Harmonie Club- 1852-1952” and could find no reference to the North Shore golf course other than it was built.
It should be noted that copying of the Minutes was not permitted. I was told that digital images could be made but I did not know that in advance of my visit. I did have the front page and one of the two pages referencing the golf course of the President’s report dated March 13, 1915 copied by a librarian who used an overhead copier as the item was stapled in the scrapbook.
This was a very interesting and rewarding experience. There is nothing like old-fashioned hands on research. Not everything in the world is on the internet via old newspaper and magazine articles. "
Nice to see that Raynor was paid $2,200 ($400+$1,800) for a $32,000 construction budget or 6-7% (still a common percentage today). In today's $$$, that would equate to around $340k for a $5m course, while the amount of work needed today due to regulations and permits is greater (and I'm sure Raynor wasn't required to have General and Professional Liability insurance nor was there such a thing as income tax).
TD
Will you be going through and investigating their archives? According to what Steve's findings a Raynor plan or a Raynor/White plan existed at the time, and I would think that would be an important document for any potential restoration. It might also be useful to understand what of the original Emmet course was incorporated into the 1915-16 design, and how the course was altered by White during his tenure at the club. Also what if anything did Tilly do - I still think its likely he had some involvement, although if it was during his PGA tour that involvement likely was a negative one.
In the early 1920s North Shore had a very lofty reputation, the peak probably coming when the course co-hosted the qualifying rounds of the US Am with Engineers. Bill Reekie a prominent amateur golfer in the Met region (he won the 1921 MetAm) listed NS has the 8th best golf course in the country behind PVGC, Hollywood, Oakmont, Inwood, NGLA, Lido and GCGC.
"On March 13, 1915, at the Club’s Annual meeting, it was reported that the original course was under 5000 yards and that Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club. This course will measure about 6400 yards, will take 15 acres of woodland and take full advantage of the vantages offered by the rolling ground, which we own."
"He said the results are the product of the deep thought of Robert White, our greens expert, Seth Raynor, the leading golf architect in the United States and Charles B. Macdonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction and the well considered work of our Greens Committee."
TEP
You don't think that sounds like a collaboration? The course opened on July 4, 1916 - over a year after the first quote and four or five months after the second quote.
Excuse my ignorance here but how does Raynor get to be reported as "The leading golf course architect in the US" if this is his first or one of his first courses? Or is this just some embellishing by the Board to help sell the project to the membership? And, if that is the case, couldn't one extrapolate that Raynor and White "consulted" as many modern architects do with superintendents - to educate each other. Raynor to educate White on his vision for the design, and White to educate Raynor on his vision as to the maintenacne of that design. Afterall, they did come up with a maintenace budget and I doubt they pull it out of the blue. This also would show there was concurrence with the soundness of the plan. Perhaps MacDonald offered his Clout (he was from Chicago) to bolster the "team". This is not uncommon, even today, for Architects and Superintendents to lend support to their protegee.
Regardless of who should get the most credit for the present course [my guess is Raynor], I have been hired by Mr. Zucker to figure out what to do with it now.
There are a few great greens but there are also some holes that are disappointing, so I do not expect this to be a strict restoration project ... most likely we will redesign some parts of the course to try and improve it. As you all know, I don't take on many projects of that description, but in this case I don't believe that it is one of Raynor's best courses, and I agree with Mr. Zucker that some redesign work would help him attract some new members to make the club viable again. The extent of this work is still to be determined, but we will probably start work on it in the fall, perhaps even sooner if we can find some things that won't disrupt play too much.
Yes, Mr. Zucker,the new owner,and his team-Tom Doak, Mark Hissey and perhaps George Bahto- should make this determination.
The key greens at North Shore are Seth Raynor greens not Robert White greens - the Double Plateau, the other plateau across the cartpath (17) - the Road hole green is about as good as it gets.
They are dramatic and very indicative of dramatic greens Raynor usually built when he first went out on his own.
Dramatic greens and strategic bunkering in his first group of courses.
* see original plans for Westhampton
* see original plans for CC of Fairfield
* see original plans for Greenwich and
the early North Shore aerial,
as time passed Raynor began to “lessen” the drama and severity of his design a bit - probably got tied of getting overruled by clubs and their members
His early designs were very cool..
Tom,
You can't get any more definitively clear than what Tilly stated in the article where he announced that White was going to Shawnee:
"This arrangement is considered ideal and the NEW GREENKEEPER WHITE..."
He was hired as the greenkeeper and nothing more.
There is also absolutely NO DOUBT that he was NOT hired to do any design work at Shawnee and that he didn't do any. Tilly redesigned and rerouted the course with the work completed BEFORE White was hired as grrenkeeper. The design and construction of the revamped course was finished by September of 1913 and White didn't begin working until NOVEMBER of 1913. When he arrived, White was specifically put in charge of the "TURF" grow-in. This makes sense as he was viewed as a turf expert when at Ravisloe. Also, it was as a turf expert that he was appreciated in the 1919 article. His work on the CONDITION of the putting greens of North Shore is why the article was prefaced by the editor writing, "The beautiful condition of the North Shore putting-greens so impressed us that we asked their creator, Mr. Robert White, to tell us how he did it."
It is in regard to the EXCELLENT TURF and NOT the design of the greens that the Editor used the term "creator."
The editor goes on to further state that he viewed White's work at North Shore in the sense of his being the GREENKEEPER by stating, "This is not by any means the first example of Mr. White's genius as a greenkeeper par excellence..."
By the way, he finishes this introduction by again defining what White did at Shawnee and Ravisloe. "His work at Ravisloe and Shawnee bears eloquent testimony of his rare ability in this direction..." That "direction" being as greenkeeper.
Interestingly, the final paragraph of the editor's introduction actually takes him down a few pegs by his statement, "We are, however, not quite in accord with Mr. White that the superb condition of the greens is due to the top-dressings. Rather we should say it is wholly attributable to the excellent foundation layers described. top dressings, in our opinion, are a fruitful source of many of the troubles of so many kinds..."
Amazing statement that. First White is a "genius par excellence" and then its 'he's wrong in what he's written!'
Tom,
I am uncertain as to exactly when White left Shawnee. I will be able to answer it exactly in about a month as I will be traveling to Shawnee where I am being given access to their historical archives and records. I'll let you know then if not sooner. I believe, though, that he was still employed by Shawnee at this time and that he didn't leave there until the fall of 1915.
So how could he have been "working on the plans for several weeks" if he was still employed by Shawnee? That is quite easy to understand because as Greenkeeper of Shawnee his work would end in the late fall as the course was closed to all until spring. There was very little for him to do as the Inn changed to its winter resort mode.
Can you explain why the Editor of his 1919 article viewed him as a greenkeeper "par excellence" rather than an established golf course architect? Can you explain why Tilly viewed him as someone who had spent the last few years at Ravisloe as the "greenkeeper" when he hired him for Shawnee? Can you explain why, White himself, at a time when he was employed as the general golf professional at Ravisloe, would call himself the "greenkeeper of Ravisloe" rather than as the golf professional or golf course architect?
Are the two - grass expert and golf architect - mutually exclusive? Obviously not, there are numerous examples of greenkeeper/golf architects and grass expert/golf architects...not to mention construction man/golf architects, like Raynor.
What point are you trying to make?
To me, these point to a man who, although he may have been testing the waters of course designing as a career, was unable to find substantive work and was covering his bases. Now that may be an incorrect characterization, but based upon these it is hard to believe that he was in anyway viewed by his contemporaries as being more experienced in the field of golf course architecture than Raynor who was at least actively working in course design and building full-time prior to North Shore whereas White clearly was not...
Is this conjecture on your part or is this based on research you've conducted into White's career? If it is the latter, would you please detail White's career?
Tom,
You asked, "Are the two - grass expert and golf architect - mutually exclusive? Obviously not, there are numerous examples of greenkeeper/golf architects and grass expert/golf architects...not to mention construction man/golf architects, like Raynor. What point are you trying to make?"
I would think it is fairly obvious. First, that I believe your characterization of White as a well-established golf course architect in 1914-15 and recogniozed as more experienced than Raynor is incorrect. For exaample, in your post #123 you stated, "I think White was more active than what is generally known, starting with his last years at Ravisloe..."
Where did I write White was a well-established golf architect?
Well what did he actually do during his "last years at Ravisloe?" He certainly didn't do any major design work and for proof of that we have HIS OWN WORDS. In the January 1913 article from the American Golfer (shown above in my reply #201) White, himself, after identifying himself as the GREENKEEPER at Ravisloe wrote, "The Ravisloe course was originally laid out in 1901 and, except for some changes made in 1902, the locations of the greens remain practically the same..."
Are you familiar with White's career?
Now I don't know how you measure time, but late that fall he would be gone from Ravisloe and employed at Shawnee. This would certainly qualify as being in "his last years at ravisloe" and yet he states that almost nothing of consequence had been done to the green complexes since 1902! So, exactly what was he more active in from a golf course design standpoint that he did in the next 8-9 months? And if he did anything major, how & why would he leave Ravisloe in October-November?
Secondly, he himself viewed himself as a GREENKEEPER, as did Tilly, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, those who hired him at North Shore!
Are you under the impression greenkeeper and golf architect are mutually exclusive? In those days wasn't it pretty common for pro/greekeepers to also dabble in golf course design? In 1916 White became the first president of the newly formed PGA of America, other PGA officers and committeemen were Herbert Strong, Jack Mackie, Gil Nichols, Wilfred Reid, Jack Croke and George Sargent. What did these men all have in common?
From the North Shore Board meetings notes, "On November 12, 1914, the Club hired Robert White, at $1200.00 per year, to begin on December 1, 1914, with an option to terminate after 6 months with 30 days notice. His duties were: To take charge of the present golf course and to superintend the building of a new one, if undertaken, and to perform such other duties as the Board may direct..."
Notice that he was NOT hired to design the course! Seth Raynor was. Again, we go to the board minutes from the week BEFORE White was hired. "On November 5, 1914, the Club authorized the sum of $400.00 to hire Seth Raynor in an advisory capacity for possible improvement of the existing course on the property."
After this, once again as found in the board minutes, "On January 26, 1915, the Club approved plans by Raynor for a new golf course with $37,500.00 to be expended under supervision of the Greens Committee, subject to the approval of the President. Raynor was to be paid a fee of $1800.00 for carrying out this work." Plans by RAYNOR. No mention of White or a collaboration, but pretty definitive that it was his plans and design they approved and now agreed to pay him an additional $1,800 for!
Finally, and once again from the board minutes, "On March 12, 1916, at the Club’s Annual Meeting, the President, Henry Calman, noted that the links were now complete with the exception of some bunkers and traps and that the course should be opening by Decoration Day. He said the results are the product of the deep thought of Robert White, our greens expert, Seth Raynor, the leading golf architect in the United States and Charles B. Macdonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction and the well considered work of our Greens Committee."
Are you disregarding this excerpt from Steve's timeline? "On March 13, 1915, at the Club’s Annual meeting, it was reported that the original course was under 5000 yards and that Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club. This course will measure about 6400 yards, will take 15 acres of woodland and take full advantage of the vantages offered by the rolling ground, which we own."
Notice how differently Raynor and White were viewed. Raynor, the LEADING GOLF ARCHITECT in the U.S., with White being OUR GREENS EXPERT.
I'll ask you since no one else seems to be able to answer my question. What golf courses had Raynor designed by January, 1915?
Raynor deigned the course. White worked with him in the construction of it and White especially and specifically worked on the turf of the putting surfaces, which is what he was hired to do, possibly even at the recommendation of Raynor (pure speculation).
Are you trying to discover the truth or you trying to prove your theory, because if you were really trying to discover what happened I would think you'd approach this subject with a more open mind. You appear hell bent on proving White was nothing more than a lowly greenkeeper while ignoring the entirety of his career. You also appear to be ignoring Raynor's career - in 1915 wasn't his experience and expertise in construction? This thread is illustrative on how your mind works.
Yes, White would go on to become a full-fledged architect in his own right, but he obviously wasn't sure of the directions that he was going and what he should be doing in 1914-15. Otherwise he would have been actively advertising himself as an architect and not taking full-time work on as a professional and greenkeeper.
Could the same be said for Raynor?
You've asked several times for people to "detail White's career" especially during this time period. I think I laid out pretty well exactly what he was doing during the time period prior to his coming to North Shore. I did make one mistake though, and that is when I stated in answer to your question as to when exactly he left Shawnee that I mentioned late in the fall of 1915. This was incorrect and nothing more than a typo as he left Shawnee sometime in the late fall of 1914. As I stated, I will get you the exact date next month (if Shawnee has it in their files).
I don't recall you detailing his career at all - where he worked and what he did prior to NS. The only two jobs you mentioned were Ravisloe and Shawnee. And you have already admitted you have no idea how long he worked at either position.
What is interesting and the reason i bring it up is your statement, "Phil, From what I've read its unclear if White was hired as greenkeeper at Shawnee or simply hired to redesign the golf course. [He wasn't, see my earlier comments on this] A few months later he was laying out a new course on Long Island, before eventually being hired by North Shore."
This statement is not quite accurate. The article from Golf magazine that you posted announcing this work was the December 1914 issue. It stated that White had been "working on plans for several weeks" at that time. That means that he had begun his design work sometime in early to mid-Novemebr. As he was hired by the club on Novemebr 14, 1914, and expected to begin work on Decemebr 1st, it would appear that he did this work at the same time as he began work at North Shore.
Now North Shore must have been aware of this design work that he was doing. so I ask you, why did they hire Raynor and specifically as the architect for the new course and specifically state such and NOT state anything even remotely hinting at White as their designing architect?
That is not exactly true. The quote above (that you ignored) said Raynor laid out the course with the active cooperation of White, and their plan was hanging on the wall. By the way construction began February 1915.
The club hired both men around the same time, and I think they were wise to do so. White had recently been involved with a highly publicized redesign (with Aleck Bauer & William Watson) and Raynor had experience building two of the highest profile designs (for CBM) in America. It is quite possible the club was under the impression hiring Raynor also meant you were hiring CBM. Obviously being an amateur and not accepting a fee meant he could not be hired in the traditional sense. We do know CBM was involved in some way.
Mark,
Thanks for coming into this discussion.
I found the minutes of NS to be a treasure,not only for the purpose of my visit but for the sociological study of the German-Jewish community in NY at the time. Also, the in fighting at Harmonie over NS, the various resignations due to WW1 and other reasons, the failure to mention NS by name in the 100 year history of Harmonie.
Wouldn't you like to see Raynor's letter to NS as referenced in the minutes?
Has the Harmonie Club done a search for Raynor's "diagram?"
"On March 13, 1915, at the Club’s Annual meeting, it was reported that the original course was under 5000 yards and that Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club. This course will measure about 6400 yards, will take 15 acres of woodland and take full advantage of the vantages offered by the rolling ground, which we own."
Mark
I'm interested in any insight you might have on this entry from 3/13/1915. Do you read this as Raynor and White collaborating on the design? Also is there any record of the diagram metioned above?
You said they were very thorough with their due diligence prior to purchasing Glenwood, were they as thorough in choosing a greenkeeper and golf architect?
Have you looked at the records from 1916 to 1921?
"On March 13, 1915, at the Club’s Annual meeting, it was reported that the original course was under 5000 yards and that Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club. This course will measure about 6400 yards, will take 15 acres of woodland and take full advantage of the vantages offered by the rolling ground, which we own."
Bradley
I'll ask you the same question. Do you read this as Raynor and White collaborating on the design?
When interpreted in the light of other statements from those minutes, one has to read "active and intelligent cooperation" to mean that the greenkeeper is going to compliment the architects intent.
Tom,
Since you like quoting the club records and asking a loaded question, here's one for you:
"On January 26, 1915, the Club approved plans by Raynor for a new golf course with $37,500.00 to be expended under supervision of the Greens Committee, subject to the approval of the President. Raynor was to be paid a fee of $1800.00 for carrying out this work."
Do you read this as Raynor being the SOLE named architect and designer of the new golf course?
Could I ask a couple of questions?
Presuming that White did the construction and Raynor did the design, what exactly was CBM's role and where can it be seen. Also, what other courses were CBM and Raynor working on at that time - I don't necessarily mean together. Thanks
Tom MacWood:
Your photo comparisons are interesting but not particularly relevant, since I was responsible for all of the bunkers in two of the last four pictures.
Raynor was hired to produce a design for a fee, White was hired per annum as a construction foreman/greenkeeper and Macdonald apparently did some consulting along with his protege Raynor as a non-paid amateur consultant.
That is directly from the president of the club in 1916 and in my opinion that is the way North Shore and their new owner, Mr. Zucker, should present the architectural history of the course in 1914-16. Hopefully, they will just ignore the unsupportable and tortured speculations of someone like you, including your remark that Macdonald's involvement was in some way brushed aside by someone.
"TEP
I take it you have dismissed Wayne's speculation that Flynn deserves co-design credit for Merion-West. To my knowledge there is no similar report at Merion that Flynn assisted in laying out the course like there is at NS. If you want to call that report speculation, feel free, I call it evidence."
I think the key to the remark above is 'To my knowledge.'
Let me rephrase that....there is no similar report at Merion stating Flynn laid out the West with Wilson. So based on your non-answer I think it is fair to say you have a double standard.
"As far as CBM's Macdonald's involvement it is interesting to read his quote about Raynor in his book. He seems to be saying in the book that Raynor went out on his own 1917. Should courses prior to 1917 be considered Macdonald/Raynor courses, is that a more accurate representation?"
I doubt that was what Macdonald was saying about Raynor in 1917, therefore I don't think all courses done by Raynor before 1917 should be considered Macdonald/Raynor courses or would be a more accurate representation. I think the courses Macdonald gave considerable personal attention to are chronicled in his book. However, I have no doubt that Macdonald was more than willing to support Raynor's career and his projects at any time if he felt that was necessary, even though it appears he sort of allowed the cause of certain problems with a 1923 course to be assigned to what he called 'the engineer.'
That is very interesting conjecture on your part, but its not based on the facts. In his book CBM chronicled the major projects prior to 1917, but there were also good number of courses we know he was involved with prior to 1917 that he did not mention, like Greenwich, Merion, Shinnecock and East Lake. The fact that he did not mention North Shore or Mountain Lake, should not be construed as an indication he was not involved.
"Not only do I think White and CBM are being given a short stick by you and others, Emmet the original designer is really being swept under the rug. I don't see him even mentioned in your quote above."
The important thing, in my opinion, is the way NS treats their own architectural history. From what I've seen from them recently it appears they now understand the first course was Emmet, the second was not Tillinghast but designed or redesigned by Raynor with Macdonald consulting and White acting in the capacity of the greenskeeper/construction foreman in 1914-1915. And it also appears they will leave alone the unsupportable speculations on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com of people such as yourself who it appears they don't take seriously. That makes sense to me as the proper way for NS to treat their architectural history.
Have you already forgotten about the report in the minutes metioning White assisting in the layout of the course prior to it being constructed, or are just ignoring it?
I can't believe this is going 8 pages
Mark - that date of 23-24 is obviously wrong ..... now we have the correct dates.
When I first saw the course, my impression was that the front nine used portions of someone elses course but the back nine had much more Raynor feel to it.
Did you see the old green in the middle of the 4th fairway? There is also an old green to the right of the long par-3 (Biarritz) but it is before the ravine - way off to the right.
Rand Jerris also noted that a tee or two on the front nine seemed to be pointing a bit off line, possibley indicating an old green somewhere along that line of play.
the back to back top par 3's and 5's is a dead givreaway Raynor used some of the old holes. He never did that thant I can think of on his own routing
One could certainly speculate or interpret the fact that he never mentioned Merion or Shinnecock or East Lake in his book should not be construed as an indication he was not involved with them to some extent; however, it seems it would be more prudent since he never mentioned them in his book that he did not consider that he had as much to do with them as some on here, such as yourself, have been constantly trying to imply he did.
TEPaul:
I think your last statement there is spot on. That is exactly how we are looking at things.
A few more points to add:
It has been mentioned at various points that two, three and five holes from the Emmet course remain. I don't think anyone knows for sure. I have also seen it mentioned that it may have been both a nine hole track (hence the need for an immediate reconstruction of a 2-3 year old course) and an eighteen hole track. I think that eighteen holes would have been impossible on the abbreviated property even if it was only 5000 yards long. But more importantly, on December 23rd, 1914 the head of the Greens Committee, J. Clarence Davies reports that the woods on the easterly side of the property will probably be used for the new golf course. The fact thta there are back-to-back par 3's and par 5's may indicate that two of these four holes are part of Emmet's routing.
Given that Emmet's routing was one for a very short course at best, and probably for a 9-holer, and given that between 2-5 holes remain, I don't think it is accurate to say that this was not an original Raynor design. In my mind it was. He barely used any of Emmet's work if at all.
Tom,
I think you are reading way more into that account than what Bauer wrote. I am assuming that it is the account where he states, "It has been by virtue of this, that for the past three years I have enjoyed the privilege of directing the reconstruction of our course (Ravisloe). In this work I had the assistance of Mr. Robert White, and the able advice of Mr. William Watson, the expert, whose experience served as an invaluable aid."
There is absolutely NOTHING in that statement that leads one to surmise that White was the architect and designer of the changes. It states that the man "directing the reconstruction" was aided in this by White. This obviously is refering to the construction based upon the "advice " of the "EXPERT" Mr. William Watson. There is absolutely no way that Bauer considered Watson & White equals and collaborators in the design based upon that statement.
In fact, his calling Watson the "expert" who gave "advice" actually corroborates the American Golfer article I quoted in which it states that Ravisloe "has been remodelled under the direction of Mr. William Watson" with no mention of White.
Actually, it is easier to read that statement as meaning that Bauer designed the course with advice from Watson than it is to conclude in any way that White was beingd escribed as an architect of or collaborator on the design for the project.
Bauer clearly oversaw the project and directed White in the day-to-day aspects of the construction while Watson was the designer and "expert" who was consulted for details and to overcome problems. That really is the only way to interpret that statement.
Tom,
You have presented as someone who was an architect hired by North Shore to serve in that capacity and also as a greenkeeper/professional.
I maintain that the opposite is true. That he was hired as greenkeeper/professional and that he was used by the club during the construction of the course to oversee the turf grow-in, primarily for the greens. Since you ask, the following quotes are but some of what you have posted on this thread:
"Glenwood ran into financial problems in 1914 and was sold to the Harmonie Club, which eventually changed its name to North Shore. In 1915 Robert White completely redesigned the course though he did keep five holes from the Emmet-Hubbell course. I believe he remained at the club for a number of years as the pro/greenkeeper."
"I have not found any mention Tilly being involved at any time, and the course is not included in his advertised list of designs published in the mid-20s. I've found no mention of Raynor either. I believe the bulk of the credit should go to White."
"At this point the evidence points toward White. He is the only architect whose name can be positively linked to the project."
"All the evidence I've seen (and there is considerable evidence) points to Emmet - White."
You even tried top pass White off as the man who designed the changes to Shawnee in 1913 and that he was hired to do so, This despite Tilly's very clear and unambiguous statement that he was hired as greenkeeper only and that he was put in charge of the turf grow-in AFTER the changes had benn both designed and completed!
"By the way Robert White was hired by Shawnee in 1913 (the course opened in 1911) to make some changes, after he had been involved in major changes at Ravisloe with William Watson and Aleck Brauer. Are you certain Tilly was involved in the Shawnee changes in 1913?"
Yet here we also learn that Watson was the architect there and that Brauer was the man in charge of the project and that White himself stated that he was the greenkeeper/professional during these changes and that NONE of the greens were changed since 1902!
Tom, you are the one who keeps trying to magnify White's role at North Shore. Again, his later accomplishments as both a professional and architect were outstanding. To ascribe them to him before they actually happened is simply not proper.
You asked me earlier a question that I refrained from answering, but I'll repeat it as it becomes in interesting example of how you choose to use the facts presented:
"Are you disregarding this excerpt from Steve's timeline? "On March 13, 1915, at the Club’s Annual meeting, it was reported that the original course was under 5000 yards and that Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club. This course will measure about 6400 yards, will take 15 acres of woodland and take full advantage of the vantages offered by the rolling ground, which we own."
I wasn't and haven't, but the important point for including this quote from your post is that you use it as gospel in one situation yet tell us it is wrong in another when you just stated to Mark, "The Emmet course was over 6000 yards, not 5000 yards..."
So one might ask, "Are YOU disregarding this excerpt from Steve's timeline?"
Another example of what you have posted in an attempt to pronounce White as the driving architectural design force behind North Shore is when you try to compare the relative experience in 1915 between Raynor and White.
For example, here's another question you asked which i didn't answer, but will do so now:
"I'll ask you since no one else seems to be able to answer my question. What golf courses had Raynor designed by January, 1915?" George Bahto can answer that better than I. But let me ask you, WHY DOES THAT QUESTION MATTER? According to the records of the club that Steve has produced, Seth Raynor was hired on November 5th 1914 to advise on course design issues. On January 26 1915 the club "approved plans by Raynor for a new golf course." So whether this would be his 1st, 5th or 101st golf course design doesn't matter because the INDISPUTABLE FACT remains that RAYNOR was hired by North Shore for the express job of golf course architect. So again, in case you missed it, based on that set of facts, what possible relevance does the question "What golf courses had Raynor designed by January, 1915" have?
Earlier in this thread you accused me of beuing close-minded. That isn't so. In an interesting twist to all of this, let me make you aware of something in case you weren't.
"Are you trying to discover the truth or you trying to prove your theory, because if you were really trying to discover what happened I would think you'd approach this subject with a more open mind..."
I have kept quiet about several things because I didn't want to appear as if I was wanting credit for what is CLEARLY Steve's discovery, but I believe he will understand when you accuse me of being close minded on this that there is a need to show you that not only I wasn't but that I was probably the most OPEN-minded of all involved!
Do you know HOW Steve discovered and then posted that the club minutes of the North Shore Country Club from 1913-198 were located in the New York public library in a special collection of the Harmonie Club? Its because I TOLD HIM! I found them and sent him the exact file number of the archives they would be found in. Do you know WHY Steve went to New York when he did to look them up? Its because he asked me if I was going to do so and I told him that I was ill and wouldn't be able to go until sometime after the new year. I asked him to come with me when I went and he decided that he wanted to go sooner. I am VERY glad that he did and made his discovery.
When George Bahto early on decided to remove North Shore from his list of Raynor courses because of the way the debate was initially going, who was it that told him NOT top? It was ME! Why would I do that if I was close-minded and even George had become convinced at that time that Tilly was the architect? Simple answer; it was because I was given information that no one else had been given that called into question the "proof" that was cited by the North Shore club history as proof that Tilly designed the course.
You see, the history was based on several things including an oral tradition that Tilly had been to the club and signed a contract in September 1915. I knew that was impossible because that ENTIRE month Tilly spent in FLORIDA working on Davista and several other Florida designs. The last week of the month he spent driving to San Antonio where he stayed until the beginning of November. During that time he designed Brackenridge park, Fort Sam Houston and the San Antonio CC. From there he went to Oklahoma and POINTS WEST.
In other words, Tilly could NOT have been at North Shore when their oral history stated he was!
I shared this information with both Steve and George and this also served as impetus for Steve to get to New York sooner rather than later.
When Mark Hissey decided to check on Steve's information by going into the New York Historical Society himself and the Archivist there informed him that the files and archives that Steve had viewed DIDN'T EXIST, WHO was it that gave Mark the information, the exact file number and location that the now embarrassed archivist would find and that would enable Mark to confirm Steve's discovery? Why it was me.
I'm sorry Tom, but it is YOU who is the close-minded one on this issue. There is nothing horrible about admitting when one is wrong. I've done it a number of times and will do so more in the future. Trust me, its cathartic. You're wrong on this one Tom.
To all, I apologize for the length of this, but felt I needed to give Tom a full and comprehensive answer to the question he asked.
Nine pages now.
Mark/George, I don't think you should assume that 9 & 10 were not both Raynor holes. Even though he never built back to back 3's anywhere else, the property lines at North Shore combined with the clubhouse location pretty much insist on this routing. I've tried for a month to figure out a better way and came up with nothing.
But, I would not be surprised at all if someone found that #10 (with Tom MacWood's picture) and #11 were already there, and Raynor just turned #10 into an Eden hole by changing the bunkering.
Tom Doak:
I have no problem with #10 the Eden - it couldn’t have been placed better and fir the mold perfectly - a nice iron across the ravine.
The Redan:
The original tee, as far as I could tell was at 45 degree to the line of play - I think it shows on that oldest aerial I sent. Now, the 45 put the tee along the fence line, not the more straight-in shot as it plays now.
Also, that left bunker, I believe was all the down to the natural grade, not part way up as it is today. That would make it one of the deepest Redan bunkers I have seen.
Given that depth of bunker, the angle of play from the fence line, and the narrowness of the green, the darn hole would have been not playable.
I can handle most of it Tom and Mark but the narrowness of the green is terrible (compared to the norm).
Who built it? I don’t know
I hit a lot of ball to that green from that angle - it is a beast of a tee-ball from there...... itz 45 feet wide!
If you look at the 1924 aerial there is an open spot just to the left of 8-green that has grown in over the years and it looks as if that was the intended tee.
(http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g85/ggb313/northshore9.jpg) (http://s54.photobucket.com/albums/g85/ggb313/?action=view¤t=northshore9.jpg)
TEPaul:
I think your last statement there is spot on. That is exactly how we are looking at things.
A few more points to add:
It has been mentioned at various points that two, three and five holes from the Emmet course remain. I don't think anyone knows for sure. I have also seen it mentioned that it may have been both a nine hole track (hence the need for an immediate reconstruction of a 2-3 year old course) and an eighteen hole track. I think that eighteen holes would have been impossible on the abbreviated property even if it was only 5000 yards long. But more importantly, on December 23rd, 1914 the head of the Greens Committee, J. Clarence Davies reports that the woods on the easterly side of the property will probably be used for the new golf course. The fact thta there are back-to-back par 3's and par 5's may indicate that two of these four holes are part of Emmet's routing.
Given that Emmet's routing was one for a very short course at best, and probably for a 9-holer, and given that between 2-5 holes remain, I don't think it is accurate to say that this was not an original Raynor design. In my mind it was. He barely used any of Emmet's work if at all.
Mark
I know you have your heart set on a Raynor course, but you've got to get your facts right. It was reported five holes of the original course were incorporated into North Shore. And its difficult to say what parts of other holes were also used, for example greens, fairway corridors or tees. To say North Shore should be considered an original Raynor design is ridiculous. It was a redesign, perhaps a major redesign, but redesign none the less. The Emmet course was over 6000 yards, not 5000 yards, and it was 18 holes, not 9.
And I wonder who laid out the Nassau Country Club 9 holer?
This gets very muddied pre-1912 and creates some confusion.
And I wonder who laid out the Nassau Country Club 9 holer?
This gets very muddied pre-1912 and creates some confusion.
Mark
Why do you care? You've already concluded NS should be considered an original Raynor design.
Dave,
You'll do anything to get out of buying a round!
LOL! ;D
"My wife and I are living proof that Dave Shivas Schmidt has bought a round of drinks. He bought us at least one round in a blues bar in Chicago in August 2005 the Friday of the Walker Cup.
Honest! ;D"
Bill McBride:
Honest, my ass! To determine that we will first have to know beyond reasonable doubt whether the foregoing was from the exact meeting minutes in the Blues Bar, or your transcription of them exactly word for word or with bullet points or merely your opinion of what they actually say.
At this point, I am not inclined to accept without further and really conclusive proof that David Shivas Schmidt ever bought drinks for anyone.
Let the debate begin. We have alot of information that leans toward Robert White as the original architect. White also designed "prototype" holes much like Raynor and MacDonald.
White was Supt. and wrote of the construction methods used at North Shore.
Yes, Robert White did create prototypical golf holes. Longue Vue has a Redan and Eden. Northampton Country Club does not have any of the prototypical holes but the greens are what you would expect from some Raynor projects (or White for that matter); double-plateau, deep swales.....
White was truly a trend setter in his time. Some of his 1st's include working for Crawford, McGregor and Camby which became McGregor. He was the 1st to create machined golf clubheads, 1st to introduce crop management practices into the turf industry. Created the first "management" style maintenance practice overseeing 11 Westchester area courses. Founding member of both the PGA and ASGCA. He also built the frist putting green at the White House.
Robert White much like Findlay and Park Jr. are forgotten (somewhat) on this DG. Their contributions in design and development of the game in America were nonetheless substantial. Maybe it was timing, maybe personality, that left them from the forefront of todays architectural students. White's work at North Shore (always being disputed) is top-notch. The 9th hole - Road Hole is as good as it gets. His other work is decent but will not blow you away. His courses are subtle and fun to return to time and time again.
Yes, Wayne the Clubhouse at Longue Vue is unrivaled in the state and easily one of the best in the country.
Robert White has done some very interesting work. He has even incorporated those features typical of Raynor or Banks into his designs. As we were investigating the work being completed at North Shore (see previous postings) it was found that White had alot to do with that course than previously thought. His work at the Longue Vue Club in Pittsburgh and Northampton Country Club in Easton are worth checking out.
Born 1874 – St. Andrews, Scotland
September 1894 – Robert White arrives in the U.S.
First (or early) Golf Pro at Myopia Hunt Club – Hamilton, MA 1895
Laid out original 9-holes at Salem C.C. “18 stakes on a Sunday”
Member – One of first Professional Golfers Organization in U.S. – Chicago 1907 “The Illinois Professional Golfers Association” (Pro at Ravisole C.C. 1902-1914)
First President of PGA of America – 1917- 1919
- Wannamaker Meeting, New York City
Pro at North Shore C.C. on Long Island 1914-1922+.
First Pro/Greenkeeper to apply principles of crop agriculture to turf. (Eleven years attended U. of Wisconsin “Farmers School” winter meetings – 1902-1912)
Ravisole was well maintained
- Shawnee-on-the-Delaware Pro/Greenkeeper for one year.
- Pro pay high, Greenkeeper pay low.
First “Management Company” Greenkeeping
-Pro at Wykagyl C.C., New Rochelle, NY 1922-1932
- Three young Pros – R.W. supervised maintenance at eleven Westchester County courses.
Built first putting green on White House lawn.
First to develop golf boom in Myrtle Beach, S.C.
- 1927 – Lay out first course on Grand Strand.
- Bought land
- Ocean Forest Club
Charter Member – 1948 - American Society of Golf Course Architects
Designer and builder of over 100 golf courses.
Died 1959 Myrtle Beach, S.C. age 85 – wealthy.
It should also be pointed out that when Jim Nagle (who most certainly is one of the best golf architecture researchers and interested analysts of historic courses and GCA of my acquaintence) made all those comments no one was familiar with the documentary material that was reposited in the New York Historical Society which most certainly did change the nature and interpretations of the architectural attribution of North Shore from this time!
I'm not very technically proficient with these things, but I will try to get somebody to post my photographs of the documents tomorrow. Hopefully they will come out clearly. They aren't terribly clear as flash photography wasn't allowed.
In Robert White's article detailing the building of the greens at North Shore he said each green was built based upon carefully made plasticine models. We know CBM used plasticine models at NGLA and Lido. Did Raynor use plasticine models during his career? What about White?
That is a good point, on the other hand that material does state Raynor and White did lay the course out together, so his interpretation might not change all that much.
In Robert White's article detailing the building of the greens at North Shore he said each green was built based upon carefully made plasticine models. We know CBM used plasticine models at NGLA and Lido. Did Raynor use plasticine models during his career? What about White?
I take it from the lack of responses that there is no evidence of Raynor or White making models. Being a civil engineer by trade I would be surprised if Raynor did make models. Could this point to greater CBM involvement, at least greater involvement than what is generally thought? After all this project was pre-1917 when Raynor went out on his own.
Ironically Tillinghast was known to make models at this time, and White has just come from Shawnee GC, which may explain the source for the mistaken Tilly attribution.
PS: So as to avoid an 18 paragraph post by Phil disputing my findings on Tilly and NS, let me clearly state I am not claiming Tilly designed NS. I also edited by previous post to prevent any further confusion.
In Robert White's article detailing the building of the greens at North Shore he said each green was built based upon carefully made plasticine models. We know CBM used plasticine models at NGLA and Lido. Did Raynor use plasticine models during his career? What about White?
I take it from the lack of responses that there is no evidence of Raynor or White making models. Being a civil engineer by trade I would be surprised if Raynor did make models. Could this point to greater CBM involvement, at least greater involvement than what is generally thought? After all this project was pre-1917 when Raynor went out on his own.
Ironically Tillinghast was known to make models at this time, and White has just come from Shawnee GC, which may explain the source for the mistaken Tilly attribution.
PS: So as to avoid an 18 paragraph post by Phil disputing my findings on Tilly and NS, let me clearly state I am not claiming Tilly designed NS. I also edited by previous post to prevent any further confusion.
Tom, you had a discussion with Mike Sweeney just a few days ago about Raynor's use of models at Mountain Lake... http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,43652.0/
In Robert White's article detailing the building of the greens at North Shore he said each green was built based upon carefully made plasticine models. We know CBM used plasticine models at NGLA and Lido. Did Raynor use plasticine models during his career? What about White?
I take it from the lack of responses that there is no evidence of Raynor or White making models. Being a civil engineer by trade I would be surprised if Raynor did make models. Could this point to greater CBM involvement, at least greater involvement than what is generally thought? After all this project was pre-1917 when Raynor went out on his own.
Ironically Tillinghast was known to make models at this time, and White has just come from Shawnee GC, which may explain the source for the mistaken Tilly attribution.
PS: So as to avoid an 18 paragraph post by Phil disputing my findings on Tilly and NS, let me clearly state I am not claiming Tilly designed NS. I also edited by previous post to prevent any further confusion.
Tom, you had a discussion with Mike Sweeney just a few days ago about Raynor's use of models at Mountain Lake... http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,43652.0/
Ed
If you recall I asked the same question over there, and no one could answer it there either. Based on the fact Raynor apparently did not use models throughout his fairly prolific career and the fact that ML was prior to the date Raynor went out on his own (1917), I'm not convinced Raynor made those models either.
"Also on this date (1/26) when they approved the budget they approved Raynor's fee ($1800). Perhaps this situation was different at NS, but wouldn't Raynor present his final plan after being hired and not before? Isn't that normally how the process works? I'm wondering if we are misreading what took place on 1/26."
What has been chronicled above seems completely logical to me. On Nov 5, 1914 Raynor was hired and paid $400 apparently to create a new routing and design plan for the club. Call it something like
In January 1915 that routing and design plan was approved by the club and the club at that point agreed to pay Raynor $1,800 to carry out his design plan for the club with Robert White superintending (foreman) construction of the design plan and greenkeeping duties in collaboration with Raynor on his design plan. After all, Seth Raynor was the professional engineer and I doubt Robert White was ever that. White apparently superintendented a construction crew (foreman) to carry out Raynor's design and engineering instructions.
Actually, I'm quite impressed with the clarity of these club administrative records. They seem to be fairly typical of that type of highly organized business people of that time and place.
I think when someone spends a great deal of time researching old newspaper articles there is a natural tendency to "want to do something" with the fndings, to make a great find that changes popular history.
I know this from personal experience. There was talk that Raynor, not Banks, designed my home course. A famous local sports writer, Red Smith, wrote an article years ago that Raynor was involved. George Bahto thought there was good chance. I spent a day in the town library reading years of old newspapers on microfilm and printed every article that mentioned our club. It was cool. But I also have to admit to a little selfish motivation: wouldn't it be great if I was the one who proved that we had a Raynor course?
I found nothing in the library that proved or disproved Raynor's involvement in the library. Then I went to our old mnutes (I know, i should have gone there first...) and found conclusive evidence that our club did not even receive proposals from archietechts until 6 months after Raynor died, the deal to leave our old site was done vey quickly in the summer of 1926. We hired Banks right after that. so I believe that I found our course was Banks' first solo design. I remember being personlly disappointed that I had not disovered anything new. It must be very hard for T Mac to fght this urge.
Tom,
I CAN believe I am saying this, but once again you simply IGNORE anything and everything that is asked of you and contradicts what you have stated...
Written with patience, brevity and clarity of thought in hopes it is read that way as well...
I think when someone spends a great deal of time researching old newspaper articles there is a natural tendency to "want to do something" with the fndings, to make a great find that changes popular history.
I know this from personal experience. There was talk that Raynor, not Banks, designed my home course. A famous local sports writer, Red Smith, wrote an article years ago that Raynor was involved. George Bahto thought there was good chance. I spent a day in the town library reading years of old newspapers on microfilm and printed every article that mentioned our club. It was cool. But I also have to admit to a little selfish motivation: wouldn't it be great if I was the one who proved that we had a Raynor course?
I found nothing in the library that proved or disproved Raynor's involvement in the library. Then I went to our old mnutes (I know, i should have gone there first...) and found conclusive evidence that our club did not even receive proposals from archietechts until 6 months after Raynor died, the deal to leave our old site was done vey quickly in the summer of 1926. We hired Banks right after that. so I believe that I found our course was Banks' first solo design. I remember being personlly disappointed that I had not disovered anything new. It must be very hard for T Mac to fght this urge.
Deleted... not worth the effort...
So if as Mike has said,there is no way to verify any of this ,which is fair...why is it not a Emmet course with renovations by Raynor, etc????
Again, a special surprise prize for anyone who can tell me the name of Charlie's estate in Roslyn.
Bill:
Very interesting answer but unfortunately no special surprise prize for you today. You got the answer to Citizen Kane's last words, not the name of the Roslyn estate of Charles Blair Macdonald. ;)
That's two strikes Billy Bob; The name of Macdonald's estate in Roslyn was not "smiley emoticon" either! But since you're a great guy and you're the only one trying to answer the question, I'll give you a verbal charades hint.
What are you reminded of when one says; "Rise like a.....?"
If you say a Doughboy, then that's three strikes and you're flat-ass OUT!
T Mac
My admiration for Raynor (more precisely the Macdonald-Raynor-Banks lineage) may have motivated me to BEGIN my research, but it absolutely did not AFFECT my research. Very poor choice of words by you.
What does it have to do with North Shore? I think my point was obvious to most readers here: the researcher has to be wary that he does not attempt to justify all of his hard work with a "find." Developing enough information to merely cast doubt is not a "find" worthy of publication, but rather, a possible reason to begin further investigation. Some might think "casting doubt" is a worthy objective and claim that such words will motivate others to determine the real truth. But I say no, it is sloppy work that has negative consequences.
Had someone stumbled on Red Smith's newspaper article from the 1960's they could have casted doubt on Hackensack's course designer. They would have been 100% wrong...but they would have had a newspaper article to back up their words.
This brings me to another point: I served for 6 years on a local school board and learned to be EXTREMELY cautious of newspaper reporting. The better you know a subject, the more obvious newspaper errors become. I was amazed at how even the most honest reporters would make simple mistakes, or use a wrong word because they did not understand the important subtleties of certain words. I used to think some writers used a thesaurus so as not to repeat a word...and I would scream at the wrong words...
For example, a reporter given an assignment to write a story about a new golf club may not have had a clue about the subject matter. Architect, designer, co-designer, construction manager, superintendent, and golf professional all may mean about the same thing to someone who knows nothing about building a golf course.
Lastly, I think Tom Doak explained it best: right or wrong, the "named" architect gets the credit for the course. It is foolish and impossible to attempt to divide credit between the architect and those who assisted him. Even if every green and bunker placement was the brainchild of the top assistant, the named architect approved them, and had the power to have the work re-done, so he gets his name on the card. If the lowest assistant on a crew gets drunk one night, jumps on a bulldozer, re-shapes a green and the architect happens to love it...the drunk still does not get co-designer status...
Ed
Here is another excerpt discussing models from a British magazine 3/1/1907. I believe Raynor was originally hired to survey the property, and then was later brought in during construction, and the rest is history as they say. I seriously doubt he had any influence on CBM's plan to make models.
I'm not very technically proficient with these things, but I will try to get somebody to post my photographs of the documents tomorrow. Hopefully they will come out clearly. They aren't terribly clear as flash photography wasn't allowed.
Mike
Explain to me the difference between the minutes of a club meeting, a club history, a contemporaneous newspaper report, contemporaneous magazine report, personal letters and an autobiography. They are all written accounts, which is the most accurate and why?
Mike
Its extremely unlikely Raynor had any involvement in the design process at NGLA, including the making of models.
Bill
Thank you for sharing your research expertise. History is about searching for and documenting the truth. The husband's wishes should have no bearing, if his wife is a whore she's whore, if she's a saint she's a saint, she is what she is, end of story. And thankfully despite your quaint notions about who should document history and who should approve the documenting of history no husband, government or golf club has a stranglehold on it.
Mike
Explain to me the difference between the minutes of a club meeting, a club history, a contemporaneous newspaper report, contemporaneous magazine report, personal letters and an autobiography. They are all written accounts, which is the most accurate and why?
Tom:
If you honestly need that answer (or the factors that can impact that answer) explained to you, then frankly, answering it is hopeless because you simply have no idea what you're doing.
And if the question was rhetorical, then you're just wasting peoples' time with nonsense like that.
So which is it?
Mike
Its extremely unlikely Raynor had any involvement in the design process at NGLA, including the making of models.
I did not make my question clear enough. From the passage in the Mountain Lake book, do you:
1. Think the passage is incorrect and Raynor did not send models from Southampton.
2. Think Macdonald or someone else built the models and sent them down to Lake Wales.
3. Some variation of the above?
Mark,
Keep on searching. Hopefully, the Raynor letter will be found.
Mountain Lake - Fred Ruth - Raynor - models:
This is from my first text of the Mountain Lake chapter of the Raynr book (unedited, as yet by that famous Left-coast Armenian) - most of this information was gathered from their club history (there, now you club history being wrong guys - go at it)
Oliver Gould Jennings who was instrumental in hiring Seth for his Country Club of Fairfield course the year before was in some way involved in the Mountain Lake plan with Fred Ruth and it was most likely that his efforts were instrumental in convincing Raynor to come to Mountain Lake. The connection is unclear but as we shall see his influence was felt in a number of ways with Raynor.
When first contacted, Raynor declined, attributing his decline to a heavy workload up north and that he also felt he did not have sufficient knowledge of the climate and growing conditions to handle the Mountain Lake commission properly. ......... Note, no mention of Macdonald) ...........Fred Ruth persisted and undoubtedly with the help of Jennings, Raynor finally relented and agreed to visit to look over the property. Fred Ruth was jubilant and pledged he would personally give Seth every possible assistance with the project.
Olmsted visited the Ruth property in late 1914 and was impressed with the character of the property, referring to Iron Mountain with its “red pie-crust top” and 300-plus foot elevation, as the highest point of land within sixty miles of the Atlantic Ocean between Key West and the Orange Mountains in New Jersey.
The project was an ambitious one that included hundreds of building lots with appropriate access roads and even a railroad station. By May 1915 the basic layout for the course and the housing plan was complete and was sent to Seth for inspection and approval with a stipulation that the completion date be in time for the 1916-1917 vacation season. Raynor had never even visited Florida let alone built there. Ruth and Olmstead continued to pressure Raynor asking him to visit so he could see the project first hand and better see the sub-tropic climate's growing conditions first hand. Finally agreeing, Seth first visited another property owned by Ruth the renowned Belleaire Hotel in Clearwater where he inspected the hotel’s two courses. He was driven to Mountain Lake where Seth was surprised at the elevation and admired the beauty of lake “nestled against the slopes of Iron Mountain”.
With landscape designer Olmstead at his side, Raynor walked the property, which for Florida was unique in that the property actually had hills and rolling land. With Olmstead chattering and cajoling him with various descriptions of views, hole locations, as well as his depicting his own forte landscape design, Raynor became more receptive to the project and was impressed with Olmsted’s enthusiasm. Fred Olmstead was familiar with Raynor’s previous projects and the wealthy cliental he had been building for. The project needed a designer of Raynor’s stature. Compromises for the completion date were agreed to and the design of the golf course soon began. Topo maps and residential plans were finalized and sent to Raynor's office up north.
“Raynor began to walk the course areas often accompanied by Olmsted” and often joined by Ruth. “As Raynor walked, the layout of the course began to materialize in his mind as he would see a fairway and green in first one place and then another in his mind’s eye. At night he would sit down with Olmsted’s contour map and try to hook the imagined pieces together into the course he visualized”. Finally all fell into place and the course design was turned over Olmsted to be incorporated into the blueprint of the entire tract.
The crew of men with their mule teams began clearing the land and the Ruth brothers began inquiring among the golf friends for the services of a golf professional for the 1917 winter season. But it soon became obvious that completion the full 18 hole golf course ready for play by Christmas 1916 was unrealistic.
“As the models began to arrive for the first holes, Ruth had to inform Raynor that plans had changed and they would have to finish nine holes first and then tackle the remaining nine after the first nine were ready to play”. According to their club history, this was discouraging news for Raynor but he soon sent them a plan that would afford the completion of a nine by using holes 1 through 6 then making 16, 17 and 18 temporarily the finishing holes of the temporary nine. This was often done to get a portion of a course playable.
This would be the first of a series of delay that would result in the first nine holes at Mountain Lake taking 5 years to complete. It would take an additional 2 years to complete the second nine holes - a project that began in 1915 and ended (successfully) in 1921.
Raynor’s hole models continued to arrive throughout the summer of 1915 and work continued on the course. Work also continued on the access roads and railroad station that would eventually service the Atlantic Coast Line passenger trains. The names of Olmsted and Raynor attracted much attention to the project and although the process was slow in the beginning, sales began to pick up and the project looked to be successful. Because of the various delays caused by the vastness of the project, a temporary loss of interest by most Americans because of the World War I, and a restricted cash flow, it was not until 1919 that the first nine holes at Mountain Lake was ready officially open for play.
...Club histories can be a good source but I try to confirm everything, always keep an open mind and open eyes for other stuff realizing there is a good chance they don't have the story exactly right.
In other words, you start your research with a predetermination that the club history is likely wrong. Little wonder you discount them so easily. It's self-fulfilling from your perspective. When all you have is a hammer....
...Club histories can be a good source but I try to confirm everything, always keep an open mind and open eyes for other stuff realizing there is a good chance they don't have the story exactly right.
In other words, you start your research with a predetermination that the club history is likely wrong. Little wonder you discount them so easily. It's self-fulfilling from your perspective. When all you have is a hammer....
Dave,
Most club histories AREN'T architecturally oriented.
In many cases there are passing references to substantive changes, but, little in the way of details.
I'd have to agree with Tom MacWood in that I tend to view club histories with a sense of enlightened suspicion when it comes to architecture, since most club histories tend to view architecture as a collateral subject.
Most club histories are well intended, usually undertaken by a member or members with a passion for the entity and the club's activities, rather than the architecture.
TEPaul's architectural treatise on Gulph Mills is a rare find, and quite different from most club histories.
I have about two dozen or more club histories, mostly from courses you'd recognize and not one of them comes close to mirroring the Gulph Mills history.
Seminole devotes a section to each hole, but, from a different perspective. Rees Jones and Vinnie Giles discuss the playability rather than the history or pedigree of the hole. But, other than Gulph Mills, I haven't seen an in depth analysis of any course's architecture.
I tend to view club histories as romantic novels rather than definitive documents when it comes to architecture.
Assembling as much information, from as many sources as possible, would seem to be the prudent process.
But, often, club histories get it wrong when it comes to architecture. I think, primarily, because most clubs didn't think of memorializing any changes to their golf course. Remember, at many of these old great courses, a man or small group of men, often ran them, and when they did things, when they made changes, they weren't concerned about heavy documentation and leaving a paper trail for the likes of us.
I don't know if I ever told the story of Mr. Grace, my dad, the U.S. Amateur and Saucon Valley. I believe I did, but, I'll repeat it.
Overnight Mr Grace deepened a bunker so that it would play more difficult after he watched my dad hit a 5-iron from the fairway bunker, stiff, on a hole.
When Mr Grace commented on what a great shot my dad hit, my dad thanked him and stated that the shot he hit was one that pretty much the entire field could hit. Mr Grace then asked him how that shot could be made more difficult. My dad told him that the bunker was very shallow and if the shot was to be made more difficult, the bunker would have to be made deeper. The next day that bunker was deeper.
You won't find any green committee or board minutes to document the change. And I know a club history wouldn't include it, unless Mr Grace wrote it and remembered the particular incident. I'm sure that that wasn't the only change he ever made to the golf course and I doubt that any of the changes he made are documented.
Mr Grace, dictator supreme, summoned the proper resources and crew, and "Viola", a deeper bunker was crafted overnight.
I suspect that Mr Grace's method was the rule rather than the exception amongst those clubs where a dictator or oligarchy reigned surpreme.
So, unfortunately, while we search for the all encompassing facts, often, they're not there to be found.
Hence, you have to rely on a compilation. And often, the compilation is missing facts or has mistated the facts.
Thus, I'm with Tom MacWood in not believing everything you read.
That's also why I tend to go with aerial and/or ground photos to determine the scope of the change.
Hope that helps
"Club histories can be a good source but I try to confirm everything, always keep an open mind and open eyes for other stuff realizing there is a good chance they don't have the story exactly right."
Tom MacWood:
You try to confirm everything? What do you mean by EVERYTHING? When you wrote that essay on George Crump did you try to confirm the accuracy of every bit of factual evidence you presented about Pine Valley in that essay?
"As to Tom MacWood, it's pretty difficult to present yourself as a "friend of the club" and then embark upon research that may dismantle their history."
Patrick:
You are just so wrong about that it's shocking.
Wayne and I have done that many times to the understanding and satisfaction of all.
And in some cases I'm talking big-time architectural or architect attribution change.
TE, Wayne's a member of Merion and in addition is co-authoring a book on Flynn, hence, his entry to targeted clubs can't be compared to someone who has NO AGENDA, no book to write, no architect to glorify, no club with which to attach a pedigree.
You and I have lived in the golf/country club world for decades and decades, thus, you know how difficult it is for a perfect stranger to gain access.
To support the notion that Tom MacWood could just call the club and be given immediate access is disengenuous.
He has neither the contacts nor the pedigree to gain such access
I think he's done pretty well given the disadvantage of his starting point.
Patrick, you and I kid around with each other a lot on here but don't kid around with me on something like this or you lose hands-down and you know that; particularly as I am pretty sure you have never been involved in a single situation where you proved to a golf club their architectural or architect attribution was wrong.
I'm sure that disproving the architectural attribution was a by-product and not the purpose of your entry to a given club, unless your premise was predicated on upgrading the architectural attribution (from somebody to Flynn)
To suggest that Tom MacWood should call a club, announce that he wants to gain entry to their archives, for the purpose of discrediting their architectural attribution is foolish. Even if he announced his intentions as research oriented, what club is going to let a stranger, an unknown commodity, gain entry to their records. I can't think of a club that wouldn't say: "Thank you, but, no thank you.
Do not try to fudge with me about something like this Patrick Mucci, because you know as well as I do I have every facility in the world to check out its bona fides and you know that too. ;)
As I've said for years on this website----as a raw researcher Tom MacWood is excellent---but as an historical analyst he is a proven disaster.
While I haven't agreed with all of Tom's conclusions, I wouldn't categorize his analysis as a total disaster.
I think he's provided valuable information, some previously unknown.
In the field of science, when someone makes what they think is a "discovery", they usually issue a paper on it to the scientific community, for review, analysis, confirmation or refutation.
The scientific community DOESN'T attack the author.
The scientific community scrutinizes the work, the research and the conclusions absent personal attacks.
The same process should take place on GCA.com.
Let him put forth his premises, his theories, his conclusions and let them be scrutinized, confirmed, refuted, corrected or altered.
More good, more knowledge comes from that process than from just dismissing his premises because of who the author is.
I've disagreed with Tom on a number of issues and I've agreed with him on others.
My opinion is based on the presentation, not the presenter.
Thanks, Pat. So in other words, if you found a blurb in the Santa Fe Times from 1938 stating that Robert Trent Jones designed Augusta, you wouldn't automatically, out of habit, jump to the conclusion that the old fable about Dr. M and Robert Tyre Jones designing Augusta was just one big fat myth.
Skepticism? Sure. I agree with you about club histories. They read like Danielle Steele books - heavy on the sap and romance. That, however, does not mean that the minute a third-hand, heresay-on-heresay clipping shows up, we just assume that everything in the club history is wrong and leap to opposite conclusions.
Look at the way you'd handle the lack of concrete evidence about that bunker vs. the way Tom M would. You start with the understanding that the actual facts are often not ascertainable. And you'd want facts before you'd consider whether that bunker story of yours was, well, bunk. If Tom M, however, read anything, anywhere that implied a different story regarding the deepening of that bunker, he'd instantly leap to the conclusion that the first architect he could find that could be shown in some old microfilm to have spent a night within 50 miles of Saucon Valley in the prior 24 months must have made that change.
That's all I'm saying...
TM:
"George
That's quite a story. What is the source or sources for that info?"
That's only part of the story - came from various articles and club info
No, I'm not going to get specific just for the sake of an arguement
[Most writers of history don't have a problem supporting their findings.
"1. CBM said Raynor went out on his own in 1917.......
.........5. Raynor was a civil engineer, and not likely to use models. He designed 50+ courses during his career,......"
Tom MacWood:
If your above remarks on Raynor were from your research and analysis on Raynor in Macdonald's autobiography, you're not the researcher I thought you were and you're worse at analysis than I thought you were which was never very good anyway.
Here's what Macdonald said in his book:
"By this time Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture, and since 1917 built or reconstructed 100 to 150 courses, which I have never seen."
Apparently you don't read very carefully or you just read things into what you research and analyze that aren't there perhaps because you enter into some of these subjects with various preconceptions, assumptions or conclusions that aren't necessarily accurate or true.
Is it any wonder no one on here seems to put much crediblity in the things you say anymore?
Tom,
Yes they were. In fact the description reads that Oscar Smith Jr. first surveyed the course and then made the models. I believe that they were made for the article itself for that reason, although I could be wrong.
Since Charlie said that about Raynor and his making and use of 'plastic relief models' I would tend to use that as a fact supported by what Charlie said about it in his autobiography.
However, the rest----eg Charlie must have helped Raynor at ML because Raynor may not have done plastic or plasticine relief models on his own seems like a stretch of logic and should be looked at as mere speculation, in my opinion.
"I think there are a little over 100 courses in Bahto's book, and number of those are CBM solo jobs,"
CBM solo jobs??
What are those? What is an example of a "CBM solo job?" I am not aware of any course CBM was involved with in which he said he gave his "personal attention" in which Raynor was not also involved with him.
Are you?
"CBM's use of models is only one reason to question the current ML story. The timing of the project is more important reason for doubt IMO."
This time I must say I have no idea what you are saying or trying to say with that remark above. Why would CBM's use of models preclude Raynor's use of models on his own at ML without the help of CBM at ML? What do you mean the timing of ML is more important for doubt in your opinion? What doubt?
"TEP
It sounds like you've also given a great deal of thought to the subject. For those of us interested in golf architecture history where can we find some of your historical essays. By the way I have your Gulph Mills report from 1999, and its very well done."
Tom MacWood:
Thank you. The GMGC design evolution report from 1999 was the first thing I did which was not long after I got interested in golf course architecture. I did another design evolution report for The Creek Club with their historian in the last few years. Other than that the only other published architectural essays were with another fellow for a chapter in a golf architecture book out of Australia, a few essays or articles on architecture or architects in the GAP's magazine and in the USGA's U.S. Amateur Championship program at Merion in 2005 and the Walker Cup program at Merion in 2009. Other than that the only one I recall is a very early "In My Opinion" piece on this website.
I would also like to add, AGAIN, that all the architectural subjects I've been involved in researching, carefully analyzing and writing about involve clubs and courses I have a really good and long term familiarity and relationship with. I would not try to do it otherwise and I've always recommended the same process and method as absolutely necessary for anyone else, very much including you, who's interested in researching, analyzing and writing about the architecture or architects of golf courses.
Matter of fact, I think the only people I've ever heard of who have tried to research, analyze and write about golf clubs and the architecture and architectural evolution of their courses without FIRST establishing a good working relationship with the subject club and a real familiarity with the golf course is you and David Moriarty.
The other real irony to me is both of you have preceded and qualified some of your remarks on here that you are actually only trying to learn about the architectural histories of these courses! But yet both of you refuse to actually collaborate with anyone at those clubs and courses who know the architectural histories of those courses and clubs and who has access to and good familiarity with contemporaneous club material that is vital to know and to analyze for a comprehensive understanding of the course's architecture and its architects. The method and process both of you have not only used but also defended is far more confrontational than collaborative. Apparently your logic is that these clubs are always trying to hide some truth and not seek it out in the maintenance of some inaccurate "legend" story.
I don't buy that at all and I have never really seen it in the architectural subjects and investigations I've been involved in which are not exactly a small amount of them, at this point.
"TEP
CBM was involved in the design of two or three courses in Chicago prior to meeting Raynor."
Very true. However, those 1890s courses CBM did in Chicago and even including CGC do not seem to rise to the extent of architectural excellence in architecture, even in CBM's mind and opinion, that his National School courses do that essentially emanated from his idea to create an ideal golf course with NGLA and an ideal model for golf course architecture that NGLA inspired or was supposed to inspire.
I remind you that the entire method and model that CBM came up with to create NGLA and that National School came completely AFTER CBM had done those 19th century Chicago courses and moved to New York in 1900 when he came up with his entire idea of how to create NGLA and the National School architectural model.
In my opinion, those few 1890s courses he did in Chicago, including CGC, were apples compared to oranges with what he did with NGLA and later and he apparently looked at it that way too for completely apparent reasons to both him and to us today.
When George Bahto said in response to you in Post #451:
"No, I'm not going to get specific just for the sake of an arguement"----I took that to mean just what he said----eg that he doesn't feel like engaging in an argument with you.
I have always found George pretty good at supporting with factual information his sources for his assumptions and conclusions in his book. I guess it just boils down to the fact that some people want to get into hypothetical and speculative arguments on here more than others do.
Tom MacWood--
I'm curious as to which courses CBM as involved in Chicago w/o Raynor....I'm guessing the original Chicago Golf Club (later Belmont, then Downer's Grove), and the current location Chicago Golf Club's original course are two,I think both were involved in the 1923 redesign? (I don't have the book in front of me) What other courses did he do in Chicago w/o Raynor?
"TEP
If you look at the timeline of Raynor's design career, and combine that information with what CBM said about 1917, I think it is unlikely ML in 1915 was a Raynor solo effort."
Tom MacWood:
Is it really any wonder that there does not appear to be a contributor left on this thread or on this website that seems to feel you have any credibility left?
Even though it has been explained to you a number of time by a number of people on this thread and with CBM's direct quote about 1917 and Raynor, CBM did not say that Raynor began his solo career in architecture after 1917; he only said that he felt by 1917 Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture. Your continued interpretation of what that meant regarding the beginning of Raynor's solo career in golf architecture is both bizarre and mistaken. But by this time I think most all of us on here know that many to most of your interpretations on here have become both bizarre and mistaken.
Tom,
Once again you are being more than a bit disingenuous. This is exactly what I wrote, copied directly from my post on "page 3":
"Yes, I have the dates for all of those courses including the actual opening days for a number of them. I know you're getting tired of hearing my "no" answer to if I'll share because of the timeline i'm working on, but I'm getting close to finishing it and when published I am sure that it will be the subject of much discussion. I will say that every date I give will be totally verifiable and the timeline will come complete with ciotations and notations..."
I gave more than enough specific information that you chose to ignore or disagree with, both of which you had the right to do. A "double standard" would require that you must accept it. You choose not to and don't and THAT is the GCA standard and one that I also go by.
I will reiterate what I said and if you want to call it a "double standard" or hypocritical do so and I'll support your right to your opinion of it.
When I am finished with my tilly timeline and feel that it is ready to present I will do so. It will first be published on the Tillinghast Association website and then, I am sure, it will be discussed and argued over on here. Until then you can do one of two things, either hold your breath and wait or do your own research and publish your own timeline...
Tom, by the way, I would guess that you must also consider David's refusal to answer legitimate questions and hold back information to ALSO be part of the GCA "double standard" otherwise you are acknowledging one of your own...
"You, though, seem to be advocating that one MUST show sources when you state",
"To end this spat, the need for the production of source material should be the same for everyone. If that hasn't been the case in the past, it should be the case going forward."
Pat,
I think you completely missed the boat on this one. I am NOT demanding or asking Tom Macwood to produce his sources. I have NEVER asked him to, not on this thread nor any other. NEVER! On the other hand, HE IS DEMANDING that I do and then when I choose not to for my own good reasons accuses me of LYING about having had the documentation in the first place!
"Obviously something happened in 1917, if its not going out on his own what was it? What does post graduate mean? If he was an undergraduate prior to 1917, doesn't that indicate he was still working under the tutelage of the professor?"
Tom MacWood:
Not to me it doesn't. Perhaps you should try reading what Macdonald actually said again and considering it more carefully.
To me Macdonald said Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture by the time (when he mentioned 'By this time') the St. Louis, White Sulfur Springs and finally the Lido projects were underway and which Raynor worked on with CBM. When did those projects begin and when did Raynor begin working on them? All before 1917 and in every case well before 1917 such as 1914 and 1915!
After that Macdonald mentions that after 1917 Raynor built or reconstructed 100 to 150 courses which Macdonald only mentioned he had never seen with the exception of the six courses he listed last which he said were the only ones he gave his personal attention to while working on them with Raynor. That would be Mid-Ocean, Yale, The Links, Gibson Island, Deepdale and The Creek.
Tom MacWood:
Once again, as to what is relevant or not relevant with North Shore GC and and who thinks so with Seth Raynor and his qualifications in 1914 and 1915, I would say the following statement from C.B. Macdonald's 1928 autobiography can be analyzed as to what it means by the team recently assembled at North Shore GC (Doak, Urbina, Hissey, perhaps Bahto and Shaeffer et al) if they deem it important;
"Next came the St. Louis CC, then the White Sulphur Springs layout, and then finally came the colossal task of the Lido at Long Beach. By this time Raynor had become a post graduate in golfing architecture, and since 1917 built or reconstructed some 100 to 150 courses, which I have never seen. The Mid-Ocean Club, the Yale GC, the Links Golf Course, the Gibson Island Golf Course, the Deedale, and the Creek Club were the only ones I gave and personal attention to after 1917."
Having spoken recently to most all of them about it I have good faith in all of them to do the right thing and to interpret things correctly given the important old material from the club's 1914, 1915 records that was recently found in the New York Historical Society that say Raynor was hired as their architect with Macdonald helping in a consulting capacity and Robert White having been put on the annual payroll as the greenkeeper/construction foreman.
At this point, I don't see that there is any more to discuss and certainly not with you. Perhaps you should call up some or any of them and ask them if you can be involved with them on their team. Will you consider doing that if you are so interested in the architect and architectural history of North Shore GC, and if not then why not?
MacWood and Moriarty have accused me of lying or being a liar too (MacWood said that to me again on this very thread) or even of altering original documents of Merion's when in fact he and they (Moriarty and MacWood) have never even seen those documents, so how would they ever even know what they actually say or don't say? ;)
To me that is a pretty clever attempted trick or ploy on their part or else just plain dialectic bullshit!
TEP
There is nothing in your answer about the meaning of post graduate; nothing about 1917 or any of the courses I mentioned. You've been unable to answer my specific questions multiple times now...there are only two logical explanation for your inability, either you don't know the answer OR you know the answer, but would prefer not to acknowledge it. Actually there is third explanation, which would be a little bit of both.
Again we a lots of opinions and speculation on what CBM meant (or didn't mean) we he said Raynor became a post graduate in 1917, but still no one has presented any facts to back it up.
Where do you get off telling us that we should presenting facts to back up YOUR speculation that this passage is the be all end all of figuring out Raynor's career? I humbly suggest that you back up the statement and try to prove it with facts, rather than ask questions in a manner that suggest we are being somehow unfair.
May I ask a question: I have always thought that CBM designed a golf course with a general idea that each hole should have unique design and playing features. I don't mean to say that he did the same designs or features over and over but that he felt it important that each hole be looked at as special and individual. Earlier in this thread it was noted, I believe by TD, that there are quite a few ordinary holes at NS so much design work will be needed as opposed to restoration. Would these presumptions lead to the conclusion that CBM had very little influence on this Raynor design?
Where do you get off telling us that we should presenting facts to back up YOUR speculation that this passage is the be all end all of figuring out Raynor's career? I humbly suggest that you back up the statement and try to prove it with facts, rather than ask questions in a manner that suggest we are being somehow unfair.
Brauer,
Get the heck off of here. Logic, common sense and humility have no place here!
Where do you get off telling us that we should presenting facts to back up YOUR speculation that this passage is the be all end all of figuring out Raynor's career? I humbly suggest that you back up the statement and try to prove it with facts, rather than ask questions in a manner that suggest we are being somehow unfair.
Brauer,
Get the heck off of here. Logic, common sense and humility have no place here!
At the very least facts were presented.
"Next came the St. Louis CC, then the White Sulphur Springs layout, and then finally came the colossal task of the Lido at Long Beach. By this time Raynor had become a post graduate in golfing architecture, and since 1917 built or reconstructed some 100 to 150 courses, which I have never seen. The Mid-Ocean Club, the Yale GC, the Links Golf Course, the Gibson Island Golf Course, the Deedale, and the Creek Club were the only ones I gave and personal attention to after 1917."
1917, not 1914 or 1915 or 1916. Clearly something happened in 1917, CBM mentions twice in the same paragraph describing Raynor's career and his involvement with Raynor. What happened in 1917?
CBM is clearly saying that by 1917 Raynor was a master at his (more accurately CBM's) craft. That said, 1917 seems to have some sort of significance, do you know what it is? I suspect 1917 was the year CBM decided he was no longer "in the business" and it may have come after the completion of a project.
CBM is clearly saying that by 1917 Raynor was a master at his (more accurately CBM's) craft. That said, 1917 seems to have some sort of significance, do you know what it is? I suspect 1917 was the year CBM decided he was no longer "in the business" and it may have come after the completion of a project.
Based on an anaysis of Raynor and Macdonald's courses prior to and after 1917, I believe 1917 was the year Raynor began to work independently as a golf architect. CBM did design golf courses after 1917.
Based on an anaysis of Raynor and Macdonald's courses prior to and after 1917, I believe 1917 was the year Raynor began to work independently as a golf architect. CBM did design golf courses after 1917.
"I suspect 1917 was the year CBM decided he was no longer "in the business" and it may have come after the completion of a project."
Sean Arble:
Macdonald very clearly says he gave his personal attention to six projects (he lists them) involving Raynor AFTER 1917. Macdonald's last project in the business was apparently Yale in the mid-1920s. Not many years after that when Perry Maxwell wrote Macdonald asking him if he would consider looking at a project he was involved with Macdonald wrote back to the effect; "Young man, I wish you luck on your new project but I would not walk around the corner for another golf course project."
"CBM is clearly saying that by 1917 Raynor was a master at his (more accurately CBM's) craft."
No he isn't. Macdonald is saying Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture BY THE TIME of the St Louis, Old White and The Lido projects. Perhaps you don't realize when those projects were begun. It was not in 1917.
"CBM is not specific, so I don't think I should be specific with CBM's words."
Sean:
In my opinion, Macdonald was very specific. He mentioned three distinct projects (St Louis. Old White and The Lido) by which TIME he considered Raynor to have become a 'post-graduate in golfing architecture.' And those specific clubs know the exact dates of those projects and so do some of us. I don't see how it can get much more specific than that.
Sean:
That looks like just another example on here of how nobody ever seems to want to admit they could be incorrect about anything they say.
The projects Macdonald mentioned in which he said "BY THIS TIME" Raynor had become a post-graduate in golfing architecture all preceeded 1917 and by a considerable space of time. There is nothing confusing about that so I don't see why someone should interpret it as some amorphous statement that needs to be interpreted as just some point up to 1917. We know the dates of those projects he mentioned and they were begun in the 1914-1915 timeframe. I don't know about you but the 1914-1915 timeframe is not the same thing to me as 1917.
To me the importance (or more specifically lack of importance) of this whole 1917 thing as to when Raynor did his first solo design is just another example of the remarkably muddled analytical thinking and logic of Tom MacWood, and it is getting really tiring and counter-productive on here in my book.
"CBM is not specific, so I don't think I should be specific with CBM's words."
Sean:
In my opinion, Macdonald was very specific. He mentioned three distinct projects (St Louis. Old White and The Lido) by which TIME he considered Raynor to have become a 'post-graduate in golfing architecture.' And those specific clubs know the exact dates of those projects and so do some of us. I don't see how it can get much more specific than that.
Pat,
Not sure exactlywhat context you mean "producing documents?" On this website, via research, etc.
There are really a lot of unresolved issues with that and on here.
As to producing dox here, my first thought was that none of us is required to produce anything for other people here. When I ask questions of those here who might have info I don't, I follow Mom's teachings and say "please" which doesn't always happen here. It seems rude to ask others to produce this list or that as if any of us is "owed" that by anyone.
There are also some questions as to intent with the Terrier accusing biographers of having an agenda of protecting the legend of their subject, and those authors believing that TMac has an equally "sinister" agenda of debunking long held histories. I think he feels there are enough club histories in doubt that ALL are suspect. There is nothing wrong with that basic attitude, but it is just as potentially destructive as being overly protective of existing history.
And what is the role of this discussion board? If it really is a historical research site, I bet there are rules of discourse to serious sites of that nature. Or is it a lively discussion group where no holds, other than common decency, hold us together
Lastly, there is the question of whether any or all of us suffer from "premature evaluation" of partial material, with all of us snickering that the other guy has the bigger problem.
There probably will never be an real answers.
Jeff,
I drew no conclusions regarding the DOD of SR.
I merely presented the conflicting reports of two experts on his life, one a contemporaneous account, (the kind you like) from his dear friend, partner and mentor and the other from two prominent current day researchers.
By example I was trying to show that even the most respected parties don't always get their facts right.
However, by bringing questions to light, hopefully more research will be undertaken, which can lead to setting the record straight.
Jeff,
I drew no conclusions regarding the DOD of SR.
I merely presented the conflicting reports of two experts on his life, one a contemporaneous account, (the kind you like) from his dear friend, partner and mentor and the other from two prominent current day researchers.
By example I was trying to show that even the most respected parties don't always get their facts right.
However, by bringing questions to light, hopefully more research will be undertaken, which can lead to setting the record straight.
Patrick
I didn't think you drew any conclusions. You threw out some observations, with no work done to back it up with facts, which is what you just lectured us to do to gain credibility. So, not meaning to bust your chops or anything, but sort of tongue and cheek, I was just wondering where your post fit on your cred scale.
Jeff, citing CBM, in his writings in 1928 as a reliable source with respect to the DOD of SR seems to be more than just a casual observation.
It's a contemporaneous account, memorialized in a book written by CBM, SR's dear friend, partner and mentor.
If it's in error, I'd like to see the refutation before I visit the grave site in Southampton in June.
At this point, we know there are some conflicting facts printed about nearly any course! I also wonder why, but - WARNING! WARNING! UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINON TO FOLLOW! - have always thought that it was mostly a matter of newspapers of the day not really knowing enough to get facts right, clubs not interested enough to document to the next level (did they know they were making history, or just trying to play some damn golf?) and even interested writers not necessariy being historians who dug deep enough.
I don't generally disagree, but, here we have your favorite source, contemporaneous writing by the decedent's best friend, partner and mentor.
Ron Whitten was a trial lawyer, and made every effort to be thorough, but he had to travel the country and rumange through the basements of strangers who were descendants of the ODG....not as easy a task as it is today, and today, its still not easy, just easier.
I'm not disparaging C&W's herculian efforts, merely pointing out a substantive discrepancy on one of the great architects in golf.
But, I am not really offering anything new here, so I will sit down and shut up!
OK
Pat:
We went to Raynor's grave in Southampton but I don't remember if there was a DOD on his gravestone (Macdonald, Whigam and Raynor are all buried within thirty yards of one another). I believe he died very early in 1926 and that may've been why CBM thought he died in 1925. I believe he died quite suddenly and of pneumonia. I think he may've been in Palm Beach at the time. He was only 51.
As for why some of his courses may be listed as 1926 that is probably because his designs and plans for them were in the process at that time and on-going.
The Green Committee was empowered to use their discretion regarding terminating the services of Mr. Robert White.
Tom,
That's one of the pitfalls here of how things were reported back then, isn't it? "Turning the course inside out" could mean any number of things including what we know based on the minutes is course construction.
It's similar to articles we found on Ocean City CC (now Greate Bay) that read in isolation would make it seem that William Robinson was the architect, yet other earlier articles made clear that Robinson was simply building to Willie Park's design. I think the same could be said for Ashbourne (NLE) where for years Franklin Meehan was credited with the design when it was really Park, and possibly Kittansett is a simliar situation.
Quote from: Mark Hissey on Yesterday at 09:39:58 AM
The Green Committee was empowered to use their discretion regarding terminating the services of Mr. Robert White.
Mark
What can we read from this entry?
Quite simply, that Mr White's days were numbered.
That's a fairly interesting question and we can probably read quite a lot about a number of things to do with North Shore club structure and administrative and operating MO.
Not really.
It's obvious that forces within the club/committee/board wanted to terminate Mr White, the matter was discussed and the authority to terminate him was turned over to the committee. It's a form of PRE-APPROVAL and not uncommon in club affairs.
The meaning of the word discretion is the power or right to act according to one's own judgement; freedom of judgement or choice. In this case the freedom of judgement or choice of the Green Committee in this issue of White and his future employment. The word or term "discretion" or "discretionary" is also a word and term with a technical and legal meaning and application as in "Discretionary Account" as used in the world of financial investment and brokerage (ex; Wall Street) to mean a broker or brokerage has the legal right (formally given in writing by the client) to act on investment decisions and exceutions without first informing (or getting permission from) the client. Failure to inform a client of these investment decisions and executions (particularly trades) without a formal "Discretionary Account" written approval can subject brokers and brokerages to lose of license.
TE, you have so much to learn and I only have so much time to devote to your education.
This isn't rocket science.
The Board had made the decision approving the termination of Mr White and simply created the mechanism for doing so by ceded the execution of that approval to the committee.
The use of this term in the North Shore meeting minutes (board or committee) and supporting documentation seems logical as apparently this club (North Shore) was populated by a board and membership of some fairly big time New York business and perhaps Wall Street people.
You're reading far too much into a rather simple matter.
Have you been dipping into the mushrooms again ?
The clubs of people like this generally have these kinds of comprehensive and detailed meeting procedures and consequent meeting minutes. It's basically an MO and habit these kinds of people take from their business lives and transpose to the administrations of their clubs.
Baloney, or Bolagna, however you like it.
The club/committee wanted to fire Mr White and they simply got the Board to pre-approve the action.
It's done all the time at clubs.
It is interesting that apparently the board formally "empowered" (took a board vote) to allow the Green Committee to act on their own judgement in the case of White's employment----in this case rather than having to ask the board for approval of what their decision would be in the case of White.
TE, you ignorant slut ! They wanted to fire him, they approached the board for permission to do so and the board granted them permission.
It's that simple, stop reading tea leaves and conjuring up the spectre of wall street shenanigans.
That the board actually "empowered" the green committee to do that (use their own discretion with White) in this particular case also tells me that the administrative structure and decision making procedures of North Shore GC was probably organized heavily into a top down structure rather than an organizational structure that allows various commttees far more decision making autonomy (discretion) such as my own club is and always has been because it was originally structured that way (By-Laws) when it was formed in 1916.
It must be your lack of experience in serving on club Boards that leads you to these erroneous conclusions.
In the great, great, great majority of cases, committees don't have the authority to hire and fire Department heads or consultants.
That power simply lies with the Board
Do your club's committees have the authority to fire and hire superintendents ? Club Pro's, Managers ? YOU ?
If so, I suggest you try to get the By-Laws changed ASAP because your membership is in clear jeopardy. ;D
Mark:
I’m going to ask you a question at the end which may be a bit premature, at this point, and perhaps even a bit touchy or uncomfortable to answer now.
As you know I think this particular architect attribution investigation on North Shore GC has probably been the most successful this website as ever had on any architect attribution question of any club and course.
I say that because the question began on this website as did the investigation. And I say that because of the remarkable new material discovered as it was and where it was and by whom and given the fact that the discoverers of it did the right thing and took it to the club first and before making it public on here thereby not blind-siding the club and particularly Mr. Zucker who as we understand it was gungho on buying a Tillinghast design, and I say that because the club has agreed to make it public on here as they have through you etc, and that is a very good thing I hope other clubs can get comfortable with if the right process is followed as I believe it was with North Shore GC.
I think the whole investigation and process of it by all involved was done exactly the right way and I hope it may even set some kind of a precedent on this website for how these kinds of things should be done in the future.
So the question is given all the material produced on here to date, and given the thorough peer review process it went through on here on these threads and elsewhere, can you tell us how you think the club will now present the architect attribution of their course?
"The following represent my findings concerning attribution of the golf course from the Minutes of North Shore CC (hereinafter “the Club”) from May 13, 1914 onward:
1. On November 5, 1914, the Club authorized the sum of $400.00 to hire Seth Raynor in an advisory capacity for possible improvement of the existing course on the property.
2. On November 12, 1914, the Club hired Robert White, at $1200.00 per year, to begin on December 1, 1914, with an option to terminate after 6 months with 30 days notice. His duties were: To take charge of the present golf course and to superintend the building of a new one, if undertaken, and to perform such other duties as the Board may direct.
3. On December 23, 1914, the Club noted that a contract with White, pursuant to the action of the previous meeting of the Board, had been made, that progress had been made on the plan for a new golf course, taking the sense of the Board as to the possible use of the woods at the easterly end of the club property as part of such course. An estimate for the upkeep of the course was made in the amount of $12,00.00 per year.
4. On January 26, 1915, the Club approved plans by Raynor for a new golf course with $37,500.00 to be expended under supervision of the Greens Committee, subject to the approval of the President. Raynor was to be paid a fee of $1800.00 for carrying out this work.
5. On March 13, 1915, at the Club’s Annual meeting, it was reported that the original course was under 5000 yards and that Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club. This course will measure about 6400 yards, will take 15 acres of woodland and take full advantage of the vantages offered by the rolling ground, which we own.
6. On May 25, 1915, the Greens Committee reported to the Board that progress is being made on the course construction.
7. On June 22, 1915, the Greens Committee reported that favorable progress has been made on the rebuilding of the course showing a considerable saving as the work so far completed as compared with the original estimates.
8. On December 28, 1915, it was noted that golf course should be playable by Decoration Day 1916.
9. On February 29, 1916, it was noted that a letter from Raynor was referred to the Building Committee.
10. On March 12, 1916, at the Club’s Annual Meeting, the President, Henry Calman, noted that the links were now complete with the exception of some bunkers and traps and that the course should be opening by Decoration Day. He said the results are the product of the deep thought of Robert White, our greens expert, Seth Raynor, the leading golf architect in the United States and Charles B. Macdonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction and the well considered work of our Greens Committee. He went on to state that although the Board appropriated $37,00.00 for the work, the work will not exceed $32,000.00.
11. On June 27, 1916, the Greens Committee was authorized to invite newspapermen to play the course during the summer if the course was in good condition.
12. On February 18, 1918, at a Special Meeting of the Board, the Greens Committee was authorized to engage Robert White as Consulting Expert at $50 monthly for not less than 4 visits. It was noted that this motion was carried with 4 negative votes"
Mark
I would assume you would never claim Steve invented these other entries....how did choose which entries to transcribe and which entries not to transcribe?
I have some observations and was wondering if the group could inform me whether I am on or off-base...
It would appear that when doing historical research concerning golf course architecture and attribution analysis, there are a few different ways to go about it.
One is to dig through magazines and newspapers published at or around the time of the information you are seeking in an attempt to discover articles related to the topic.
Another is to go to historical archives of the club itself or institutions which house those archives and clubs records.
It appears that Tom Macwood does the first and Mark Hissey and Steve Shaffer have done the second on this thread.
While each appear to yield some fruit, wouldn't you want to start with the clubs historical records first? And perhaps if the clubs historical records have been lost (perhaps in a fire) or are not accurately kept, then going to the newspapers would be ideal.
Thoughts?
But, I have some news. I was at the NY Historical Society again today and found two new annual reports. I took lots of photographs where you can see the dates for the particular quotes. I did find a new neference to Raynor and Macdonald which was incredibly exciting.
Mark,
It's hard to argue with that President's report.
I'm looking forward to playing there next month.
Of course from last November until Steve Shaeffer actually went to New York we had to put up with the ususal Tom MacWood bizarro opinions about Robert White being North Shore's architect and frankly that may've been the real reason Shaeffer took the time and made the effort to go to New York's Historical Society! ;)
Jim Kennedy:
What the real matter with this website has been in the last some years is pretty much Moriarty, MacWood and their little junior grade officer, Jim Kennedy.
I'd say that your arrogance is much more of a factor than anything else. During your recent self-imposed absence (remember that, it was right after you imploded and started hurling curses around. I won't reprint them here but I did save them to remind myself of your irascible nature) there were quite a few cordial exchanges between people who differed greatly yet didn't feel the need to make personal attacks on each other, something you do on a regular basis.
It seems somehow for reasons that I'm not aware of ;) one of them is gone now and I would say for this website to get back to what it once was and the way it should be again there are only a mere two more to go.
I would say that there is only one more to go. You'll recognize him in a few hours when you're shaving. ;)
"Our classically designed Seth Raynor and Charles B. Macdonald golf course forms the highlight of our facility......
.........Notable Golf course creators Seth Raynor and Charles B. Macdonald, known for building course that stand the test of time, designed our 6,365 yard course. Seth Raynor and Charles B. Macdonald made their mark as outstanding course designers devoted both to the game and the preservation of natural surroundings. North Shore's course is little changed from that original design with putting greens that tend to be small, tightly bunkered, sloped and quick."
There are two things that standout about this statement. First, the fact that there is no recognition of Devereux Emmet. Emmet laid out the original course and at least five of his holes were retained in the redesign - that is 30% of the golf course. Second, although they now recognize CBM, as they should IMO, there is no mention of Robert White. All the evidence that supports CBM's involvement also supports White. I wonder if White's lack of stature and name recognition was a factor in the club's decision.
Pat,
As I understand it from the club, it's pure oral history passed down from member to member for years. The club never had its early minutes as found inThe Harmonie Club archives in its possession or the "diagram" prepared by Raynor that hung in Harmonie.
Steve,
The problem I have is the sharp contrast the architecture presents when attributed to to its alleged author, AWT.
These features and holes aren't subtle by any stretch of the imagination.
They're bold replicas reminiscent of the style of CBM-SR-CB.
And, it's not like there's just one or two examples dispersed throughout the golf course.
Hole after hole is reflective of CBM-SR-CB's style.
The greens on # 3, # 9, # 14, # 15 and # 17 are hard to ignore, as is the bunkering throughout the golf course.
See Dr. Bill Quirin's Feature Interview here where he uses the "looks like" test even though he wrote about Tillinghast in his MGA book.
I think Bill's book on "Clubs of the MGA" is a terrific book, I'd recommend it for everyone's library, but, one play of the golf course has to have the GCA fan doubting the identity of the author/designer, unless AWT was channeling CBM-SR-CB
The course looks so outrageously CBM-SR-CB that it makes me wonder why and how that myth was perpetuated, the Harmonie Club minutes not withstanding.
No wonder Pat missed the cut....instead of focusing on his game, he must have been looking at each hole and screaming: "This is a Raynor! Not a Tillinghaus! " How did your playing partners react? :)Pat,
As I understand it from the club, it's pure oral history passed down from member to member for years. The club never had its early minutes as found inThe Harmonie Club archives in its possession or the "diagram" prepared by Raynor that hung in Harmonie.
Steve,
The problem I have is the sharp contrast the architecture presents when attributed to to its alleged author, AWT.
These features and holes aren't subtle by any stretch of the imagination.
They're bold replicas reminiscent of the style of CBM-SR-CB.
And, it's not like there's just one or two examples dispersed throughout the golf course.
Hole after hole is reflective of CBM-SR-CB's style.
The greens on # 3, # 9, # 14, # 15 and # 17 are hard to ignore, as is the bunkering throughout the golf course.
See Dr. Bill Quirin's Feature Interview here where he uses the "looks like" test even though he wrote about Tillinghast in his MGA book.
I think Bill's book on "Clubs of the MGA" is a terrific book, I'd recommend it for everyone's library, but, one play of the golf course has to have the GCA fan doubting the identity of the author/designer, unless AWT was channeling CBM-SR-CB
The course looks so outrageously CBM-SR-CB that it makes me wonder why and how that myth was perpetuated, the Harmonie Club minutes not withstanding.
With golfers in my group being members of NGLA and Westhampton, there was a bonding with the course that had nothing to do with me.
There was a familiarity they felt with the features and holes. -Pat Mucci
Tom MacWood,
Any luck in finding out which five (5) holes from Emmet survive today ?
Bill
Who is the lead dog in this quote?
"The results secured are the product of the deep thought of Mr. Robert White, our greens expert, Mr. Seth J. Raynor, the leading Golf Architect in the United States, Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction[/u], and the unremitting and well-considered work of our Greens Committee."
Whoever is the lead dog, if you are going to give co-design credit to CBM shouldn't you give the same consideration to White?
Bill
Who is the lead dog in this quote?
"The results secured are the product of the deep thought of Mr. Robert White, our greens expert, Mr. Seth J. Raynor, the leading Golf Architect in the United States, Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction[/u], and the unremitting and well-considered work of our Greens Committee."
Whoever is the lead dog, if you are going to give co-design credit to CBM shouldn't you give the same consideration to White?
I'd kind of like to include Robert White as he designed a number of courses I really like such as Berkleigh but then I ask myself...did Mac or Raynor ever collaborate with anyone who wasn't affiliated with them, such as Emmett, Banks, and/or Barton?
Bill
If Raynor is the undoubted lead dog as you suggest do you object to CBM being given co-design credit? And if Raynor is such an obvious design force why is it that CBM and White are mentioned so often and so prominently with Raynor? It appears to me this was a collaboration of the three. Am I wrong?
Tom,
You asked, "I beg your pardon, but doesn't this quote indicate White was involved in the design? '...who with the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent cooperation of our professional, Mr. Robert White, have laid out a course...'”
NO it DOESN'T. If you used the ENTIRE sentence it becomes clear that what was ACTUALLY written implies something quite different. "The matter has received the careful attention of your Greens Committee, who with the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent cooperation of our professional, Mr. Robert White, have laid out a course..."
Basic sentence structure Tom. The GREENS COMMITTEE with the AID of SETH RAYNOR and COOPERATION of Mr. Robert White, have laid out a course...
The phrase you keep quoting from over and over states that the course was laid out by the Greens Committee and Raynor ONLY... Now even you won't give design credit of any type to the GREENS COMMITTEE, yet you demand that White, who this phrase only states that he simply 'co-operated' with them you want to give FULL credit to.
Sorry Tom, but you read too much into what was written.
Bill
If Raynor is the undoubted lead dog as you suggest do you object to CBM being given co-design credit? And if Raynor is such an obvious design force why is it that CBM and White are mentioned so often and so prominently with Raynor? It appears to me this was a collaboration of the three. Am I wrong?
Given the time frame and location, it is only natural that Macdonald would have visited the site and assisted Raynor. Raynor was an unabashed adherent to Macdonald's design principles, so I have no problem with shared credit.
As a salesperson and former board member, THIS is what I hear when I read those quotes; the Club was interested in marketing the course and wanted to be polite o everyone who helped, inclding the Grounds Committee and Mr. White.
Tom,
You asked, "I beg your pardon, but doesn't this quote indicate White was involved in the design? '...who with the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent cooperation of our professional, Mr. Robert White, have laid out a course...'”
NO it DOESN'T. If you used the ENTIRE sentence it becomes clear that what was ACTUALLY written implies something quite different. "The matter has received the careful attention of your Greens Committee, who with the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent cooperation of our professional, Mr. Robert White, have laid out a course..."
Basic sentence structure Tom. The GREENS COMMITTEE with the AID of SETH RAYNOR and COOPERATION of Mr. Robert White, have laid out a course...
The phrase you keep quoting from over and over states that the course was laid out by the Greens Committee and Raynor ONLY... Now even you won't give design credit of any type to the GREENS COMMITTEE, yet you demand that White, who this phrase only states that he simply 'co-operated' with them you want to give FULL credit to.
Sorry Tom, but you read too much into what was written.
There is only a single reference to him {White} by name and that refers to his CONSTRUCTION expertise AFTER refering to Raynor as the pre-eminent architect in America.
You are certainly free to INTERPRET a sentence or phrase as you please; but that doesn't make it correct nor does it make it a statement of fact.
Pat
If he was just a soil expert why did the club make a point of saying he assisted Raynor is laying out the golf course?
Tom,
Off the top of my head, it might be because of the terrain.
There are a number of ravines or deep depressions that appear throughout the golf course.
The rolling nature of the topography, rock formations, creeks and surface drainage all had to be taken into account when laying out the golf course
In 1914, a soil expert could advise an architect as to what areas would make for the best greens and fairways.
The seperating of the disciplines is a striking point. Why would the club attribute different tasks to different people if those people were performing the same task ?
They assign an individual to seperate tasks, clearly stating that Raynor was the architect and giving White another area of expertise.
Thus, it seems to make sense that White might have helped Raynor lay out the golf course in terms of where the soils were most conducive to placing greens/fairways, along with advising on what areas to avoid.
Does anyone think the minutes as recorded are in error in that Raynor was not "... the leading Golf Architect in the United States..." at the time as he was just starting his independent career and that MacDonald was not "... the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction..." as he was more wll known as a golf architect?
Were the terms transposed? Wasn't Raynor the engineer/construction guy for MacDonald,the architect?
Was there "puffing" involved?
5. On March 13, 1915, at the Club’s Annual meeting, it was reported that the original course was under 5000 yards and that Raynor was hired, with the active and intelligent cooperation of White, and have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagram in the office of the Harmonie Club. This course will measure about 6400 yards, will take 15 acres of woodland and take full advantage of the vantages offered by the rolling ground, which we own.
They would not have laid out the course PRIOR to January 26, the date that course design plans were definitely finished by, because the membership had not approved the work to build the course before then, a course that would require them to, as is found in the notes dated December 23, 1914, more than a month BEFORE, that "taking the sense of the Board as to the possible use of the woods at the easterly end of the club property as part of such course..."
You can't lay out a course without permission to do so and you don't do it if you don't know where its going. You CAN design a course on paper and show where it will be (routing) on the property BEFORE it is laid out. That this is what happened in this case based can be seen from the information found in the Board Minutes.
We need an english teacher to clear up whether the author needed to change to multiple tense after deciding to lump Raynor and White into a run on sentence. As per earlier analysis, in reality, the basic sentence reads:
The matter has received the careful attention of your Greens Committee, whowith the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent cooperation of our professional, Mr. Robert White,have laid out a course
If you really parse it, neither Raynor or White had anything to do with it!
I wonder why TMac has quoted this ONE piece of "so called evidence" on and on while ignoring the written contracts and job descriptions that exist? I also wonder why he never answers my questions, so I will fill in my own blanks, just for fun here. :)
Forget the Terrier comparisons. From now on, I am comparing him to Johnny Cocharan, who was also expert at using less relevant and probably misleading facts to convince at least some people that something was true. ;) You need a catchy slogan along the lines of "if it doesn't fit, you must aquit!" How about, Mr. T Mac,
"The clubs are wrong, and for oh so long!" ;D
"The legend stands, with the wrong man!" ;)
"History's bogus, we must refocus!"
"He drew no plans, but the pro's the man!"
"The gca got the cash, but made a dash!"
"Never trust an archie who resume is over 40 (courses....")
I could go on all day! Git er done!....I have a hunch, its time for lunch!
The results secured are the product of the deep thought of Mr. Robert White, our greens expert, Mr. Seth J. Raynor, the leading Golf Architect in the United States, Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction, and the unremitting and well-considered work of our Greens Committee.”
Tom MacWood,
The quote you posted, which appears below, seems to attribute credit in a task specific manner.QuoteThe results secured are the product of the deep thought of Mr. Robert White, our greens expert, Mr. Seth J. Raynor, the leading Golf Architect in the United States, Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction, and the unremitting and well-considered work of our Greens Committee.”
That's one way to look at, but does it make sense that Raynor would be the architect and CBM in charge of construction? We already know White was involved in construction, so I don't think your reading is accurate. I read it differently, especially when they interject 'deep thought' into the statement. That tells me the three were collaborating on the design, and it must tell Mark, TEP, and just about everyone involved on this thread the same thing because they all agree that CBM deserves co-design credit.
By your interpretation of the above quote you supplied. you would have to give equal design credit to the green committee.
Thus, your position has to be that SR, CBM, RW and the entire committee routed and designed the golf course.
Again one must approach these things with a certain amount of logic and intelligence. It is ridiculous to believe the green committee laid the course with Raynor and White, and it is ridiculous to believe the green committee was actively involved in designing the golf course. From all the entries it is obvious they were only involved in oversight.
That's an interpretation I don't agree with.
This quote doesn't provide generalized attribution, but rather, attribution and credit for SPECIFIC TASKS.
IF Robert White acted as a functioning architect, they would have given him credit, by title, deed or reference, for his efforts/work.
But, they don't.
Instead, they give him credit for being a "Greens Expert" Not an architect, not a router, not a constructor, but a "Greens Expert"
While, in the same sentence the give SR credit for not just being the architect, but the leading architect in America.
IF he was the leading architect in America, and North Shore took pride in his retention, why on earth would they undermine his lofty position as the leading architect in America by having someone else, Robert White, assist him in that task ?
It doesn't make sense.
You don't hire the "leading architect in America" and then have someone else, a lesser known, do the work for/with him.
I think your interpretation is more than a quantum leap of faith.
And, if you saw North Shore, you would have to say that almost everything about it reeks of CBM-SR-CB.
Should CBM be given co-design credit? If you believe he should could you please point the specific statement or statements in the minutes that leads you that direction?
Tom,
I am now convinced that you absolutely do not read what I write...
You wrote, "Like I said before you have some really bizarre logic. Are you under the impression those diagrams, reflecting the design, hanging in the office of the Harmonie Club, were drawn up the afternoon of March 13, 1915..." NO Tom, that is NOT what I wrote. Just go back on this same page and you will read this:
"4. On January 26, 1915, the Club approved plans by Raynor for a new golf course with $37,500.00 to be expended under supervision of the Greens Committee, subject to the approval of the President. Raynor was to be paid a fee of $1800.00 for carrying out this work." This is a direct quote from Steve's notes from the board minutes. The PLANS were complete by January 26, 1915. Why is that so difficult a thing for you to understand? You evidently don't because you followed your above statement with "The only thing we know for sure is that they were created sometime prior to March 13, 1915, actually before February when construction began..."
The PLANS were complete and presented to the members for a vote on January 26, 1915. That we know for a FACT.
I understand the plans were presented on January 26. I also understand those plans were hanging on the wall at the Harmonie Club in March, and those plans reflect the work of Raynor and White in laying out the course.
It was only AFTER the vote that the course was "laid out" and this was done by March 13, 1915. We know this because the membership had to APPROVE the use of the wooded area for the golf course as shown on the plans BEFORE the course could be laid out. That approval didn't occur until January 26, 1915.
You are confused. The course was not laid out twice. This is what it says about the woodland: "On December 23, 1914, the Club noted that a contract with White, pursuant to the action of the previous meeting of the Board, had been made, that progress had been made on the plan for a new golf course, taking the sense of the Board as to the possible use of the woods at the easterly end of the club property as part of such course." They approved the redesign plan on January 26. Logically we understand the redesign plan (i.e. the laying out of the course) took several days or weeks to evolve. We know that because they were working on it in December. Obviously the use of the woodlands was being considered when Raynor & White were laying out the course in December. There is no mention in the minutes of a specific approval for the use of the wooded land, they only asked the committee their sense or opinion. The only approval mentioned is the one for the overall plan, so once again your logic is bizarre.
As for your statement, "As I pointed out to Phil it is ridiculous to read that statement and take away that the green committee laid out the golf course. You have to approach these things with a certain amount of logic and intelligence..." Once again you simply miss that though you may want to INTERPRET what was written in the fashion that you are, it doesn't change the grammatical FACT that the sentence states that it was the Greens Committee who laid out the course.
Go ahead an interpret it that way, and the rest of us with our feet firmly planted on the ground will respectively read it a different way.
Is it a POORLY written sentence? YES! But that is what it says. Still, the Greens Committee DID have significant design input as can be shown by this statement from Steve's notes:
From December 23, 1914 - "... that progress had been made on the plan for a new golf course, taking the sense of the Board as to the possible use of the woods at the easterly end of the club property as part of such course."
Again that is consistent with their oversight role. White or White & Raynor were asking the board their opinion on the use of the wooded area. Asking if it would OK to use different parts of the property is not designing.
That sure sounds to me like it was the BOARD that made the DECISION to use that part of the property for the golf course and NOT Raynor, CBM, White or anyone else. Obviously it was based upon Raynor's recommended design as presented through the Greens Committee, yet still, the Board itself couldn't finalize this until the MEMBERSHIP APPROVED it on January 26, 1915.
Is this some kind of revelation? That is pretty standard fair with these types of project isn't it?
Please feel free to let me know once again how my logic on this, which is nothing more than going by what is contained in the OFFICIAL RECORD, is "bizarre," "ridiculas" or "confusing."
I prefer bizarre.
Finally, you asked my opinion on "Should CBM be given co-design credit?"
My opinion is that based solely on the records and information in the Harmonie Club and North Shore Club records that he should not. He is mentioned a single time and, in that case, as an expert in "construction" only. Too often you have demanded that absolute proofs be given on many threads when particular points have been made. You have required these to be contemporaneous and official. Well, here we have a contemporaneous and official statement found in the club's records that declares Raynor as the SOLE architect and CBM as an expert in construction... and nothing else.
Yes, that is a strict "interpretation" yet it also meets the facts as presented. The plans were set by January 26, 1915 with not even a hint of CBM involvement nor would there be until the course was ready to open. I believe that CBM simply toured the course during construction and gave some advice as to its building; at most, any design input would have been why not put a bunker here or there and not a "don't put the 14th hole there, put it over here and run it this way and change the 15th to meet it this way..."
That the club chooses to give CBM equal credit is certainly their right and my opinion that this was not a collaboration in any real sense of the word is simply that, an opinion.
Tom MacWood,
The quote you posted, which appears below, seems to attribute credit in a task specific manner.QuoteThe results secured are the product of the deep thought of Mr. Robert White, our greens expert, Mr. Seth J. Raynor, the leading Golf Architect in the United States, Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction, and the unremitting and well-considered work of our Greens Committee.”
That's one way to look at, but does it make sense that Raynor would be the architect and CBM in charge of construction? We already know White was involved in construction, so I don't think your reading is accurate. I read it differently, especially when they interject 'deep thought' into the statement. That tells me the three were collaborating on the design, and it must tell Mark, TEP, and just about everyone involved on this thread the same thing because they all agree that CBM deserves co-design credit.
By your interpretation of the above quote you supplied. you would have to give equal design credit to the green committee.
Thus, your position has to be that SR, CBM, RW and the entire committee routed and designed the golf course.
Again one must approach these things with a certain amount of logic and intelligence. It is ridiculous to believe the green committee laid the course with Raynor and White, and it is ridiculous to believe the green committee was actively involved in designing the golf course. From all the entries it is obvious they were only involved in oversight.
That's really conjecture on your part and a rejection of your own theory on co-credit based on your quote which I cited.
MY interpretation is that SR & CBM were involved in the design.
To what respective degree I don't know.
I think that Robert White's role was one centered on agronomy, not design efforts.
Can you imagine CBM accepting design imput/directions from Robert White ?
I can't.
SR and CBM were a team, so I can see a collaborative effort from them, I just can't attribute absolute percentages.
But, it's clear, North Shore retained SR as their architect.
I suspect that CBM and SR consulted on design issues. I don't suspect that Robert White's attempt at design recommendations would be accepted by either SR, the contracted GCA or CBM.
Should CBM be given co-design credit?
Generally, I'd say NO, but, in the case of SR and CBM, both of whom were working on the project, the idea that they didn't collaborate would seem far fetched to unrealistic.
However, SR was the contracted architect, therefore, he and he alone should be the sole architect of record.
If you believe he should could you please point the specific statement or statements in the minutes that leads you that direction?
Minutes don't always reflect the entirety of the situation or project.
SR and CBM had a unique relationship which is a matter of record.
To imply that CBM was univolved in any aspect of the design is naive at best.
Are you stating that SR NEVER spoke to CBM about design issues at North Shore ?
And that nothing CBM ever said regarding features, routing and design never made it into the final product ?
By your own test, could you please point out the specific statement or statements in the minutes that leads you to believe that Robert White offered up design concepts, features and routings that were accepted by SR and incorporated into the final product ?
I don't see any evidence of it happening.
You WANT to see it happening, and I think that's a difference in our perspectives
Tom MacWood,
The quote you posted, which appears below, seems to attribute credit in a task specific manner.QuoteThe results secured are the product of the deep thought of Mr. Robert White, our greens expert, Mr. Seth J. Raynor, the leading Golf Architect in the United States, Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction, and the unremitting and well-considered work of our Greens Committee.”
That's one way to look at, but does it make sense that Raynor would be the architect and CBM in charge of construction? We already know White was involved in construction, so I don't think your reading is accurate. I read it differently, especially when they interject 'deep thought' into the statement. That tells me the three were collaborating on the design, and it must tell Mark, TEP, and just about everyone involved on this thread the same thing because they all agree that CBM deserves co-design credit.
By your interpretation of the above quote you supplied. you would have to give equal design credit to the green committee.
Thus, your position has to be that SR, CBM, RW and the entire committee routed and designed the golf course.
Again one must approach these things with a certain amount of logic and intelligence. It is ridiculous to believe the green committee laid the course with Raynor and White, and it is ridiculous to believe the green committee was actively involved in designing the golf course. From all the entries it is obvious they were only involved in oversight.
That's really conjecture on your part and a rejection of your own theory on co-credit based on your quote which I cited.
MY interpretation is that SR & CBM were involved in the design.
To what respective degree I don't know.
I think that Robert White's role was one centered on agronomy, not design efforts.
Can you imagine CBM accepting design imput/directions from Robert White ?
I can't.
SR and CBM were a team, so I can see a collaborative effort from them, I just can't attribute absolute percentages.
But, it's clear, North Shore retained SR as their architect.
I suspect that CBM and SR consulted on design issues. I don't suspect that Robert White's attempt at design recommendations would be accepted by either SR, the contracted GCA or CBM.
Should CBM be given co-design credit?
Generally, I'd say NO, but, in the case of SR and CBM, both of whom were working on the project, the idea that they didn't collaborate would seem far fetched to unrealistic.
However, SR was the contracted architect, therefore, he and he alone should be the sole architect of record.
If you believe he should could you please point the specific statement or statements in the minutes that leads you that direction?
Minutes don't always reflect the entirety of the situation or project.
SR and CBM had a unique relationship which is a matter of record.
To imply that CBM was univolved in any aspect of the design is naive at best.
Are you stating that SR NEVER spoke to CBM about design issues at North Shore ?
And that nothing CBM ever said regarding features, routing and design never made it into the final product ?
By your own test, could you please point out the specific statement or statements in the minutes that leads you to believe that Robert White offered up design concepts, features and routings that were accepted by SR and incorporated into the final product ?
I don't see any evidence of it happening.
You WANT to see it happening, and I think that's a difference in our perspectives
Jeff,
In respect to Mark Hissey's wonderful summation I wasn't planning on posting again to this thread, but I felt that something you stated needed clarification. Regarding White at Shawnee you stated, "In rereading, I had also forgotten that White was apparently at Shawnee in a similar capacity in 1913. So, he liked pro jobs where he got involved in construction and good for him..."
That isn't accurate. Shawnee was redesigned and expanded by 500+ yards in 1912-13. Both the design and construction work was overseen by Tilly personally. White was hired AFTER all the work was done and as Tilly himself wrote, "the turf was turned over to him." White was a turf expert and there had been turf problems on the course from the first day of the original course opening in May of 1911. He did absolutely NO CONSTRUCTION WORK, whether personally or overseeing work crews, while at Shawnee.
Earlier in the thread Tom Macwood insisted that White not only oversaw construction work there but actually did a joint redesign with Tilly. He was wrong on both accounts and I both pointed it out and provided the proof. In fact, you should go back and take a look at the discussion because White's "redesign" of Ravisloe was also discussed. Interestingly, what was presented as a major project was described by White himself just a few months before he left to go to Shawnee as being minor in scope saying that the "greens had remained virtually unchanged since 1902..." So his design experience in 1915 was quite limited, especially in comparison with Raynor...
Jeff,
This is from Tilly's "Hazard" Column in the November 1913 issue of the American Golfer announcing White's hiring. He began work there in November:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/WhiteatShawnee11-1913.jpg)
Note that the construction mentioned is done and that the lay-out was "given over to him to turf."
You can find a good deal more information about this 1912-13 reconstruction by Tilly on the Tillinghast Association website in the latest issue of Tillinghast Illustrated.
http://i.pga.com/pga/images/events/2006/anniversary/pdf/April_Newsletter.pdf
The quote is in a text box about White on Page 38. I wonder if its possible that they really wrote that he worked closely with Ross at Wykagl, but read for yourself.....
While Donald Ross would be more well known in golf circles with 413 courses he designed, White also was considered one of the top architects of the day. In 1923, for example, White redesigned Ross’ original work at Wykagyl. Working closely with Ross, White later designed the Ocean Forest Club – today known as Pine Lakes International Country Club – the first golf course in Myrtle Beach, S.C., in 1927. Along with Ross, White became a founding member of the American Society of Golf Course Architects in 1946.
Another one of those latter day articles where we wonder if the author (or comma editor) has it exactly right? Should it have read:
In 1923, for example, White redesigned Ross’ original work at Wykagyl , working closely with Ross . White later designed the Ocean Forest Club – today known as Pine Lakes International Country Club – the first golf course in Myrtle Beach, S.C., in 1927.
BTW, a few other well known gca types are also in that article as founding fathers of the PGA.
Tom,
I didn't state that White was simply a turf expert, nor did I say that he had NO design experience, just that he was PRIMARILY and most notably known as a greenkeeper and turf expert. I disagreed with your assertion that he was at least equal to if not more experienced than Raynor was at the time. That was why I quoted from what White himself wrote about Ravisloe and how he also titled himself as "greenkeeper" and not even as a golf professional when writing that and other articles.
As for your statement that White was invovled in both design and construction at Shawnee; it is back in the early pages of this thread which is why I also posted that same Tilly article and other information on it. If you don't remember doing so you can either believe me or look it up yourself... ;D
Tom MacWood,
The quote you posted, which appears below, seems to attribute credit in a task specific manner.QuoteThe results secured are the product of the deep thought of Mr. Robert White, our greens expert, Mr. Seth J. Raynor, the leading Golf Architect in the United States, Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction, and the unremitting and well-considered work of our Greens Committee.”
That's one way to look at, but does it make sense that Raynor would be the architect and CBM in charge of construction? We already know White was involved in construction, so I don't think your reading is accurate. I read it differently, especially when they interject 'deep thought' into the statement. That tells me the three were collaborating on the design, and it must tell Mark, TEP, and just about everyone involved on this thread the same thing because they all agree that CBM deserves co-design credit.
By your interpretation of the above quote you supplied. you would have to give equal design credit to the green committee.
Thus, your position has to be that SR, CBM, RW and the entire committee routed and designed the golf course.
Again one must approach these things with a certain amount of logic and intelligence. It is ridiculous to believe the green committee laid the course with Raynor and White, and it is ridiculous to believe the green committee was actively involved in designing the golf course. From all the entries it is obvious they were only involved in oversight.
That's really conjecture on your part and a rejection of your own theory on co-credit based on your quote which I cited.
MY interpretation is that SR & CBM were involved in the design.
To what respective degree I don't know.
I think that Robert White's role was one centered on agronomy, not design efforts.
Can you imagine CBM accepting design imput/directions from Robert White ?
I can't.
SR and CBM were a team, so I can see a collaborative effort from them, I just can't attribute absolute percentages.
But, it's clear, North Shore retained SR as their architect.
I suspect that CBM and SR consulted on design issues. I don't suspect that Robert White's attempt at design recommendations would be accepted by either SR, the contracted GCA or CBM.
Should CBM be given co-design credit?
Generally, I'd say NO, but, in the case of SR and CBM, both of whom were working on the project, the idea that they didn't collaborate would seem far fetched to unrealistic.
However, SR was the contracted architect, therefore, he and he alone should be the sole architect of record.
If you believe he should could you please point the specific statement or statements in the minutes that leads you that direction?
Minutes don't always reflect the entirety of the situation or project.
SR and CBM had a unique relationship which is a matter of record.
To imply that CBM was univolved in any aspect of the design is naive at best.
Are you stating that SR NEVER spoke to CBM about design issues at North Shore ?
And that nothing CBM ever said regarding features, routing and design never made it into the final product ?
By your own test, could you please point out the specific statement or statements in the minutes that leads you to believe that Robert White offered up design concepts, features and routings that were accepted by SR and incorporated into the final product ?
I don't see any evidence of it happening.
You WANT to see it happening, and I think that's a difference in our perspectives
Pat
In your previous post you said if Robert White was a functional architect he would have been given credit as a functional architect. Then you pointed to the quote that said he was the greens expert and Raynor was the leading golf architect in America. First of all do you believe Raynor was the leading golf architect in America at the time?
Whether or not I believe SR as "THE" leading architect in America is unimportant, what's important is that North Shore chose to describe him as such.
I do believe that he was one of "THE" leading architects in America at that time.
And second if you are not going to give credit to White because of this quote saying he is greens expert, why are you giving design credit to CBM when this quote says his function is construction? You cannot have it both ways.
Yes, I can, and for good reason.
CBM and SR were a team.
They were closely aligned in design, construction and life itself.
To categorize White's collaboration with Raynor in the same context as CBM's collaboration with Raynor is absurd.
Raynor and Macdonald had a very special relationship, as kindred fellows and design associates.
White was an "outsider" to both of them.
Yes, I can see CBM accepting design input from White, just as I can see him accepting design input from Raynor, Whigham, Low, Hutchinson, Foulis, Emmet, Travis, Adaire, Lees, Sutherland, Colt and whole host of others.
Tom, you're being naive or duplicitous, CBM and Raynor were incredibly close, and you know that.
Whigham was CBM's son-in-law.
Emmett and Travis were fellow club members.
White was an outsider.
CBM bounced Travis as an advisor at NGLA.
I don't see him discarding his and Raynor's design theories in favor of White's, at North Shore or anywhere else.
On this issue, you're grasping at straws, inflating White's role beyond reason.
It is conjecture on my part that the green committee did not lay out the golf course and the green committee was not actively involved in designing the golf course....logical, well reasoned conjecture. However it is not conjecture on my part that green committee's primary role was oversight. That is what green committees do and the minutes back that up. By the way this entire thread, including your posts, is full of conjecture....everyone has been engaged in conjecture.
Tom, I think your lack of experience in terms of understanding the relationship of the architect retained for a design project and the green committee is unduly influencing your judgement.
In this situation you have CBM, the father or American architecture, a titan in the golf world, and his partner, and almost equally respected architect, declared by North Shore to be America's leading architect, and you're going to tell me that the green committee oversaw their work in terms of the artistic license delegated to CBM and SR ? ? ?
I'll guarantee you that the members of the green committee didn't have a clue when it came to routing, feature design, placement and configuration and agronomy.
Their oversight was limited to being members of the committee, not active participants in the design efforts.
Unless you think that they actively participated in every design and construction decision, in which case you'd be as naive as one can get in these matters.
CBM and SR weren't local boys starting out in the design business, they were the icons of American golf, the leading architects in America, and CBM was a TITAN in American golf, and not one to be influenced by the whims of unknowledgeable, less capable green committement.
I haven't read the contract, but, I'd be surprised if it didn't give SR-CBM complete artistic license.
Obviously Raynor spoke to CBM, they were associates, and obviously Raynor spoke to White, they were both actively involved in the project, in fact the minutes tell us they laid out the course together.
That's your intrepretation of the minutes, not mine and certainly not others.
I find your intrepretation unreasoned and imprudent.
“The results secured are the product of the deep thought of Mr. Robert White, our greens expert, Mr. Seth J. Raynor, the leading Golf Architect in the United States, Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction, and the unremitting and well-considered work of our Greens Committee.”
I'm glad you produced that quote again.
Look at it carefully, the minutes refer to the "RESULTS", not the course, not the routing, not the holes, but the entire project.
And, what role do those minutes ASSIGN to Robert White for his role in the project., that of an AGRONOMIST, not an architect, not a contractor, but, a GREENS EXPERT, and NOTHING MORE.
You can insist that he helped, co-authored, or advised on the design and routing, but, the minutes, read with the logic of the "prudent man" rule, would nullify your position.
The minutes are crystal clear to me.
SETH RAYNOR, the man they called the "leading architect in America", designed North Shore.
“I know that I am only voicing the sentiment of all our members in expressing gratification at the result accomplished, which has, at one bound, placed us in line with the golf links recognized as the best in the United States. We, of course, were greatly favored in the matter by the remarkable natural advantages offered by our land, but no results like those accomplished could have been achieved without the genius of those mainly responsible namely: Mr. Seth J. Raynor, Mr C.B. McDonald and Mr. Robert White.”
Again, the above statement references the RESULT, a combination of design, construction and agronomy and they thank each party for their respective roles, with Robert White's role being that of the agronomist, the "GREENS EXPERT", not the architect or contractor, Raynor and Macdonald.
You're reading far too much into White's role.
He was the "Greens Expert", not the architect, and the minutes are careful and specifically point that out.
YOU are the only one interpreting it otherwise.
These are the only two mentions of CBM being involved at North Shore. Are these quotes what led you to believe CBM deserved some design credit?
If you want to ignore the depth and breadth of CBM's and SR's relationship, which you apparently do, I suppose you could theorize that CBM and SR NEVER spoke to one another about any design, feature or routing concept.
I don't happen to adhere to that theory, since I believe that I do understand the relationship between SR and CBM.
If you want to ignore and deny it, that's OK, but, that's contrary to conventional wisdom and smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
Phil posted an article saying that Tillie did the work and turned it over at Shawnee......
Tom MacWood,
The quote you posted, which appears below, seems to attribute credit in a task specific manner.QuoteThe results secured are the product of the deep thought of Mr. Robert White, our greens expert, Mr. Seth J. Raynor, the leading Golf Architect in the United States, Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction, and the unremitting and well-considered work of our Greens Committee.”
That's one way to look at, but does it make sense that Raynor would be the architect and CBM in charge of construction? We already know White was involved in construction, so I don't think your reading is accurate. I read it differently, especially when they interject 'deep thought' into the statement. That tells me the three were collaborating on the design, and it must tell Mark, TEP, and just about everyone involved on this thread the same thing because they all agree that CBM deserves co-design credit.
By your interpretation of the above quote you supplied. you would have to give equal design credit to the green committee.
Thus, your position has to be that SR, CBM, RW and the entire committee routed and designed the golf course.
Again one must approach these things with a certain amount of logic and intelligence. It is ridiculous to believe the green committee laid the course with Raynor and White, and it is ridiculous to believe the green committee was actively involved in designing the golf course. From all the entries it is obvious they were only involved in oversight.
That's really conjecture on your part and a rejection of your own theory on co-credit based on your quote which I cited.
MY interpretation is that SR & CBM were involved in the design.
To what respective degree I don't know.
I think that Robert White's role was one centered on agronomy, not design efforts.
Can you imagine CBM accepting design imput/directions from Robert White ?
I can't.
SR and CBM were a team, so I can see a collaborative effort from them, I just can't attribute absolute percentages.
But, it's clear, North Shore retained SR as their architect.
I suspect that CBM and SR consulted on design issues. I don't suspect that Robert White's attempt at design recommendations would be accepted by either SR, the contracted GCA or CBM.
Should CBM be given co-design credit?
Generally, I'd say NO, but, in the case of SR and CBM, both of whom were working on the project, the idea that they didn't collaborate would seem far fetched to unrealistic.
However, SR was the contracted architect, therefore, he and he alone should be the sole architect of record.
If you believe he should could you please point the specific statement or statements in the minutes that leads you that direction?
Minutes don't always reflect the entirety of the situation or project.
SR and CBM had a unique relationship which is a matter of record.
To imply that CBM was univolved in any aspect of the design is naive at best.
Are you stating that SR NEVER spoke to CBM about design issues at North Shore ?
And that nothing CBM ever said regarding features, routing and design never made it into the final product ?
By your own test, could you please point out the specific statement or statements in the minutes that leads you to believe that Robert White offered up design concepts, features and routings that were accepted by SR and incorporated into the final product ?
I don't see any evidence of it happening.
You WANT to see it happening, and I think that's a difference in our perspectives
Pat
In your previous post you said if Robert White was a functional architect he would have been given credit as a functional architect. Then you pointed to the quote that said he was the greens expert and Raynor was the leading golf architect in America. First of all do you believe Raynor was the leading golf architect in America at the time?
Whether or not I believe SR as "THE" leading architect in America is unimportant, what's important is that North Shore chose to describe him as such.
I do believe that he was one of "THE" leading architects in America at that time.
And second if you are not going to give credit to White because of this quote saying he is greens expert, why are you giving design credit to CBM when this quote says his function is construction? You cannot have it both ways.
Yes, I can, and for good reason.
CBM and SR were a team.
They were closely aligned in design, construction and life itself.
To categorize White's collaboration with Raynor in the same context as CBM's collaboration with Raynor is absurd.
Raynor and Macdonald had a very special relationship, as kindred fellows and design associates.
White was an "outsider" to both of them.
Yes, I can see CBM accepting design input from White, just as I can see him accepting design input from Raynor, Whigham, Low, Hutchinson, Foulis, Emmet, Travis, Adaire, Lees, Sutherland, Colt and whole host of others.
Tom, you're being naive or duplicitous, CBM and Raynor were incredibly close, and you know that.
Whigham was CBM's son-in-law.
Emmett and Travis were fellow club members.
White was an outsider.
CBM bounced Travis as an advisor at NGLA.
I don't see him discarding his and Raynor's design theories in favor of White's, at North Shore or anywhere else.
On this issue, you're grasping at straws, inflating White's role beyond reason.
It is conjecture on my part that the green committee did not lay out the golf course and the green committee was not actively involved in designing the golf course....logical, well reasoned conjecture. However it is not conjecture on my part that green committee's primary role was oversight. That is what green committees do and the minutes back that up. By the way this entire thread, including your posts, is full of conjecture....everyone has been engaged in conjecture.
Tom, I think your lack of experience in terms of understanding the relationship of the architect retained for a design project and the green committee is unduly influencing your judgement.
In this situation you have CBM, the father or American architecture, a titan in the golf world, and his partner, and almost equally respected architect, declared by North Shore to be America's leading architect, and you're going to tell me that the green committee oversaw their work in terms of the artistic license delegated to CBM and SR ? ? ?
I'll guarantee you that the members of the green committee didn't have a clue when it came to routing, feature design, placement and configuration and agronomy.
Their oversight was limited to being members of the committee, not active participants in the design efforts.
Unless you think that they actively participated in every design and construction decision, in which case you'd be as naive as one can get in these matters.
CBM and SR weren't local boys starting out in the design business, they were the icons of American golf, the leading architects in America, and CBM was a TITAN in American golf, and not one to be influenced by the whims of unknowledgeable, less capable green committement.
I haven't read the contract, but, I'd be surprised if it didn't give SR-CBM complete artistic license.
Obviously Raynor spoke to CBM, they were associates, and obviously Raynor spoke to White, they were both actively involved in the project, in fact the minutes tell us they laid out the course together.
That's your intrepretation of the minutes, not mine and certainly not others.
I find your intrepretation unreasoned and imprudent.
“The results secured are the product of the deep thought of Mr. Robert White, our greens expert, Mr. Seth J. Raynor, the leading Golf Architect in the United States, Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, the recognized authority among amateurs on golf course construction, and the unremitting and well-considered work of our Greens Committee.”
I'm glad you produced that quote again.
Look at it carefully, the minutes refer to the "RESULTS", not the course, not the routing, not the holes, but the entire project.
And, what role do those minutes ASSIGN to Robert White for his role in the project., that of an AGRONOMIST, not an architect, not a contractor, but, a GREENS EXPERT, and NOTHING MORE.
You can insist that he helped, co-authored, or advised on the design and routing, but, the minutes, read with the logic of the "prudent man" rule, would nullify your position.
The minutes are crystal clear to me.
SETH RAYNOR, the man they called the "leading architect in America", designed North Shore.
“I know that I am only voicing the sentiment of all our members in expressing gratification at the result accomplished, which has, at one bound, placed us in line with the golf links recognized as the best in the United States. We, of course, were greatly favored in the matter by the remarkable natural advantages offered by our land, but no results like those accomplished could have been achieved without the genius of those mainly responsible namely: Mr. Seth J. Raynor, Mr C.B. McDonald and Mr. Robert White.”
Again, the above statement references the RESULT, a combination of design, construction and agronomy and they thank each party for their respective roles, with Robert White's role being that of the agronomist, the "GREENS EXPERT", not the architect or contractor, Raynor and Macdonald.
You're reading far too much into White's role.
He was the "Greens Expert", not the architect, and the minutes are careful and specifically point that out.
YOU are the only one interpreting it otherwise.
These are the only two mentions of CBM being involved at North Shore. Are these quotes what led you to believe CBM deserved some design credit?
If you want to ignore the depth and breadth of CBM's and SR's relationship, which you apparently do, I suppose you could theorize that CBM and SR NEVER spoke to one another about any design, feature or routing concept.
I don't happen to adhere to that theory, since I believe that I do understand the relationship between SR and CBM.
If you want to ignore and deny it, that's OK, but, that's contrary to conventional wisdom and smacks of intellectual dishonesty.
Tom,
You simply cannot read what is in front of your eyes. You criticize me for using the word "insist" and yet you still refuse to admit that you both stated that White was brought to Shawnee SPECIFICALLY to "make some changes" and then refer to an article which I posted as proof of this assertion despite the fact that it says exactly the opposite.
Read it again... It states that he was hired and would start work immediately. It refers to cvahnges to the course ALREADY MADE and then Tilly states that the course was now turned over to him to... wait... TURF! Not make changes too, but to TURF! And what did Tilly call him? The new GREENKEEPER!
He was hired to oversee the day-in and out care of the course and this included the NEW TURF GROW-IN ONLY! No changes... none at all...
That you still refuse to admit this despite the evidence CLEARLY proves that you are INSISTING...
As for his being invovled in the "changes at Ravisloe," I never said that he wasn't involved. I stated that he was not invovled with a MAJOR REDESIGN ARCHITECTURALLY of the course and I used his own words to prove it. You can look that one up as it is on the first few pages as well. It's the araticle he wrote where he, himself, titled it as GREENKEEPER at Ravisloe and stated that the greens had not been substantially changed since the work done in 1902...
Pat
So your function theory only applies to White, and not to CBM?
To think otherwise is to deny the substantive connection between SR and CBM, two men who are inextricably entwined in the art/process of GCA.
It would appear Raynor, CBM, and White were a team too since the only two mentions of CBM also give the others equal credit.
That's an absurd conclusion.
They weren't a team. White and Raynor were involved in a joint venture where each party was chosen for their respective expertise, totally seperate disciplines. White for Agronomy and Raynor for Architecture.
I don't think it is that absurd to credit White seeing that he is credited with Raynor in laying out the golf course.
NO, he's not. That's your agenda driven interpretation of the passages presented.
Was CBM involved in laying out the golf course?
I'll ask you again, since you failed to answer this question previously.
Understanding the close professional relationship between SR and CBM, are you stating that CBM NEVER spoke to SR regarding routing, feature and hole designs ?
A simple YES or NO will suffice.
Regarding who CBM would or wouldn't listen to you obviously believe you have some special insight into his career.
I do.
I speak to him and SR everytime I visit their cemetery in Southampton
What's comical about your position is that it hinges upon the denial on your part of their relationship
Are you familiar with those names I mentioned and their connection to CBM?
For example how is John Sutherland connected to CBM?
John Sutherland and any relationship he had with CBM is irrelevant for the purpose of any discussion regarding North Shore.
Do you know of anyone who had CBM's ear, equal to or more than SR ?
Was CBM the kind of person/personality who would accept recommendations on GCA, especially unsolicited recommendations ?.
The titan of golf architecture was mentioned on an equal basis with Raynor and White, twice.
And in one case the titan of golf architecture was characterized as the titan of golf course construction.
You quoted two articles/minutes, and CBM was mentioned in both of them.
I'd say he's batting 1,000.
I'm not ignoring the depth and breadth of Raynor & CBM's relationship, just the opposite. I've always acknowledged it. I was the first person on this thread to say CBM's involvement may have been much greater that what had been acknowledged at the time. I'm trying to give credit is due, and obviously the powers that be at NS felt credit was due to all three.
Agreed, but, for DIFFERENT reasons, for different disciplines.
The powers that be couldn't have been clearer, they stated that White's do was for Agronomy, as the "Greens Expert", NOT the architect.
They gave credit to RAYNOR for the ARCHITECTURE and to MACDONALD for the CONSTRUCTION.
The RECORD, the MINUTES couldn't be clearer.
Each man was recognized for his contribution and White's contribution was NOT in the realm of ARCHITECTURE, it was in the realm of agronomy as a a "greens expert", not a contractor or architect.
You are operating under a double standard.
NO, I'm not.
I'm operating on the basis of the factually established professional golf course architecture, surveying and construction relationship Raynor and Macdonald enjoyed.
You want to seperate and isolate them as if their partnership never existed.
And, you want to force the insertion of White as an equal in the design and construction of North Shore.
Neither of which are supported by the record and minutes.
You're the one with the flawed interpretation and conclusions.
Obviously Raynor spoke to CBM, they were associates, and obviously Raynor spoke to White, they were both actively involved in the project, in fact the minutes tell us they laid out the course together.
Pat
Active and intelligent cooperation is going along for the ride? You're an idiot.
My reading comprehension skills are equal or better than yours.
Your agenda demands that you interpret the record/minutes in White's favor.
I have no agenda.
The record/minutes clearly describes White's role. He was the Agronomist, the "Greens Expert", not the architect.
The job title of "architect" is clearly set forth in the record/minutes and assigned to Raynor.
And no amount of insistance on your part can change the record/minutes.
Had North Shore wanted to provide architectural credit to White, they would have been crystal clear in doing so.
Instead, they chose to credit White with agronomic involvement and specifically credit Raynor with the design of the golf course. [/b]
You once again INSISTED "'By the way Robert White was hired by Shawnee in 1913 (the course opened in 1911) to make some changes, after he had been involved in major changes at Ravisloe with William Watson and Aleck Brauer. Are you certain Tilly was involved in the Shawnee changes in 1913?'... Jeff, This is what I wrote..."
Joe,
Interesting to note that these articles were published AFTER Raynor was initially hired by NS in November, 1914 and his plans were approved in January, 1915.
However, the articles do not state White designed the course.
Raynor needed a better PR person.
Steve
In the second article it says "The scheme of the course as planned by the golf committee and Mr. White..."
Joe,
Interesting to note that these articles were published AFTER Raynor was initially hired by NS in November, 1914 and his plans were approved in January, 1915.
However, the articles do not state White designed the course.
Raynor needed a better PR person.
Steve
In the second article it says "The scheme of the course as planned by the golf committee and Mr. White..."
Tom MacWood,
If the basis for your position, which is that White designed or had substantive design imput at North Shore, is rooted in the above citation, then, logically, it has to follow that your position has maintains that neither Raynor nor Macdonald had anything to do with the design of North Shore since they're specifically excluded from that citation, AND, that the "golf committee" deserves equal credit in designing the golf course, to the exclusion of SR and CBM.
Since you've used the above citation as the foundation, or cornerstone of your position, you would have us believe that in 1914, a golf committee, composed of inexperienced novices in the realm of GCA, designed North Shore.
And, incredulously, this golf committee of neophytes, in 1914, routed and designed North Shore to include incredible replicas of the Eden hole, Plateau, double Plateau, Road Hole, Redan, Cape and punchbowl, without any input from SR or CBM.
You can't have it both ways.
If you insist that the above citation is proof that the Golf Committee and Robert White designed North Shore then Raynor and Macdonald couldn't have had anything to do with the design since they're excluded/omitted from the citation.
Now I know, according to you, that I'm an idiot, but, if you're going to use that citation as the basis for your position because it specifically names the two parties as having conceptualized the scheme of the course vis a vis the planning of the golf committee and Robert White, then you have to exclude Raynor and Macdonald from the process because the article excludes them from any involvement.
Now I know, according to you, that I'm an idiot, but, if you're going to use that citation as the basis for your position because it specifically names the two parties as having conceptualized the scheme of the course vis a vis the planning of the golf committee and Robert White, then you have to exclude Raynor and Macdonald from the process because the article excludes them from any involvement.
Interestingly, it seems like Tom Macwood has equated White at North Shore with his opinion of Wilson at Merion...am I correct Tom?
Now I know, according to you, that I'm an idiot, but, if you're going to use that citation as the basis for your position because it specifically names the two parties as having conceptualized the scheme of the course vis a vis the planning of the golf committee and Robert White, then you have to exclude Raynor and Macdonald from the process because the article excludes them from any involvement.
I don't have to do anything of the sort.
Unlike you I approach these things with intelligence.
Your writings contradict the above statement.
North Shore indicated in clear, concise terms that Raynor was their architect.
The contract they signed was with Raynor.
Yet, you ignore what any intelligent individual sees, claiming instead that a man North Shore cited as their agronomist, their greens expert, is responsible.
And, you make these claims, NEVER having seen the golf course which is so Raynoresque that even Ray Charles would recognize his work.
I don't allow my emotions to get the best of me, to be overly influenced by one particular bit of information or the reputation one architect over another.
I can't speak to whether or not your emotions get the best of you, but it seems that your ego may..
Hamlet I, iii.
I remain consistent in my belief that Raynor, White, & CBM all deserve credit for the redesign at NS, and let us not forget Emmet's original layout.
The record/minutes provide sufficient evidence that Raynor did the redesign.
And, perhaps the greatest evidence of all that Raynor designed North Shore, irrefutable evidence is what's in the ground.
And I've seen what's in the ground and you haven't.
So, which is the more intelligent position ?
It was a collaboration.
Mike
Did you see post #835? The second article from 7/26/1915 says: "The scheme of the course as planned by the golf committee and Mr. White..."
Its unlikely you will find anything written by Raynor acknowledging White. Raynor did not write. Likewise its unlikely you will find anything written by CBM either, he rarely if ever mentioned projects where he just advised. The most likely scenerio would be White acknowledging the other two. From the very beginning, for whatever reason, White seems to be the star of the show at North Shore. He is mentioned prominently in just about all the contemporaneous articles.
It was a collaboration.
Agreed, with each man having a seperate role, which North Shore acknowledged.
White's role was as the "greens expert" and Raynor's as the architect.
I'm glad we finally agree.
...... even though you might label it another conspiracy theory to promote the legend of one architect over someone else as you have with other architects, clubs and courses such as Pine Valley, Merion, Myopia et al.
You said above you come at these subjects with objectivity and intelligence, but it seems that opinion is only yours and it seems to also be a minority opinion of one.
Likewise its unlikely you will find anything written by CBM either, he rarely if ever mentioned projects where he just advised.
Mike
Did you see post #835? The second article from 7/26/1915 says: "The scheme of the course as planned by the golf committee and Mr. White..."
Its unlikely you will find anything written by Raynor acknowledging White. Raynor did not write. Likewise its unlikely you will find anything written by CBM either, he rarely if ever mentioned projects where he just advised. The most likely scenerio would be White acknowledging the other two. From the very beginning, for whatever reason, White seems to be the star of the show at North Shore. He is mentioned prominently in just about all the contemporaneous articles.
No I did not, but now I have and without reading every post and now leaving for the day, I would say you have a valid argument that White should get some credit - either design or development, not sure. Those two articles from Joe, cast it in a different light for me. Not sure if they are new to others. Clearly he was more than the club pro and/or greenskeeper.
The fact that he seemed to be fired from the club should be taken into consideration - honestly not sure how as it was a different era and the club nor White probably wanted too much said about it.
TMac,
Again, I think I understand where you are coming from, even if you are a stubborn army of one in the battle over attribution. But, if you want to wage the war, I suggest you come up with some other evidence than newspaper quotes, like specific differences in bunker styles, hole templates, etc., that are different from what Raynor nomally did in a big way. That would better prove some design influence by White, but I think we have gone as far as we can in parsing words in the minutes and newspaper articles we have already seen, no?
Likewise its unlikely you will find anything written by CBM either, he rarely if ever mentioned projects where he just advised.
Hallelujah, Tom MacWood....it's about time you acknowledged that fact.
Watching the hockey games last night I heard an oft repeated statement by the announcers that players need to keep moving their feet or they get penalties for basically being a bit lazy. At this point, I think TMac has stopped moving his feet. If I were referee of this thread, TMac would get two minutes in the box!
My feet are moving fine, and so is my mind. This post is a bit bizarre I must say. Maybe you are upset because lately I mostly ignore your posts because you have been wrong so often for so long. If there was prize for misinformation and not getting the facts straight you would have won it a long time ago. There was time when I would correct you, and correct you, and correct you....but fatigue set in and now I ignore.
While he is good at unearthing documents, he has stopped doing that, in essence, hooking on to one or two unclear documents to make a point, rather than finding any good info to make his point, or visiting the course to see what is really there. There are logistical reasons for that, but I don't think he cares enough about the subject (neither do we) to really pursue it in a correct way, like Mark Hissey did in unearthing new documents from the archives that for whatever reason, never were looked at in attributing the course. Which is what makes the continuing argument ridiculous on all our parts. This thread was great in unearthing the real designer of NS to correct past misconceptions, and the historical work was done the correct way, which somehow, hasn't made a difference in how we interact.
I'm hooking on to the same documents that the club has hooked on to, and I don't recall you criticizing the club for giving co-design credit to CBM (although I could be wrong because I don't read many of your posts). There is more support for White's involvement (including laying out the course with Raynor) in those documents than there is for CBM. That being said there is more than enough evidence IMO to support all three's involvement.
Going back to the lawywer analogy, I look at most of what TMac has presented here as deflecting tactics. It is true that White had previous and later experience in design, but that was elsewhere. It is true that he also spent a lot of time researching turf and agronomy leading him to be involved in construction a lot. It is true that there are some attribution issues at other courses. My point is that TMac is using flaws and facts at other places to make an argument specifically for NS and considering that as a logical, unemotional approach, while we are all supposedly emotionally attached to legends. So, he ignores (except for one post, which he seems to forget) the primary data such as contracts that show who did what at NS, and will likely continue to argue, because there can be endless deflection based on each new sentence found to parse.
Deflecting tactics? I think you are watching too much Perry Mason in your down time.
So, we can't win unless Tom Doak blows the place up, in which case, we can then attribut the new course to him.........although TMac will probably still claim it should be an Emmet design because there may be one blade of grass untouched somewhere.....sometimes, you can just want to cut the beef to thin, and I think this is a case of that.
Breaking news...
Every golf course construction project,new or renovation or restoration, is a "collaboration" between the developer/owner or members and the architect/designer and the project architect/course superintendent/golf professional and the workers who built the course. The question remains as to credit. Here, Raynor was hired to design,White was hired to supervise construction and was the golf professional,the Greens Committee oversaw them both and the club thanked them all and mentioned MacDonald for good measure.
No doubt White, MacDonald and the members of the Greens Commmittee made "suggestions" to Raynor. What they were and if they were implemented, we'll never know. All we know is that "template holes" were used in the design- a trademark of MacDonald courses and the contemporary and later Raynor courses.
I prefer Jeff Brauer's analysis above and I'm sticking with the designation given by the new owner- Raynor/MacDonald.
Oh my God, Now T Mac has White "routing" North Shore...
Steve, Jeff, Pat and TEP, will you PLEASE stop arguing with this guy?????
Oh my God, Now T Mac has White "routing" North Shore...
Steve, Jeff, Pat and TEP, will you PLEASE stop arguing with this guy?????
"The matter has received the careful attention of your Greens Committee, who with the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent cooperation[/size] of our professional, Mr. Robert White, have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagrams in the office of the Harmonie Club and which in the opinion of experts should develop into as good a course as could be found in any part of the United States."
Tom, you can't analyze the above quote in a vacuum, insulated and isolated from all others, you have to include the other descriptiive quotes that provide attribution for each discipline.
The word "cooperation" doesn't connote or convey co-authorship to Robert White.
You keep trying to force that interpretation when it simply doesn't exist.
North Shore has some very steep slopes.
If Raynor routed the course, would he not consult with Robert White to inquire as to whether or not grass would grow on those steep slopes.
If Robert White indicated that his assessment indicated that those steep slopes could tolerate grass, would White not be deemed to have COOPERATED with Raynor ?
Would that make him an equal or even a participant in the routing, hole and feature designs ? I think not.
In another excerpt, North Shore identified their architect, Raynor, and, they identified Robert White's role, that of "Greens Expert"
I think it's fairly clear, that absent additional information, White's role was confined to agronomy and not to GCA.
While I admire your discoveries, I can't make the quantum leaps of faith that you make when you draw your conclusions.
Bill
If they weren't routing the golf course what were they doing?
Tom MacW
We'll never know the extent to which White participated in the routing unless White himself wrote about it or if his suggestions were followed by Raynor. This is not Sebonack where a book was written about its development and construction.
We'll never know the contents of Raynor's letter as referenced in the minutes of 2/29/16 as Mark Hissey could not find it. Also, for the same reason, we'll never see the "diagram" that was in the office of The Harmonie Club as referenced in the minutes of 3/15/16.
We do have the placemat of the routing that was posted in the 1917 thread but it is unsigned and undated.
My position has not changed. I don't think the club's position will change either.
Next case.
Oh my God, Now T Mac has White "routing" North Shore...
Steve, Jeff, Pat and TEP, will you PLEASE stop arguing with this guy?????
"The matter has received the careful attention of your Greens Committee, who with the aid of Mr. Seth J. Raynor, and with the active and intelligent [size=20cooperation[/size] of our professional, Mr. Robert White, have laid out a course, the nature of which can be seen on the diagrams in the office of the Harmonie Club and which in the opinion of experts should develop into as good a course as could be found in any part of the United States."
Tom, you can't analyze the above quote in a vacuum, insulated and isolated from all others, you have to include the other descriptiive quotes that provide attribution for each discipline.
The word "cooperation" doesn't connote or convey co-authorship to Robert White.
You keep trying to force that interpretation when it simply doesn't exist.
North Shore has some very steep slopes.
If Raynor routed the course, would he not consult with Robert White to inquire as to whether or not grass would grow on those steep slopes.
If Robert White indicated that his assessment indicated that those steep slopes could tolerate grass, would White not be deemed to have COOPERATED with Raynor ?
Would that make him an equal or even a participant in the routing, hole and feature designs ? I think not.
In another excerpt, North Shore identified their architect, Raynor, and, they identified Robert White's role, that of "Greens Expert"
I think it's fairly clear, that absent additional information, White's role was confined to agronomy and not to GCA.
While I admire your discoveries, I can't make the quantum leaps of faith that you make when you draw your conclusions.
Bill
If they weren't routing the golf course what were they doing?
The only reason you and others are not giving White some design credit is because you don't want to give me credit. Lets be honest.
Bill
If they weren't routing the golf course what were they doing?
Tom, North Shore told you what they were doing, White was the "Greens Expert" the consulting agronomist.
Mark,
Was Mackie involved at Hollywood.
What's interesting about the article is the reference to the course being changed by White, to the point that it was beyond recognition.
Yet, today's course is so blatantly Raynor, that one has to deduce that Raynor completely redesigned whatever was there.
I'm wondering if White was an egomaniac.
Interestingly, the club got rid of him shortly after this article was published.
White's quotes don't seem to make sense. Isaac Mackie was the only other party who was documented to have been there early on. White certainly wasn't there after a civil engineer had been working on the course.
I'm wondering if White was an egomaniac.
Interestingly, the club got rid of him shortly after this article was published.
White's quotes don't seem to make sense. Isaac Mackie was the only other party who was documented to have been there early on. White certainly wasn't there after a civil engineer had been working on the course.
Mark
Raynor was a civil engineer.
Mark,
Was Mackie involved at Hollywood.
What's interesting about the article is the reference to the course being changed by White, to the point that it was beyond recognition.
Yet, today's course is so blatantly Raynor, that one has to deduce that Raynor completely redesigned whatever was there.
Pat
Wasn't the course restored in recent years?
I'm unaware of any substantive work to the greens.
I played there a good number of years ago in the MGA Mixed Championship, but I was focused on other things during the course of my round.
Perhaps those more familiar with any work that was done there can enlighten us.
Tom,
Since Steve was far more gracious than I, here is what Tom Doak posted in reply #160:
"Regardless of who should get the most credit for the present course [my guess is Raynor], I have been hired by Mr. Zucker to figure out what to do with it now.
"There are a few great greens but there are also some holes that are disappointing, so I do not expect this to be a strict restoration project ... most likely we will redesign some parts of the course to try and improve it. As you all know, I don't take on many projects of that description, but in this case I don't believe that it is one of Raynor's best courses, and I agree with Mr. Zucker that some redesign work would help him attract some new members to make the club viable again. The extent of this work is still to be determined, but we will probably start work on it in the fall, perhaps even sooner if we can find some things that won't disrupt play too much."
Tom Doak knows what he'll be doing.
Mark,
Any before/during/after pictures?
I'm sorry I couldn't make trip before the work started.
Tom/Mark,
What's the budget for the golf course project ?
One of the best ways to get exposure is to host a tournament or event.
Have you tried to secure anything for 2011 ?