[Jeff Taylor]

David

If NGLA was so "influential" why did it never host a US Open?
[/quote]

Is that the only standard for influential?

[DMoriarty]

Rich,

As Jeff Taylor suggests in his post above, your question presupposes that hosting a US Open was some sort of litmus test for whether or not a course was "influential."

The reality is that early on the US Open was far from an influential or showcase tournament.  Initially it was tacked on the day after the US Amateur, but after a few years the clubs interested in hosting the US Am wanted nothing to do with the less prestigious professional event, but the fear was that if they bifurcated the two, no club would step up and host the professionals.  There was even a proposal to cancel the US Open all together, but eventually Myopia stepped up and agreed to host the US Open and the tournament was saved.  If I recall correctly, Myopia (which hosted the event four times in those early years) and the other early hosts were paid for their troubles.  In short, it was hardly the prestige event suggested by your question.  

Additionally, CBM had a very low opinion of the spread professionalism in golf, and about the detrimental influence that sporting goods manufacturers had through the attempted popularization of professional golfers at events like the US Open.  So the notion of him bringing a US Open to the National is a pretty funny one.

[John Burnes]

David-

Interesting comments. I didn't think of the Am and open from a historical venue perspective before.  My question is, how much of class (if at all) played into it?  Did cbm see these professionals as a rag tag group of gypsies playing for a few bucks up and down the coast and needed a place to play, just not his place?

[Patrick_Mucci]

John Burnes,

You have to remember that until Walter Hagen broke the barrier, at Inverness I believe, Pros weren't allowed in the clubhouse, they were viewed as staff.

Hence, it wasn't CBM's opinion, it was general consensus and policy

[Rich Goodale]

David (and Pat)

If the US Amateur was so influential, why did NGLA never host one in CBM's day?

PS--and, yes, I do know that the 1st Walker Cup was at NGLA,

[DMoriarty]

John, 

Certainly class played into the way the professionals were treated early on.  For example, Myopia was one of the clubs that repeatedly hosted the US Open, so one might expect that the professionals would have been treated decently there.  Yet some of the professionals were so upset about the way they were treated by Myopia at one US Open, that the next time the course hosted the tournament there was actually talk of a boycott.

Another factor might be that until the McDermott victory in 1911, the event was dominated by foreign born professionals, and so perhaps it wasn't viewed as a sufficiently American event.   Also, perhaps there was a sense that these foreign born professionals weren't quite at the top of their game when compared to greats like Vardon and Ray.

As for CBM, his issues with professional golf (and professionalism in golf) went much deeper, I think.  He viewed professionalism as a direct threat to the very soul of the game, and he viewed professional golf as the point at which the sporting goods interests (equipment manufacturers) were trying to gain a hold. Like with many other issues, he was prescient on this point.

As for his feelings about the professional class, I couldn't say for sure.  Professionals weren't banned from NGLA --at least some noted professionals were invited to play the National. And CBM did eventually host one professional invitational tournament at NGLA in the late 20's. (According to George Bahto, CBM was curious about how the course would hold up, and it held up quite well.)   He was present for the great Quimet match at TCC and viewed it as the biggest win in golf history, and the last notable international competition until 1922 (when NGLA hosted the first Walker Cup Match.)

Yet he wasn't a fan of professional golf (for reasons mentioned) nor was he a fan of stroke play competitions, so the suggestion that he would have been clamoring for a US Open is humorous.

[DMoriarty]

David (and Pat)

If the US Amateur was so influential, why did NGLA never host one in CBM's day?

PS--and, yes, I do know that the 1st Walker Cup was at NGLA,

Rich,  You seem intent on creating your own somewhat arbitrary tests as to what it would take for you to consider NGLA as influential.   If at this point you can't seem to fathom that NGLA was indeed influential, then perhaps it is more a personal decision on your part more than anything to do with what was ongoing in America at the time.

As for your question, a look at the locations of the US Amateurs during that era might provide the answer.  After its modest beginnings the US Amateur had quickly become what was quite a large production logistically, and by the time NGLA came into existence the Amateur was generally held in a metropolitan location which could handle the event logistically. (The USGA even tried a two course experiment starting with Merion in 1916.)  NGLA was too far off the beaten path.  So was Pine Valley.  

NGLA did host an annual invitational tournament, though, and it attracted an incredible mix of the best golfers and the most powerful men in American golf, with some notable appearances from abroad as well.  Imagine a Masters-like situation, where the field was more limited in number, but about everyone entered was a major player and quality of the field was often extraordinary.   The format was stroke play to determine flights of 16 golfers (first sixteen being the top flight, second sixteen being the second flight, etc.,) then matchplay within the flights, and one year there were four former national champions in the fourth flight.

You mention the Walker Cup.  There was talk of making NGLA the permanent American home of the Walker Cup and St. Andrews the permanent British home, but the USGA decided that even with the extremely limited format and field NGLA was too far off the beaten path to serve as the permanent home for the tournament, so it to was held in more metropolitan areas.  

[Rich Goodale]

David

You should read my posts more carefully.  I never said CBM (and NGLA) was not "influential."  All I said was maybe he (and it) was not "so" influential as you and Pat seem to think he/it was.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David (and Pat)

If the US Amateur was so influential, why did NGLA never host one in CBM's day?

My guess would be because CBM came to be at odds with the USGA, never ascending to President

PS--and, yes, I do know that the 1st Walker Cup was at NGLA,

Then in part you've answered your own question relative to NGLA's influence in golf

[Rich Goodale]

David (and Pat)

If the US Amateur was so influential, why did NGLA never host one in CBM's day?

My guess would be because CBM came to be at odds with the USGA, never ascending to President

PS--and, yes, I do know that the 1st Walker Cup was at NGLA,

Then in part you've answered your own question relative to NGLA's influence in golf

No, Pat.  You answered my question, in the 2nd paragraph above.  Thanks.

[Joe Bausch]

The following courtesy of The Lurker:

David (and Pat)

If the US Amateur was so influential, why did NGLA never host one in CBM's day?

My guess would be because CBM came to be at odds with the USGA, never ascending to President

I believe that is an excellent question, an excellent answer, and an excellent point. As far as I can recall, that point has never been discussed in detail on this forum. While Macdonald and his influence on golf architecture has been discussed endlessly on this forum, I don't believe that particular point has ever been mentioned in an attempt to discuss it, except by me in the past (in the back pages). I mentioned it a number of times but unfortunately it did not evoke any discussion.
 
I have often wondered why it never has been discussed on this forum. It seems to me that the best answer might be found in something TommyN said to me some years ago, which is that the parts of CBM's book (Scotland's Gift Golf, 1928) that deal with this subject in some detail are just not subjects that most people on this forum have ever been interested in. I refer to those parts and chapters of in his book that he titles 'Activities of the USGA.' They are not subjects that involve golf architecture; they are subjects that involve golf administration in America, and, interestingly, those subjects and chapters probably comprise up to 1/3 of his entire book, which should indicate to some of us how important they were to him (CBM)!.
 
As to why Macdonald never ascended to the presidency of the USGA, he does not really say in his book that was published approximately twenty years after the fact (of his not ascending to the presidency in the order that his original position on the board (2nd vice president) would seem to indicate that he should ascend to the presidency of the USGA). So who did ascend to the presidency of the USGA at the point that Macdonald probably should have? R.J Robertson of Shinnecock did, and it is very clear to see in his chapter titled "Beginning of USGA----Bogey," what philosophical differences and problems Macdonald had with Robertson and Robertson's ideas on how the USGA should proceed administratively. It also seems quite clear that these particular problems and differences Macdonald had with Robertson and his administrative philosophy had never been mentioned or aired publicly before the publication of Macdonald's book in 1928. Indeed, one may even logically ask if Macdonald purposely waited almost twenty years to write his book and to air those differences and problems, because, at that point (1928), Macdonald, by his own admission, was done with both golf architecture and golf.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  I don't think there is any factual support for your theory regarding why there never was an Amateur at NGLA during CBM's lifetime. It seems that every time a question comes up about CBM, some try to explain it away by alluding to some vague rift or dispute that CBM supposedly had, and that seems to be what is happening here.

As for TEPaul's fanciful notion that NGLA never hosted an Amateur during CBM's lifetime because of of some supposed rift and/or parting between CBM and and USGA, caused by the election of R.H. Robertson as USGA president in 1901, it is unfounded to say the least.  CBM was very much an important part of the USGA long after Robertson's brief (1901-1902) term as president of the organization.   He continued to serve the USGA for a long time thereafter, including  service on the Executive Committee and the Nominating Committee (which allowed him great control over who served the USGA.)  He also headed various Rules committees and sat on the R&A's Rules Committee as a quasi-representative of the USGA interests, helped redraft the rules for both organizations, and he authored numerous changes to both the rules of golf and the USGA bylaws.   In short, he continued to shape the future of the USGA and golf in America long after Roberson's tenure had come and gone.

It is true that CBM had serious issues with Robertson's ideas, particularly his lax treatment of the Amateur issue and his attempts to Americanize the game, but so did many of the other traditionalists at the USGA, and most of Roberson's ideas were defeated at Committee.  

The notion that (prior to his book) CBM had never publicly expressed his disagreement with Robertson's proposed policies is simply not accurate.  CBM and other traditionalists within the USGA had long been vocal public opponents of any policy (USGA or otherwise) with which they disagreed, and they were particularly vocal regarding the Amateur question and the controversial issue of Americanizing the game.  Every time the Amateur question came up, CBM (and others) reminded the USGA that Robertson's lax approach was a mistake.  

And as for CBM's feelings toward the leadership of the USGA and his supposed rift with the organization, I've never seen anything (other than petty gossip, of course) which leads me to believe there is too much to it.  Surely there were rough spots along they way --as I said CBM was quite vocal when he felt like the soul of golf was at stake, but CBM was one of those running the organization, and he was close friends with many of those who were also serving.   He speaks highly of many of them, and somewhere around one-half of the early USGA presidents were also members of NGLA!

Here is what CBM had to say about the leadership of the USGA in his 1928 book, at the close of his two chapters on the early history of the organization:

"Although the Western Golf Association repeatedly pounded on the doors of the U.S.G.A. Committee to change their rules in golf, and their constitution, thanks to the able leadership in the U.S.G.A. through their presidents, golf to-day is played practically the same way as it is in Scotland."

[Mark Bourgeois]

Regarding NGLA and the US Open, some pros said they wouldn't play if it hosted the tournament; they found it too difficult. (How's that for "influential"?)

Anyway, if, as some imply, the influence of a design -- and its designer -- is reflected in the choice of US Open / Amateur venues, consider the boatload of times Chicago GC hosted either in the "influential" days of golf architecture (pre ~WWI).

[DMoriarty]

Mark,

That is a very good point about Chicago Golf Club.  We tend to focus on NGLA and for good reason, but even even before his NGLA project CBM had been very influential in American golf and golf course design.  Chicago was, after all, the first 18 hole golf course in the US, and was considered to be one of the top American courses pre-NGLA, along with Garden City and Myopia. Plus there is some evidence that CBM (and H.J. Whigham) had their hands in the creation of other better courses in the Chicago area, and if I recall correctly one early article suggests that CBM had advised regarding the architecture on early courses up and down the East Coast.

Still hoping Sean will clarify his hesitance to accept that CBM was extremely influential by providing us details of his counter-theory about unnamed "preachers" who were apparently on their way to spread the word.

[Sean_A]

David

As you well know, the preachers did indeed hit the shores of N America.  They were minor figures in architecture who it would seem, according to you, are merely footnotes in the history of US and therefore world architecture.  I never said CBM wasn't influential, I asked what his influence actually was and so far his input doesn't strike me as any more influential than Ross, Dr Mac and Colt.  Indeed, when I look around at courses today and can see the influence of Ross and Colt, but not so much CBM, which prompted the original question.  First to the US trough isn't terribly important to me when it is very obvious the transported concepts were already being implemented by a small family of architects and CBM obviously knew who they were and what they did/were doing/planning.  So far, I see CBM as one of that small family archies, not separate, superior or more influential.   

I very much appreciate the responses thus far. 

Ciao   

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I happen to believe that given Macdonalds history with golf, his association with those who were influential in golf, golf course architecture, the creation of NGLA, his abilities as a golfer, his record in competition and the formation and administration of the USGA in the late 19th and early 20th century, that Macdonald had every expectation that he would become President.

If you look at his role in golf in the late 19th and early 20th century, you would be hard pressed to bet against it.

Yet, the fact remains, he never became President.

How do you explain that ?

[DMoriarty]

First, Sean, where exactly did I say that these unidentified "preachers" were "minor influences" or "footnotes?"   I don't recall saying anything of the sort, and I don't appreciate you putting those words in my mouth.  As I said above, the conversation will be more productive if we refrained from just making things up.

Second, while you may not have technically said that CBM wasn't influential, you have repeatedly expressed doubt that he had all that much influence.  For example in the other thread you wrote, "My only problem with CBM is his portfolio is small and I wonder what sort of influence he actually had on future architecture," so it doesn't sound like you are convinced that he had much influence at all!  (This is was prompted me to type 'LOL,' probably for the first time and hopefully last time in my life.)  I suggest that if you don't see CBM's influence, then perhaps you don't really understand what CBM brought to design in America.  Which brings me to my third point . . .

Third, have you yet gotten around to seeing or playing NGLA?  I don't ask to be insulting but rather because I suspect that if you actually saw the course you might have a better sense of what I (and others) are saying here, especially if you consider the course was designed and built in 1907-1908.  I don't think I have ever played a great American golf course built after that doesn't incorporate (intentionally or not) principles put in the ground at NGLA by CBM.

Fourth, you state, "As you well know, the preachers did indeed hit the shores of N America."   Frankly Sean, I am mot sure I know to what you refer.  There had been Scottish and English professionals building courses in America since the very beginning.  Are these the guys to which you refer?  Or are you referring specifically to Colt, MacKenzie, and Ross? 

I think all three are extremely influential today, but I am curious to hear from you (or others) just how you think they shaped early, "Golden Age" golf course architecture in America, and how you think that compares to CBM's influence during the same time period. 

Thanks. 

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,   No doubt CBM was well-qualified to be president of the USGA, but I don't think his qualifications alone justify the gossip, innuendo, and speculation about some supposed rift between him and the USGA over the issue.  I am unaware of CBM ever having expressed desire to be the president or having expressed disappointment at not having been president of the organization.  Was he ever nominated?  Did he ever make a push for the office?  Could be, but I am unaware of it if it is so.

As for why he wasn't, we can only guess.  Perhaps he realized the real power early on fell with the Rules Committee, the Nominating Committee and the Executive Committee.?  I believe he played important roles on all three at one time or another.  Perhaps he didn't want the hassle?

Here is another potential theory/guess in the making . . . This was the United States Golf Association. Were any of the early presidents foreign born?  Have any of the presidents in the history of the organization been foreign born?   Do the bylaws allow for it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

You are aware of his creating a second National Championship aren't you ?

[Jim Nugent]

"...the Western Golf Association repeatedly pounded on the doors of the U.S.G.A. Committee to change their rules in golf..."

That's pretty interesting.  Do you know which rules they wanted changed? 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,   No doubt CBM was well-qualified to be president of the USGA, but I don't think his qualifications alone justify the gossip, innuendo, and speculation about some supposed rift between him and the USGA over the issue.  I am unaware of CBM ever having expressed desire to be the president or having expressed disappointment at not having been president of the organization.  Was he ever nominated?  Did he ever make a push for the office?  Could be, but I am unaware of it if it is so.

As for why he wasn't, we can only guess.  Perhaps he realized the real power early on fell with the Rules Committee, the Nominating Committee and the Executive Committee.?  I believe he played important roles on all three at one time or another.  Perhaps he didn't want the hassle?

Here is another potential theory/guess in the making . . . This was the United States Golf Association. Were any of the early presidents foreign born?  Have any of the presidents in the history of the organization been foreign born?   Do the bylaws allow for it?

I have little doubt that those are the 3 main reasons CBM never became president of the USGA.      

[DMoriarty]

David,

You are aware of his creating a second National Championship aren't you ?

I've heard the stories, but as is often the case with these old legends I don't think the facts quite match up with the stories.

______________________________________

Jim Nugent,  I don't remember the details of the battles between the WGA and the USGA, except generally the some in Chicago felt that they weren't adequately being represented and that there was too much loyalty to the rules of the R and A.  The WGA had their own sets of rules and there were some differences, but I don't remember all of what they were.  If I recall correctly, at one point I think the WGA barred the concession of putts in match play, and had stringent rules about playing the stymie without competitors agreeing to opt out.  Other differences too I am sure but I can't remember. 

[Rich Goodale]

Why don't any and all of us interested in this issue and who have any facts contribute to Mark Bourgeois' brilliant CBM Timeline?  Facts beat speculation, any day.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()