Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: JC Urbina on October 27, 2009, 02:09:59 AM
-
Or was someone else taking the lead in bringing golf to the U.S.
-
Hi Jim
Surely that is two separate questions you have posed there? Bringing golf to the USA is a different kettle of fish in my eye than in being the father of golf architecture. If CBM wasn't the father, then who could it have been I wonder?
Neil
-
Jim....I wouldn't subscribe it to one, but a melting pot of individuals, and personally I don't care that much to debate it.
Maybe you could assign this to the team of forensic golf historians who are busy at work over on the "Cape Hole" thread!
-
Paul...
First off, funny post concerning the forensics going on in the Cape thread. Frankly, I think that stuff is interesting...if the parties involved didn't seem to get so angry.
Secondly, for what it is worth Whitten and Cornish in "The Golf Course" state that the father of American Golf is John Reid. A Scotsman who settled in Yonkers and built St. Andrews Golf Club there.
Also, they say that Willie Dunn was the first to state that the future of golf was in America.
It is a pretty cool book...of course they also discuss CB MacDonald, Ross, Benedlow, etc as having BIG impacts on the golf in America.
-
Paul...
First off, funny post concerning the forensics going on in the Cape thread. Frankly, I think that stuff is interesting...if the parties involved didn't seem to get so angry.
Secondly, for what it is worth Whitten and Cornish in "The Golf Course" state that the father of American Golf is John Reid. A Scotsman who settled in Yonkers and built St. Andrews Golf Club there.
Also, they say that Willie Dunn was the first to state that the future of golf was in America.
It is a pretty cool book...of course they also discuss CB MacDonald, Ross, Benedlow, etc as having BIG impacts on the golf in America.
Paul, who was first to say "the future of golf is in China"?
-
Paul...
First off, funny post concerning the forensics going on in the Cape thread. Frankly, I think that stuff is interesting...if the parties involved didn't seem to get so angry.
Secondly, for what it is worth Whitten and Cornish in "The Golf Course" state that the father of American Golf is John Reid. A Scotsman who settled in Yonkers and built St. Andrews Golf Club there.
Also, they say that Willie Dunn was the first to state that the future of golf was in America.
It is a pretty cool book...of course they also discuss CB MacDonald, Ross, Benedlow, etc as having BIG impacts on the golf in America.
Paul, who was first to say "the future of golf is in China"?
Gary
I doubt if I was the first, but I was near the head of the curve on this old (2004) thread:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,14519.35/
Jim
As for your question, one possible answer is "Yes, because CBM told us so, in 1902," but that would not be consistent with the facts, given that Charlie only had two golf courses (Chicago v. 1.0 and 2.0) in the ground at that time, and there were already more other examples of decent "GCA" by then.
To go a bit OT, I find it interesting that CBM's GCA career is puncutated by so many long absences, to wit:
--learns about golf in St. Andrews in 1874 or so (age ~17)
--builds 1st course at Downers Grove in 1892 (~age 34)
--builds no other courses until conceives of the masterpiece that is NGLA (age ~51)
--works frantically over the next 17 years and then retreats into senility (age ~68)
For those rusty on their 17X tables, does this not mirror the life of the Cicada.......?
I lived through the cicadas 17-year rebirth in Washington in 1970, and damn were they vociferous! CBM would have been ~112.....
Rich
-
Yes.
-
One thing you can be sure, the answer-we-all-should-accept will surely come from someone who doesn't think the occasional dive into the history of GCA has any value. ::) ;D
-
Rich
Your timeline is a little misleading. CBM was involved in the design of the courses at Belmont in 1893, Wheaton in 1895 and Washington Park in 1895. He was also involved in the best golf holes debate in the UK around the turn of the century, wrote his article on the ideal golf course a couple of years later, and then spent the next five or so years planning and building the NGLA. Following the completion of the NGLA he was involved in a steady number of designs until he got out in the mid- to late-20s, at which time he published his book.
-
Tom
You are nitpicking and missing the point which is that CBM's GCA resume had some very large gaps in it, each of roughly 17 years duration. Put in such a time-line perspective, he seems more like a dilletante than an evangelical.
Rich
-
Rich
I don't think so. He had his hand in golf architectural issues throughout that time. An article or series of article or a book can be as impactful as a design IMO.
I think the case could be made that there were several fathers of American golf architecture. There were three major pockets where the game developed - Boston, NY and Chicago. In Boston the fathers were Willie Campbell & Herbert Leeds, in NY Van Tassel & Mungo Park and Chicago CBM & HJ Tweedie.
-
How many Scottish and English golf professionals (who also made clubs and laid out courses) moved from the UK to the US in the 1890's? Surely they are collectively the "father of American golf architecture."
-
The case is being made for Alexander Findlay. See the attached for more info.
http://alexanderfindlay.com/
-
Rich
I don't think so. He had his hand in golf architectural issues throughout that time. An article or series of article or a book can be as impactful as a design IMO.
I think the case could be made that there were several fathers of American golf architecture. There were three major pockets where the game developed - Boston, NY and Chicago. In Boston the fathers were Willie Campbell & Herbert Leeds, in NY Van Tassel & Mungo Park and Chicago CBM & HJ Tweedie.
Tom
I agree that there were several fathers, although I think your list is selectively myopic. Van Tassel and not Bendelow? GMAB!
Exactly which GCA books did CBM write in the 1875-1909 mostly fallow (GCA-wise) 34-year period of his life? I agree that he may have written some articles and participated in some "rating" panels in that period, but so do/have many on this board over the past 10 years, including you and me. Are you or I (or any of our unindicted co-conspirators (including GMBF himself....)) the "fathers" of self-agrandizing internet GCA "criticism?"
Rich
-
I think a critieria that all can agree on (fat chance, I know) first must be established. If "father" denotes first to lay out a course, is there not evidence of golf being played in the Carolina low country in the late 1700's? If so, we'll never know who designed that course (at least I've never read any evidence). David Fay has said he feels "John Reid must be viewed as the father of American golf" in the "The Story of Golf" that was written by George Peper, because of St Andrews in Yonkers, NY.
There has been alot of architecture in America that has not had anything to do w/ CBM. Colt, Alison, MacKenzie, Fowler, Ross and many others. They all have had a big influence on the direction of architecturein this country. CBM's role has been huge, but I feel he has played one (albeit very important) part, not THE part that set the tone for architecture in America.
-
David,
I don't think anyone would disagree with your last sentence.
-
Even though there were many working on developing American golf and architecture in the early years (between the mid-1890s and perhaps the mid-teens) if one wants to pick out one person who probably had the largest and the most important and significant impact on golf architectural thinking in that time span I think it would have to be Macdonald. And if one thinks for that it's appropriate to label him the "Father of American Golf Architecture" I would agree with it and I have for years.
But the thing that has interested me just as much about Macdonald is that I believe in that same time span (particularly the beginning of it) he was also the most significant man to American golf itself in various ways, particularly administratively, even if he never became the President of the United States Golf Association which I believe he certainly would have become had they actually asked him to do it.
I have always felt that the reasons he never did become that just might tell a fascinating story of the beginnings of golf in America and its eventual and future directions----directions that Macdonald, in a number or ways, may not have agreed with at all!
-
.....although Macdonald was the first architect in America to build a golf course to an ideal, i.e. 18 of the most 'perfect' holes and not a slouch in the bunch.
I could be wrong but I don't think anyone before him blended art, classic hole structures and surveying/engineering together in the way CBM did at National. Others will always find their own way to create but frankly, his architecture set the bar at perfect. No one strives for less since CBM and that is why, for me, he earned his self-anointment.
-
I've never liked this word "ideal" on architecture at least not the way some try to use it on here. But was Macdonald actually the first to create great architecture in America? I don't think so and from what he said I don't believe he did either at the time. Before NGLA there was Myopia, GCGC and Chicago GC. Of course CGC was his and seeing it was his obviously he would say that about it. Unfortunately we don't have the opportunity today to see what it was like back then but we sure do with GCGC and Myopia.
But the deal is Macdonald was a whole lot more public about NGLA and what he was trying to do there than a guy like Leeds was at his Myopia.
-
Well, when this 'somebody' uses the word ideal on here it has nothing to with formulas of any kind, nor with length, par, number of bunkers, etc.,etc.,etc..
I don't think there was another 'ideal' course in America at the time of NGLA's opening. Some VG and a possible great one or two, but ideal? I've never heard anyone say that anyone else was striving to create what CBM did.
-
C.B. was the father of REALLY GOOD gca in America. Macdonald changed the paradigm with National. My belief is that all other architects built courses with thoughts of NGLA in their heads.
I was saving post # 1000 for an appropriate topic!
-
"I was saving post # 1000 for an appropriate topic!"
Too bad BillB; you hit the 1000 mark with that one. Now proceed directly to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's hat check girl-----she has your prize for hitting 1,000 posts. I think it's still a gross of bananas.
And frankly I don't think Charlie was the father of VERY GOOD architecture in America because Devie and Walter beat him to it and Herbie Leeds beat them all to it.
-
"I was saving post # 1000 for an appropriate topic!"
Too bad BillB; you hit the 1000 mark with that one. Now proceed directly to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's hat check girl-----she has your prize for hitting 1,000 posts. I think it's still a gross of bananas.
And frankly I don't think Charlie was the father of VERY GOOD architecture in America because Devie and Walter beat him to it and Herbie Leeds beat them all to it.
What is the timeline on the construction of Garden City? Emmet certainly did the original routing prior to the construction of NGLA, but my understanding is that Travis made the course what it is today through years of revision.
Leatherstocking is my favorite course that is credited solely to Emmet. Here, however, the timeline is even more fuzzy. Emmet constructed some of the golf course in the pre-NGLA period, but how much of that comprises today's great layout is very debatable.
How many of Emmet's contributions to American GCA were made before NGLA, and how many were made after?
All of that being said, Travis and Leeds did great work before NGLA. They were the pioneers in REALLY GOOD American golf course architecture. My final question is: how influential was their work?
-
"What is the timeline on the construction of Garden City? Emmet certainly did the original routing prior to the construction of NGLA, but my understanding is that Travis made the course what it is today through years of revision."
JNC:
That's true but all those courses from those so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects were worked on by them for many years and sometimes decades but the point is the very good courses of GCGC and Myopia very much preceded NGLA and Macdonald himself said so in his membership and principal proposal letter for NGLA which is included in his 1928 book "Scotland's Gift Golf"essentially his autobiography in golf.
-
Tom Paul,
Garden City and Myopia Hunt are definitely examples of very good courses that were built before National Golf Links. However, I wonder how the pre-NGLA versions of GCGC and Myopia compare to the post-NGLA versions. Is the construction of NGLA correlated with subsequent improvements to GCGC and Myopia Hunt by Travis and Leeds that made them into the layouts they are today? In other words, did NGLA influence Travis and Leeds to make major changes to those two layouts? Or were they already solidified as examples of great architecture?
This correlation is mere speculation on my part, but it is a possibility. I only wonder because National Golf Links is so often accepted as the foundation of great American golf course architecture.
-
Jim, In my eyes he was more than just the guy who spread the GCA, he spread Golf, in general. He created a demand for the courses by spreading the sport. That's why he was ultimately so frustrated by those who thought golf was better their way. Versus what he had learned from his time at St. Andrews and with Old Tom Morris.
-
In 1904, when he drew up the agreement to build his 'ideal' course , Macdonald got 70 wealthy men (and quite a list it was ) to go along with this idea:
"Any golfer conversant with the golf courses abroad and the best we have in America, which are generally conceded to be Garden City, Myopia, and the Chicago Golf Club, knows that in America as yet we have no first-class golf course comparable with the classic golf courses in Great Britain and Ireland".
Well, that led to NGLA and here's what Herbert Warren Wind had to say about it:
"The National Golf Links of america - to give it its full name- was a stunning success. As the first illustration on this side of the ocean of what a real championship course had to have in shot values and overall character, it had an enormous influence on golf-minded people in all corners of the United states. They traveled hundreds and sometime thousands of miles to study the course so that they would be able to incorporate some of the tenets it dramatized in the courses they planned to build in their own home towns. It also placed Macdonald in the enviable position of being able to work only on those projects that, for one reason or another, appealed to him the most. While he was extremely confident about his knowledge of the elements of golf-course design, he was wise enough to always see to it that a professional engineer (usually Seth Raynor or Charles Banks) was on hand to superintend that phase of his creations."
No one other than C. B. Macdonald had done the above at that point in time, at least not on this side of the Atlantic. As I said earlier, I don't think anyone before him blended art, classic hole structures and surveying/engineering together in the way that he did at The National.
-
"Is the construction of NGLA correlated with subsequent improvements to GCGC and Hunt by Travis and Leeds that made them into the layouts they are today? In other words, did NGLA influence Travis and Leeds to make major changes to those two layouts? Or were they already solidified as examples of great architecture?"
JNC:
Man, that is a truly fascinating question! I've never heard it before or thought of it. Give me some time to consider it. At first blush, I would say that, no, NGLA was not a correlation on the subsequent improvements of GCGC or Myopia or any influence on the architecture of either GCGC or Myopia in any way even though the converse might be a consideration even if CBM never chose to admit it (others such as Crump sure did though in an architectural example or so).
JNC, that is a wonderful question; it sort of reminds me of the way this website used to be in the old days of its beginning before some of us became so jaded and perhaps adverserial and petty.
Who are you anyway? Are you still that kid in upstate New York who I've heard is so damn smart and bright? If you are I'm gonna redouble my efforts to make you a star, kid. ;)
-
"I only wonder because National Golf Links is so often accepted as the foundation of great American golf course architecture."
JNC:
That's generally what happens in America when one promotes himself and what he's trying to do the way C.B. did with NGLA and the basic architectural ideas behind it. Of course it doesn't really work if there is nothing much there to back it up. In the case of NGLA there was a whole lot there no one had thought of before! On the other hand, the likes of Emmet and particularly Herbert Leeds either just didn't want to or just didn't choose to go down that highly visible promotion road that Macdonald did with NGLA and for golf course architecture in America.
-
TEP
As Jon and Jim point out, I think one of Macdonald's greatest effects is what must have gone on at existing courses whose layouts were just made "obsolete" for lack of a better word.
I picture Macdonald and his wealthy friends boasting about how superior NGLA was, and then I envision the reaction to that from other wealthy country clum members around the US. Noway they wanted to let that blowhard have the finest course. I can't back it up entirely with facts, that's just my sense of the history that period.
-
Jim Kennedy:
Your #26 is a very good one and the quotations you use back it up and bolster it really well.
I think what you said is all true but there was a diversion and very much of a difference of architectural opinion brewing on the horizon and in American architecture and not long after C.B. Macdonald's and NGLA's success hit the street and the American golfing and architectural consciousness.
The problem was things like relying, as he seem to be, and seemed to be suggesting everyone should on famous time tested template classical holes from abroad and even their principles as he seemed to be articulating and iterating them came into question with some of the best and most thoughtful and innovative American architects, probably beginning in the early to mid-teens.
Sometimes they didn't even mind saying so but most of the others just went their own creative ways and away from something that might've been loosely referred to as the "National School of Golf Course Architecture" style or type.
This was one of Wayne Morrison's primary points but when he floated it on here he basically got clobbered about ten ways to Sunday but what I would have to call some pretty limited thinkers on the evolution and history of architecture on here. Let's just call them the proponents that pretty near everything right or good about golf course architecture in America is somehow traceable back to Macdonald and his architectural ideas and influence.
In my opinion, that just ain't the way it happened and the proof of it is in the sentimenents and statements from A.W. Tillinghast all the way to Tom Doak! ;)
"Original Architecture" was in the wind back then and it still is. If some analysts wants to try to fit all of it in to some "template/principle" context of C.B. Macdonald's or anyone else's then let them but I feel a whole lot of architects both back then and today just don't exactly look at it that way----thankfully!
-
"I was saving post # 1000 for an appropriate topic!"
Too bad BillB; you hit the 1000 mark with that one. Now proceed directly to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's hat check girl-----she has your prize for hitting 1,000 posts. I think it's still a gross of bananas.
And frankly I don't think Charlie was the father of VERY GOOD architecture in America because Devie and Walter beat him to it and Herbie Leeds beat them all to it.
What is the timeline on the construction of Garden City? Emmet certainly did the original routing prior to the construction of NGLA, but my understanding is that Travis made the course what it is today through years of revision.
Leatherstocking is my favorite course that is credited solely to Emmet. Here, however, the timeline is even more fuzzy. Emmet constructed some of the golf course in the pre-NGLA period, but how much of that comprises today's great layout is very debatable.
How many of Emmet's contributions to American GCA were made before NGLA, and how many were made after?
All of that being said, Travis and Leeds did great work before NGLA. They were the pioneers in REALLY GOOD American golf course architecture. My final question is: how influential was their work?
JNC
Yes, how influential were Travis, Leeds and CBM? At least from an aesthetic perspective it must be fairly easy to conclude that their style(s) of design didn't really carry on too long before a more natural parkland style (for lack of a better descriptor) and more blatantly of "championship" calibre took hold and has essentially ruled the roost since.
Ciao
-
Wow Sean, that is one of the more suprising posts I've seen from you...you usually are on the mark. National was and is a beautifully natural looking course.
Obviously a backhanded slap at Raynor...Clearly, Raynor took Macdonald's influence and went in one direction, building many great courses that relied heavily on template features. But to sum up Madonald's architectural influnce with such a statement is silly. Geeze, even the top current guys like Daok, C & C have studied NGLA and influenced by what Macdonald did.
And I think it impossible to think that C.B. did not spur on Ross, Tilly, MacKenzie, etc. to do work that was different or better.
Lastly, I bet there were thousands of crappy, overly penal golf holes (and entire courses) that were removed in the US as courses scrambled to catch up.
-
TEP
As Jon and Jim point out, I think one of Macdonald's greatest effects is what must have gone on at existing courses whose layouts were just made "obsolete" for lack of a better word.
I picture Macdonald and his wealthy friends boasting about how superior NGLA was, and then I envision the reaction to that from other wealthy country clum members around the US. Noway they wanted to let that blowhard have the finest course. I can't back it up entirely with facts, that's just my sense of the history that period.
Good observation. Remember, Macdonald built one course in the United States prior to the construction of National Golf Links of America: the original layout at Chicago Golf Club. That course was subsequently revised after 1910 by Seth Raynor. Even Macdonald's own original had to change with NGLA.
-
Wow Sean, that is one of the more suprising posts I've seen from you...you usually are on the mark. National was and is a beautifully natural looking course.
Obviously a backhanded slap at Raynor...Clearly, Raynor took Macdonald's influence and went in one direction, building many great courses that relied heavily on template features. But to sum up Madonald's architectural influnce with such a statement is silly. Geeze, even the top current guys like Daok, C & C have studied NGLA and influenced by what Macdonald did.
And I think it impossible to think that C.B. did not spur on Ross, Tilly, MacKenzie, etc. to do work that was different or better.
Lastly, I bet there were thousands of crappy, overly penal golf holes (and entire courses) that were removed in the US as courses scrambled to catch up.
Bill
I did say for a lack of a better descriptor! Are you telling me there are more courses around looking like a Travis, CBM or Leeds design compared to a Ross, Tillie, Flynn or Colt design? IMO, the style(s) and of the latter mentioned archies and what later archies have done with these styles damn near completely dominate the market and have done for a very, very long time. That is no slap Raynor or anybody else - its just the style(s) of aesthetics that have come to dominant architecture.
Ciao
-
"I was saving post # 1000 for an appropriate topic!"
Too bad BillB; you hit the 1000 mark with that one. Now proceed directly to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's hat check girl-----she has your prize for hitting 1,000 posts. I think it's still a gross of bananas.
And frankly I don't think Charlie was the father of VERY GOOD architecture in America because Devie and Walter beat him to it and Herbie Leeds beat them all to it.
What is the timeline on the construction of Garden City? Emmet certainly did the original routing prior to the construction of NGLA, but my understanding is that Travis made the course what it is today through years of revision.
Leatherstocking is my favorite course that is credited solely to Emmet. Here, however, the timeline is even more fuzzy. Emmet constructed some of the golf course in the pre-NGLA period, but how much of that comprises today's great layout is very debatable.
How many of Emmet's contributions to American GCA were made before NGLA, and how many were made after?
All of that being said, Travis and Leeds did great work before NGLA. They were the pioneers in REALLY GOOD American golf course architecture. My final question is: how influential was their work?
JNC
Yes, how influential were Travis, Leeds and CBM? At least from an aesthetic perspective it must be fairly easy to conclude that their style(s) of design didn't really carry on too long before a more natural parkland style (for lack of a better descriptor) and more blatantly of "championship" calibre took hold and has essentially ruled the roost since.
Ciao
Sean,
Have you played Garden City? It is the most natural-looking golf course I seen in my limited experience. This is particularly dramatic because Garden City is built on a very flat piece of property. It would have been easy to manufacture golf holes with the given land, but Emmet and Travis routed a golf course that made great use of limited natural features. The bunkering, while deep at times, is never at odds with the land features. Garden City is a prototype for a "natural parkland style." There may not be other courses that are entirely similar, but I think many Golden Age architects drew upon GCGC's principles and features.
-
Tom,
Wayne's points were lost because he was a poor translator. Where his argument failed, and where I think your's also fails, is that you fellows believe it reflects badly on CB's style because other architects went on their own search. I think it's ridiculous to believe that any of those thinking architects, all with huge egos and/or artistic tempermants, was ever going to tow CB's line.
Wayne failed to see that CBM's ideal golf course was the American catalyst for the top notch architecture that was to follow. This doesn't mean that others weren't completely capable, it just means that he got the ball rolling with NGLA. None of the courses Macdonald mentioned, or you are championing, stirred enough passion to make that happen, and none of the other men in the field at the time of NGLA were building anything to rival it. I refer you to HWW's words describing NGLA that I posted earlier.
It took Macdonald and his pursuit of an ideal links to do that, and he prevailed. He also used engineering and agronomy along with artistry, vision, and salemanship to do it. No other architect of the time even had an inkling of taking that approach. CBM created the field of golf course architecture just as Robert Trent Jones Sr. and Bruce Matthews created their own field of study at their respective colleges. Modern architects owe those two just as those two owed Macdonald, and so on, and so on.
He earned the moniker, plain and simple.
-
"Is the construction of NGLA correlated with subsequent improvements to GCGC and Hunt by Travis and Leeds that made them into the layouts they are today? In other words, did NGLA influence Travis and Leeds to make major changes to those two layouts? Or were they already solidified as examples of great architecture?"
JNC:
Man, that is a truly fascinating question! I've never heard it before or thought of it. Give me some time to consider it. At first blush, I would say that, no, NGLA was not a correlation on the subsequent improvements of GCGC or Myopia or any influence on the architecture of either GCGC or Myopia in any way even though the converse might be a consideration even if CBM never chose to admit it (others such as Crump sure did though in an architectural example or so).
JNC, that is a wonderful question; it sort of reminds me of the way this website used to be in the old days of its beginning before some of us became so jaded and perhaps adverserial and petty.
Who are you anyway? Are you still that kid in upstate New York who I've heard is so damn smart and bright? If you are I'm gonna redouble my efforts to make you a star, kid. ;)
Kid? Upstate New York? I don't know anything about that. ;D
Seriously though, thanks for the compliment. Having played Garden City, there are a couple of holes that stick out as being highly original for that era. In particular, I am thinking of the First and Eighteenth holes. For the 18th Hole, it is a clear replica of the Eden Hole that was also used at NGLA. The question is, which one came first? Who was responsible for the Eden 18th at Garden City? Whether it was Emmet or Travis, the hole is a hell of a par three and a totally original finishing hole. I cannot imagine there were too many one-shotters as finishing holes before Garden City.
As for the first, when and by whom was the double fairway constructed? This is another hole whose strategies cross over with those at NGLA. The timeline of these two holes will shed some serious light on this debate.
-
My answer:
In all the ways "father" can be taken to mean: co-creator, co-author, steward, financier, planner, protector, friend, loving parent, protective muscle, living link to the dead ancestors, authority figure...
Charles Blair MacDonald is the Father of GCA in America.
Just like George Washington didn't do everything himself - but did so much - and is given the unquestioned title, Father of Our Country, so is the parallel apt with CBM.
I think "Scotland's Gift..." is an amazing volume, not just for the detail to which he devotes to his development of courses - but for the Spirit of the Game that drips through its pages. It's only my opinion, but I think his entire shift in contemporary deeds and our later recognition to GCA was only a way to scratch that itch - he was just jonesin' to have great golf available to him. He refers to the period after youth in Scotland as the Dark Ages, which it must have been for him.
Can you imagine what that was like - to spend an intense period in that rustic era of golf, at the foot of Old Tom, Willie Park, David Kidd and so forth? Can you imagine playing three on one best-ball matches with your well-heeled college buddies from America against Davy Strath, gathering to watch another great golfers trying to break 100 by moonlight, and then 90 when they mastered that? Sneaking onto the old second green in violation of sunday prohibitions? Can you imagine the disappointment when no practical means of digging into this whole new treasure trove of culture and delight was available upon his return.
No wonder he started building rudimentary courses and organizing people for the purpose of making golf available. I mean would you look at the picture on pg 87 of Scotlland's Gift...that's not golf, that's five silly men in a hay-field, but damn it CBM was not going to be denied. But of course it didn't satisfy. And after other men like Reid, Forbes, Havemeyer, Douglas, Travis and their groups and the importing of Scots to serve their burgeoning interests would play an integral role and they get their place in history as well.
But when it comes to GCA, or more specifically everything that channels through GCA both from and to the golfer, CBM's zest for his own play and his dissatisfaction with the comparative quality of courses as to the experience of British/European golf was such that he was driven and compelled to bring something of similar fine quality to America, for himself and for the potency of the seed. Somehow, someway CBM was more rightfully fixated that quality courses would do as much to plant this great game in American cullture as
The quote G. Bahto's signature uses says it best, though forgive me for the paraphrase: "to pass on the great game as I found it."
For these many reasons, though it is futile to argue the merits of a non-factual title, he is the father.
cheers
vk
-
Sean,
First of all, the "number" of courses is irrelevant. As much as using template features gets you well on the way to building a great playing field for golf, there is a limit to how may such courses you can have. I really likeTom Paul's "Big World" theory. One style does NOT dominate the other. I believe that the fact that Banks and Raynor, etal. built a significant number such courses helps to contrast the naturalist style. Each style would be less if the other did not exist. Does that make sense?
Secondly, you seem to ignore the great use of natural features that Raynor used, it is as if your eye (and memory) is drawn to one engineered steep green-side shoulder and thats all you saw on the hole. Please review the recent Fishers island pictures and get back to us...
Third, i think it is a gross exageration to say that the naturalist style gets it sole motivation from the archy's you list.
Lastly, did you go to the Wayne Morrison school of knife twisting? I like yours better, btw, much more subtle :)
-
Vinnie...
After reading your post, I am satisfied. CB Macdonald is the Father of Golf Architecture in America.
Nice work.
-
Thank you for your thoughts. I see that some people maybe seeing what I believe.
Paul,
I understand that you don't want to debate the issue I just want to point out to you that the golf design Business is very cyclic and over the past 100 years I believe that we have gone through about three cycles of golf design. You are a part of that cycle with your new layout in Mexico.
The reason I asked the question is I have been reading a lot of articles, scanning a lot of aerials and spending some time in Scotland this summer looking at a few of the ideal holes C.B brought to America to expose to the new world.
I have always been an admirer of The National way back when I saw it in the middle 80s and realized now more then ever what a special place this was. After discussing with others about the influence of design C.B gave to the world both by word of mouth when the National first opened up and the print media flowering over the new style of golf brought to the Eastern Seaboard. The National was truly one of a kind.
I now more then ever realized that Macdonald influenced a lot of other golf designers of that era. I want to lead into something else regarding the wide influence that The National played back in it's era.
My next question, Do you think Macdonald in his influence on the great players of that time building some of the most fascinating layouts ( The Lido) influence people like Thomas, Tillinghast and other East Coast designers who spread the ideas out west?
Who would have had a bigger impact on design ideas other the Macdonald
-
Someone is making the case. Is it a case worth making?
What is the Father of anything. A child, an event, a sport, a country?
There are actually two ways of looking at this word “Father”. One could be the biological father of a child, he may have had limited activity though, with the up-bringing of that child. Perhaps when the child is growing up the biological father may never have had any dealings with his child. It may even be he left when the child was growing up, or maybe even before the birth. On the other hand the child might have been adopted by a responsible parent who reared that child, who loved him from the heart and in every way demonstrated the attributes of a real father. When that child grows up he recognizes who the parent was that loved him and cared for him all through his life.
When history says that George Washington was the "Father of the United States" we know that he didn't discover America, however, he was a member of the citizenry of this country. We do know that George Washington was the first person to politically represent this country in it's new form of government as the it's first President. Hence the deserved title that is given George Washington is "The Father of the United States"
When we speak of the United States citizenry of golf, like Washington there were many participants. However, Alexander Findlay was the first of these people in America to design a golf course and the first to promote this great game in the expanse of capacity that he did. He reared this child called golf from it's infancy through adolesence down to maturity, where it could stand on it's own. Years later the Sports writers of America bestowed the title of "The Father of American Golf", Subsequently, as Washington will forever be know as the "Father of the United States", so also Alexander Hamburg Findlay holds the title as "The Father of American Golf."
With that being said, some have attempted to assume this title such as David Deas. In 1743 he purchased 96 golf clubs and 432 golf balls and had them delivered from Leith Scotland to Charleston, South Carolina. But that is the end of that story as little has been recorded in history since.
A man by the name of Joseph Oil Fox in 1887 is said to have played golf in western Pennsylvania, subsequently, building a golf course that carries the title as the countries oldest course. But Joseph Fox appears to have had more interest in oil then in building, playing and promoting the game of golf in America.
A man by the name of John Reed wrote a autobiography in the mid 1930’s describing himself as the Father of American Golf, but did little to promote the game outside of his local area. How did he happen to come across that idea? When he returned home to Scotland he noticed that people were playing the game of golf. He purchased some clubs, brought them back to Yonkers, NY and hit a ball between three golf holes on a makeshift course. Does that make John Reed “The Father of American Golf?” Because he had a tennis racket from England before the game was played here, does that make him the Father of American Tennis? What about his friend Robert Lockhart, each of them are claiming to be “The Father of American Golf”. It is of interest that few sports writers if any give any credence to his claims of being the Father of American Golf or Tennis for that matter.
Then there is Charles Blair Macdonald, a Canadian born native (November 14, 1855 – April 21, 1939) was a major figure in early American golf. He built the first 18-hole course in the United States, was a driving force in the founding of the United States Golf Association, won the first U.S. Amateur championship, and later built some of the most influential golf courses in the United States, to the point he is considered the father of American golf course architecture. He is a member of the World Golf Hall of Fame. Probably the most serious contender for the title, but history prefers to wrap the title of “The Father of American Golf Course Architecture”. It appears his influence to the game was dwarfed by his interest in the stock market and being a money broker. He could have had a tremendous impact on the game, but again he abandoned his golf child to only return in the child’s young years wanting to be known as it’s father.
This brings us up to Francis Ouimet being touted as the Father of American Golf. The title really does not fit Francis. He was born in 1894 and by 1913, at 20 years of age, as an Amateur golfer won the US Open. Note what the reasoning used would be to recommend him for the title. His legacy transcends tournament victories. In 1913 it is estimated only 350,000 Americans played golf. Ten years later, fueled by Ouimet's heroics, that number was up to 2,000,000. On this basis Ouimet claimed the title The Father of American Golf.
Donald Ross is also named as “The Father of American Golf” but more so for his golf course design as he really did not come to the United States until 1899.
The question remains, who used their energies, resources, knowledge and abilities to promote the game from it’s infancy. Who had the credentials to go with the game. Who knew how to play the game from the highest levels. Who competed in US Opens, nearly winning more then once, as an amateur. Who built golf courses, not one but hundreds. Who enticed every President of the United States to play the game and who played with those presidents? Who enticed the current world champion, Harry Vardon to come to the United States to promote the game. Who tirelessly promoted this game mostly at his own expense? Who helped start women playing this game by bringing Joyce Wethered from England to promote the game for women? Who built golf courses from Europe to Canada to the Bahamas and from Maine to Florida to Texas to Montana? Who had the first Sports column on teaching the game in the newspapers. Who had a radio program devoted to the game of golf? Who met with Pope Pius XI to endeavor the pope to build a golf course on the Vatican grounds? Who played golf on over 2,400 courses, breaking par, establishing course records throughout the world? Who established the first score of 72 in the world for 18 holes, a mark that spans the ages and is still considered the basis for a round of golf? Who shot the first 71 in the United States? Who shot his age up to the week he died?
Who really fathered the game, who does the game say was it’s father? Let the record be known that there is only one individual who qualifies to be mentioned as “The Father of American Golf”, Alexander H. Findlay.
-
Jeff,
I enjoyed the read and understand why you believe that Findlay is the father of golf.
My favorite golf designer is Perry Maxwell. He designed many of the really good golf courses in the midwest and ushered in an era of fantastic greens and semi native bunkers to his layouts. But my reason for the question was did Maxwell create a string of guys wanting to use his designs for inspiration and for that reason did a lot of designers of Findlay's era use ideas from his designs? Did each of these men inspire others to take what they created and take it to the next level? Did they promote a different level of thinking furthering the advancement of creative design?
I guess that is where I am going with the thread.
-
Jeff,
I enjoyed the read and understand why you believe that Findlay is the father of golf.
My favorite golf designer is Perry Maxwell. He designed many of the really good golf courses in the midwest and ushered in an era of fantastic greens and semi native bunkers to his layouts. But my reason for the question was did Maxwell create a string of guys wanting to use his designs for inspiration and for that reason did a lot of designers of Findlay's era use ideas from his designs? Did each of these men inspire others to take what they created and take it to the next level? Did they promote a different level of thinking furthering the advancement of creative design?
I guess that is where I am going with the thread.
Jim,
As you may know, Perry Maxwell began golfing and designing golf courses after he and his wife read H.J. Whigham's article, "The Ideal Golf Links," in Scribner's Magazine (May 1909.) The article was largely about CBM's National Golf Links and provided descriptions of every hole. Maxwell was a non-golfer living in rural Oklahoma and had suffered from tuberculosis. His wife (who appreciated the fantastic F. Booth sketches in the article) thought golf might be good for Perry and wondered if they could build a course like that on their Ardmore, Oklahoma property. He took up golf, studied agronomy, studied NGLA and some other courses, and then designed Dornich Hills and a few others.
Looking at Maxwell, it sure seems like CBM was the father of Golf Architecture in America.
Imagine, an article on the design of a golf course being covered in Scribner's, a general subject magazine with wide distribution. And not just a blurb, but a long feature article with original artwork by a prominent artist. And by the way the course was not yet open. That might give people some idea of the importance of NGLA at the time.
-
Rich
I don't think so. He had his hand in golf architectural issues throughout that time. An article or series of article or a book can be as impactful as a design IMO.
Tom,
I totally disagree with that statement. Only one book in the history of GCA has had as much influence as a well designed golf course and that is Golf Architecture by Mackenzie. Even CBM's book is read by very few GCAs as it often feels like a rambling about himself not the profession.
If you are not designing then you cannot claim to have much to do GCA. Even Ron Whitten or Bradley Klein have little or no influence on GCA even these days of super fast travel of information.
The biggest influence on GCA are the golf courses themselves.
-
"I was saving post # 1000 for an appropriate topic!"
Too bad BillB; you hit the 1000 mark with that one. Now proceed directly to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's hat check girl-----she has your prize for hitting 1,000 posts. I think it's still a gross of bananas.
And frankly I don't think Charlie was the father of VERY GOOD architecture in America because Devie and Walter beat him to it and Herbie Leeds beat them all to it.
What is the timeline on the construction of Garden City? Emmet certainly did the original routing prior to the construction of NGLA, but my understanding is that Travis made the course what it is today through years of revision.
Leatherstocking is my favorite course that is credited solely to Emmet. Here, however, the timeline is even more fuzzy. Emmet constructed some of the golf course in the pre-NGLA period, but how much of that comprises today's great layout is very debatable.
How many of Emmet's contributions to American GCA were made before NGLA, and how many were made after?
All of that being said, Travis and Leeds did great work before NGLA. They were the pioneers in REALLY GOOD American golf course architecture. My final question is: how influential was their work?
JNC
Yes, how influential were Travis, Leeds and CBM? At least from an aesthetic perspective it must be fairly easy to conclude that their style(s) of design didn't really carry on too long before a more natural parkland style (for lack of a better descriptor) and more blatantly of "championship" calibre took hold and has essentially ruled the roost since.
Ciao
Sean,
Have you played Garden City? It is the most natural-looking golf course I seen in my limited experience. This is particularly dramatic because Garden City is built on a very flat piece of property. It would have been easy to manufacture golf holes with the given land, but Emmet and Travis routed a golf course that made great use of limited natural features. The bunkering, while deep at times, is never at odds with the land features. Garden City is a prototype for a "natural parkland style." There may not be other courses that are entirely similar, but I think many Golden Age architects drew upon GCGC's principles and features.
JNC
You are getting hung up on my terminology. Forget it. Describe the aesthetic styles after the first blush of American architects anyway you like. My point is that those subsequent aesthetic styles are what dominant the landscape now. I am making no judgement of good, bad or on difference, just stating what I believe to be the case. So from an aesthetic PoV, I couldn't say CBM has been nearly as influential as the second wave of American designers who mainly worked on parkland/farmland sites. I also believe an argument could be made that the championship style of difficulty from guys like Tillie and Flynn introduced has been incredibly influential on design today. The bottom line is that I am promoting the vast melting pot theory of fatherhood. No man can or should claim fatherhood over what has become a vast sea of golf architecture - especially if that man made studied what came before him.
BTW - No, I haven't played Garden City, but from descriptions it sounds to be a ground hugging masterpiece which would suit me just fine. I have seen pix of the bunkering and I do like the varying styles quite a bit regardless of whether look natural or not. This is one area of design I have changed my mind on these past few years. I don't mind the highly and obviously manufactured look so long as variety and fun are the results.
Ciao
-
JC:
As far as the influences or inspirations for the likes of Tillinghast, Thomas, Maxwell et al that you asked about, or even including Mackenzie or some of the west coast guys like a Robert Hunter or Max Behr, most all those guys wrote (or had some pretty good biographers) and in those one can find what, who, where etc inspired and influenced them. In most cases it was in their own words so I guess we should be able to take them to the bank, so to speak! ;)
Not every one of them mentioned Macdonald but if we are looking for one guy who probably came in contact somehow in this general architectural way with the largest number of the up and coming architects of that time it would probably be Macdonald.
However, there is a pretty interesting sidebar in all this, and that seems to be by around the late teens or early 1920s he had sort of pulled out altogether it seems and had become pretty unapproachable. It's interesting where one finds evidence of this (sort of in places one may not ordinarily expect to find it). Viz---in some private letters from the early 1920s between Alan Wilson and C. Piper (US Dept of Ag agronomist and chairman of the USGA Green Section) this interesting exchange after Piper visited Macdonald and NGLA presumably on a turf/agronomy visit:
Alan Wilson:
"Did Charlie try to take you head off?"
Piper:
"No, he didn't try to take my head off but he did allow as he thought everyone was an idiot."
-
JC:
I'll throw in a couple of other architects who in their own words say they were influenced by Macdonald (Raynor) and their architecture.
Davis and Mark Love. Apparently after first seeing and playing Chicago GC they were massively influenced and inspired seemingly leading them to label their own style as "Rossnor." Maybe they should relabel it "MacRossnor."
Bill Coore. He was seen just sitting somewhere out on NGLA for a long time taking the whole thing in (around the time they were doing nearby Friars Head). I asked him what he thought about NGLA and he just said: "I can't believe those guys had the guts to do something like this."
Pete Dye: I asked him once if Macdonald/Raynor influenced him and in his highly voluble manner his answer was: "Yes."
-
Thanks for the reply Jim.
Actually, I don't believe that Mr. Findlay is the father of golf. I posted because I have recently become aware of him and thought that your discussion thread was a good place to start educating myself.
The history that you folks are sharing in very beneficial.
Thanks.
-
As to Alex Findlay, it really does look like he might have been the first sort of actual practicing golf architect to get to this land. I think we are talking about something like 1888 and that is pretty amazing to think about!
-
"I was saving post # 1000 for an appropriate topic!"
Too bad BillB; you hit the 1000 mark with that one. Now proceed directly to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's hat check girl-----she has your prize for hitting 1,000 posts. I think it's still a gross of bananas.
And frankly I don't think Charlie was the father of VERY GOOD architecture in America because Devie and Walter beat him to it and Herbie Leeds beat them all to it.
What is the timeline on the construction of Garden City? Emmet certainly did the original routing prior to the construction of NGLA, but my understanding is that Travis made the course what it is today through years of revision.
Leatherstocking is my favorite course that is credited solely to Emmet. Here, however, the timeline is even more fuzzy. Emmet constructed some of the golf course in the pre-NGLA period, but how much of that comprises today's great layout is very debatable.
How many of Emmet's contributions to American GCA were made before NGLA, and how many were made after?
All of that being said, Travis and Leeds did great work before NGLA. They were the pioneers in REALLY GOOD American golf course architecture. My final question is: how influential was their work?
JNC
Yes, how influential were Travis, Leeds and CBM? At least from an aesthetic perspective it must be fairly easy to conclude that their style(s) of design didn't really carry on too long before a more natural parkland style (for lack of a better descriptor) and more blatantly of "championship" calibre took hold and has essentially ruled the roost since.
Ciao
Sean,
Have you played Garden City? It is the most natural-looking golf course I seen in my limited experience. This is particularly dramatic because Garden City is built on a very flat piece of property. It would have been easy to manufacture golf holes with the given land, but Emmet and Travis routed a golf course that made great use of limited natural features. The bunkering, while deep at times, is never at odds with the land features. Garden City is a prototype for a "natural parkland style." There may not be other courses that are entirely similar, but I think many Golden Age architects drew upon GCGC's principles and features.
JNC
You are getting hung up on my terminology. Forget it. Describe the aesthetic styles after the first blush of American architects anyway you like. My point is that those subsequent aesthetic styles are what dominant the landscape now. I am making no judgement of good, bad or on difference, just stating what I believe to be the case. So from an aesthetic PoV, I couldn't say CBM has been nearly as influential as the second wave of American designers who mainly worked on parkland/farmland sites. I also believe an argument could be made that the championship style of difficulty from guys like Tillie and Flynn introduced has been incredibly influential on design today. The bottom line is that I am promoting the vast melting pot theory of fatherhood. No man can or should claim fatherhood over what has become a vast sea of golf architecture - especially if that man made studied what came before him.
BTW - No, I haven't played Garden City, but from descriptions it sounds to be a ground hugging masterpiece which would suit me just fine. I have seen pix of the bunkering and I do like the varying styles quite a bit regardless of whether look natural or not. This is one area of design I have changed my mind on these past few years. I don't mind the highly and obviously manufactured look so long as variety and fun are the results.
Ciao
Aesthetic styles aside, while the later Golden Age architects like Tillinghast or Flynn may be responsible for today's parkland style, they were significantly influenced by the strategies and holes laid out at places like Garden City or National Golf Links. The "Father" of American GCA is not designer who has the broadest influence. In my mind, it is the person who was the first architect to put strategic designs on the ground in America that influenced subsequent architects. Tillinghast and Flynn draw from the American architecture that was in place before them at Garden City, Myopia Hunt, and NGLA. Of course, they have their own styles and strategies too, but I don't think would have been what they were without the courses of the 1900s and 1910s. By extension, the American parkland style would not be what it is without Leeds, Travis, Emmet, and MacDonald.
A side note about the American parkland style. I think people's perception of parkland golf courses today are very different the 1920s and 1930s version of parkland golf. Specifically, I am thinking of bunker style and the prominence of trees in strategy.
-
JNC:
I don't know whether you got your answer on your timeline question about the construction of GCGC compared to NGLA. GCGC by Emmet was a number of years before NGLA. By the way, Macdonald belonged to GCGC before he got involved with creating NGLA.
-
"In my mind, it is the person who was the first architect to put strategic designs on the ground in America that influenced subsequent architects."
JNC:
Well then, one should probably start considering how often architects said the following: "I can do a course as good as Myopia."
Matter of fact, Merion has just such a letter in their files from GCGC's HH Barker to a Philadelphia real estate developer in 1910 who was in the process of trying to sell Merion the land that is now Merion's East course.
It seems to me that it was not uncommon back then for folks to consider that Herbert Leeds' Myopia was the course to emulate. An interesting remark coming from the head professional at GCGC (HH Barker), don't you think?
-
JNC:
I don't know whether you got your answer on your timeline question about the construction of GCGC compared to NGLA. GCGC by Emmet was a number of years before NGLA. By the way, Macdonald belonged to GCGC before he got involved with creating NGLA.
I knew Emmet routed Garden City well before the construction of NGLA. However, most sources maintain that Travis made the course what it is today. Although I know he made the changes over a number of years, I would be interested to know if he made the majority of his changes before or after the construction of NGLA. When were the First and Eighteenth at GCGC brought into their finished form?
If Macdonald was a member at GCGC, it is plausible that Garden City, Emmet, and possibly Travis had some influence on his work at NGLA.
-
"In my mind, it is the person who was the first architect to put strategic designs on the ground in America that influenced subsequent architects."
JNC:
Well then, one should probably start considering how often architects said the following: "I can do a course as good as Myopia."
Matter of fact, Merion has just such a letter in their files from GCGC's HH Barker to a Philadelphia real estate developer in 1910 who was in the process of trying to sell Merion the land that is now Merion's East course.
It seems to me that it was not uncommon back then for folks to consider that Herbert Leeds' Myopia was the course to emulate. An interesting remark coming from the head professional at GCGC (HH Barker), don't you think?
One reason that Myopia Hunt was more nationally significant at the time because it held four US Open Championships. It brings up the question, was Emmet's and Travis's work influenced by Myopia Hunt Club more than anything else? Leeds and Fownes were the first two architects to spend years revising their golf courses as Travis did at GCGC and Macdonald did at NGLA. Were they all looking up to Myopia Hunt as the standard for championship golf and great architecture?
I believe HH Barker was an architect himself. He built the original golf course at Druid Hills in Atlanta, GA in 1911 or 1912.
-
"If Macdonald was a member at GCGC, it is plausible that Garden City, Emmet, and possibly Travis had some influence on his work at NGLA. "
JNC:
Emmet was one of the people consulitng with Macdonald in the creation of NGLA and Travis was one of two Macdonald appointed as his "associates" in the formation of a committee of three to design NGLA. The other was his son-in-law H.J Whigam. Eventually Macdonald let Travis go, apparently over their on-going dispute or misunderstanding over the legality of Travis's famous Schnectedy putter.
-
"I believe HH Barker was an architect himself."
JNC:
Yes he was indeed. There are even a couple of people on this website who have claimed HH Barker was the second best architect in America in 1910, right behind C.B. Macdonald (even though Barker was still the head professional at GCGC).
That kind of makes one wonder what those same couple of people thought about Emmet and Leeds at that time, don't you think?
Well, let me help you out some if you're considering an answer to that last question. One of those couple of people who said HH Barker was the second best architect in America in 1910 has also said on here that he doesn't think Herbert Leeds was the architect of Myopia; he thinks Willie Campbell was.
-
The "Uncles of American Golf"-- the Foulis Brothers
at least in the Midwest ;)
-
"I believe HH Barker was an architect himself."
JNC:
Yes he was indeed. There are even a couple of people on this website who have claimed HH Barker was the second best architect in America in 1910, right behind C.B. Macdonald (even though Barker was still the head professional at GCGC).
That kind of makes one wonder what those same couple of people thought about Emmet and Leeds at that time, don't you think?
Well, let me help you out some if you're considering an answer to that last question. One of those couple of people who said HH Barker was the second best architect in America in 1910 has also said on here that he doesn't think Herbert Leeds was the architect of Myopia; he thinks Willie Campbell was.
Since Willie Campbell was the original architect of The Country Club, a course where many people believe modern American GOLF was born, then that might make him the most influential architect of the early period. What sort of influence did The Country Club have on American GCA? More importantly, what evidence exists to say that Campbell was involved at Myopia?
-
"I was saving post # 1000 for an appropriate topic!"
Too bad BillB; you hit the 1000 mark with that one. Now proceed directly to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's hat check girl-----she has your prize for hitting 1,000 posts. I think it's still a gross of bananas.
And frankly I don't think Charlie was the father of VERY GOOD architecture in America because Devie and Walter beat him to it and Herbie Leeds beat them all to it.
What is the timeline on the construction of Garden City? Emmet certainly did the original routing prior to the construction of NGLA, but my understanding is that Travis made the course what it is today through years of revision.
Leatherstocking is my favorite course that is credited solely to Emmet. Here, however, the timeline is even more fuzzy. Emmet constructed some of the golf course in the pre-NGLA period, but how much of that comprises today's great layout is very debatable.
How many of Emmet's contributions to American GCA were made before NGLA, and how many were made after?
All of that being said, Travis and Leeds did great work before NGLA. They were the pioneers in REALLY GOOD American golf course architecture. My final question is: how influential was their work?
JNC
Yes, how influential were Travis, Leeds and CBM? At least from an aesthetic perspective it must be fairly easy to conclude that their style(s) of design didn't really carry on too long before a more natural parkland style (for lack of a better descriptor) and more blatantly of "championship" calibre took hold and has essentially ruled the roost since.
Ciao
Sean,
Have you played Garden City? It is the most natural-looking golf course I seen in my limited experience. This is particularly dramatic because Garden City is built on a very flat piece of property. It would have been easy to manufacture golf holes with the given land, but Emmet and Travis routed a golf course that made great use of limited natural features. The bunkering, while deep at times, is never at odds with the land features. Garden City is a prototype for a "natural parkland style." There may not be other courses that are entirely similar, but I think many Golden Age architects drew upon GCGC's principles and features.
JNC
You are getting hung up on my terminology. Forget it. Describe the aesthetic styles after the first blush of American architects anyway you like. My point is that those subsequent aesthetic styles are what dominant the landscape now. I am making no judgement of good, bad or on difference, just stating what I believe to be the case. So from an aesthetic PoV, I couldn't say CBM has been nearly as influential as the second wave of American designers who mainly worked on parkland/farmland sites. I also believe an argument could be made that the championship style of difficulty from guys like Tillie and Flynn introduced has been incredibly influential on design today. The bottom line is that I am promoting the vast melting pot theory of fatherhood. No man can or should claim fatherhood over what has become a vast sea of golf architecture - especially if that man made studied what came before him.
BTW - No, I haven't played Garden City, but from descriptions it sounds to be a ground hugging masterpiece which would suit me just fine. I have seen pix of the bunkering and I do like the varying styles quite a bit regardless of whether look natural or not. This is one area of design I have changed my mind on these past few years. I don't mind the highly and obviously manufactured look so long as variety and fun are the results.
Ciao
Aesthetic styles aside, while the later Golden Age architects like Tillinghast or Flynn may be responsible for today's parkland style, they were significantly influenced by the strategies and holes laid out at places like Garden City or National Golf Links. The "Father" of American GCA is not designer who has the broadest influence. In my mind, it is the person who was the first architect to put strategic designs on the ground in America that influenced subsequent architects. Tillinghast and Flynn draw from the American architecture that was in place before them at Garden City, Myopia Hunt, and NGLA. Of course, they have their own styles and strategies too, but I don't think would have been what they were without the courses of the 1900s and 1910s. By extension, the American parkland style would not be what it is without Leeds, Travis, Emmet, and MacDonald.
A side note about the American parkland style. I think people's perception of parkland golf courses today are very different the 1920s and 1930s version of parkland golf. Specifically, I am thinking of bunker style and the prominence of trees in strategy.
JNC
I can't disagree with anything you wrote in the last post. However, if one is take your argument to its logical conclusion, the father of US golf was much more likely to be Fowler, Park Jr and any and all who came before them. Reasonable people can disagree. You can have CBM and I will take the Melting Pot.
Ciao
-
Sean,
Yes, and then the father of all Golf course architecture, and by extension American golf course architecture, is the Old Course at St. Andrews.
To be the father of American GCA, you needed to have built courses IN THE US in the early stages that provided significant influence for the future of American golf course architecture and architects. The premise behind that is that there is something distinctly different between courses built in America and those built in Europe. Since you have lots of experience with golf on both sides of the Atlantic and I do not, you could probably give me a better indication of whether or not that is true.
-
Sean,
Yes, and then the father of all Golf course architecture, and by extension American golf course architecture, is the Old Course at St. Andrews.
To be the father of American GCA, you needed to have built courses IN THE US in the early stages that provided significant influence for the future of American golf course architecture and architects. The premise behind that is that there is something distinctly different between courses built in America and those built in Europe. Since you have lots of experience with golf on both sides of the Atlantic and I do not, you could probably give me a better indication of whether or not that is true.
JNC
To be honest, I don't think there is anything distinctly different (other than in small degrees) about US and GB&I architecture and thus I don't really buy into a father of US architecture idea. Consequently, I stand by the melting pot/stand on the shoulders theory. I think the biggest difference between the best of each side of the pond are the sites and what they could offer in terms playablity styles. For the past 30 or 40 years those differences have been slowly merging to become more similar. Hopefully, that trend is coming to an end with recent attitude changes on both sides of the pond.
Ciao
-
"More importantly, what evidence exists to say that Campbell was involved at Myopia?"
JNC:
That entire issue got pretty adverserial on here a while back so are you sure you want to know or ask? If you really want to know I'll tell you though. It's a little complex because the original nine holes was not done by Leeds, he hadn't even joined the club at that point (1894). When he came over from TCC Brookline in 1896 he set about fairly comprehensively changing that original nine into what became known as "The Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was held and then by 1900 he added nine more holes that created the eighteen that's there today and on which three more US Opens were held by 1908. Leeds just kept on constantly working on the course bascially bunkering it up more and more and making some revisions for over twenty years.
-
JNC
If you are interested in Campbell and his connection with Myopia there's a lot of good info on this old thread:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40810.0/
-
Sean has a good point there. It is really difficult to separate the development of golf architecture in America from Britain, in fact, these was so much crossover its nearly impossible. CB Macdonald for example was greatly influenced by developments in the UK and by individuals in the UK. Tweedie was English, Whigham was a Scot, Campbell was a Scot, Bendelow was a Scot, Findlay was a Scot, the Dunns were Scots, the Fouliss were Scots, Watson was a Scot, Ross was a Scot, Emmet and Leeds travelled abroad often... Developments in America were an extension of developments in the UK.
-
"Sean has a good point there. It is really difficult to separate the development of golf architecture in America from Britain, in fact, these was so much crossover its nearly impossible. CB Macdonald for example was greatly influenced by developments in the UK and by individuals in the UK. Tweedie was English, Whigham was a Scot, Campbell was a Scot, Bendelow was a Scot, Findlay was a Scot, the Dunns were Scots, the Fouliss were Scots, Watson was a Scot, Ross was a Scot, Emmet and Leeds travelled abroad often... Developments in America were an extension of developments in the UK."
I think that statement is really significant on here. Here's why:
It essentially boils down to how one wants to or tries to look at a massive subject----say golf course architecture generally no matter where it is VERSUS say golf course architecture in two distinctly different places, in this case in America in the early days in relation to golf course architecture in GB.
This basically boils down to the old "compare" or "contrast" or more efficiently in the way most of us were taught in school "Compare AND Contrast."
I completely subscribe to Sean's idea of the melting pot point if that's the way one wants to look at it but if one does they tend to either ignore or avoid any differences which of course may be extremely interesting when one gets into the "Contrast" analysis.
In MacWood's last post he mentions in those early years Tweedie was English, Whigam was a Scot, Campbell was a Scot, Bendelow was a Scot, Findlay was a Scot, the Dunns were Scots, The Foulis brothers were Scot, Watson was a Scot, Ross was a Scot----but Herbert Leeds was an American, The Fownes, Hugh Wilson, George Crump, Albert Tillinghast, Walter Travis, Dev Emmet, William Flynn, Max Behr, Robert Hunter, George Thomas etc, etc, etc et al were all Americans. Even if most all of them had an interest in the architecture of the old world they still very much had some new ideas on and about architecture that probably did not emanate from abroad and frankly that makes the need to "contrast" what was going on over here versus abroad a most interesing study and inquiry rather than just trying to "compare" it all by just throwing it into one bigy "melting pot" and leaving it at that.
If one really wants to understand some of the differences and the dynamics in architecture between what was going on over there versus over here with many of the architects of either side and nationality and what they were thinking and saying differently throughout those early years (from around the turn of the century well into the late 1920s) one should start by reading some of the ideas and opinion rich articles of A.W. Tillinghast, a really prolific writer and opinion provider throughout! He certainly had a lot to say about some of the differences (particularly from around the mid-teens on) between American architects and architecture in relation to what was going on with foreign architects and architecture abroad ;)
-
I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to any theory of GCA that ignores the spectacular moments, like the one in which NGLA was conceived. I do believe in the continuum, or the standing on the shoulders theory, but even in that I believe there were many who were already heads (and I guess shoulders) above the crowd and, when boosted up, saw a much bigger picture then did their brethren.
The line of progression running through the history of GCA has dips and spikes, and one of those highest spikes is NGLA. It represented something that as yet had not been put into a cohesive form in the USA. It was the point-of-no-return for American GCA, and when someone creates something of that magnitude he usually gets the same type of recognition that CBM received.
-
I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to any theory of GCA that ignores the spectacular moments, like the one in which NGLA was conceived. I do believe in the continuum, or the standing on the shoulders theory, but even in that I believe there were many who were already heads (and I guess shoulders) above the crowd and, when boosted up, saw a much bigger picture then did their brethren.
The line of progression running through the history of GCA has dips and spikes, and one of those highest spikes is NGLA. It represented something that as yet had not been put into a cohesive form in the USA. It was the point-of-no-return for American GCA, and when someone creates something of that magnitude he usually gets the same type of recognition that CBM received.
Jim
I never meant to imply that the melting pot concept of GCA development ignores spectacular moments of architecture - and I am not sure where you got that impression. Nor was it ever my intention that CBM's reputation should somehow be reduced. My point is that one heck of a lot was going on before and after CBM that was and is significant for all sorts of reasons. To pick one guy out of a crowd and proclaim him the father seems pointless. CBM was part of progression, a spike in the progression for sure, but none the less, part of a progression which relied very heavily on a many talented people.
One of the greatest things CBM contributed was the continued knowledge brought over from the UK that the property and its playabilty possibilities is critical in creating first class golf. This, I think was at least as important as the gathering of architectural strategies as a way of designing (in other words - the wheel doesn't have to be re-invented).
Ciao
-
"The line of progression running through the history of GCA has dips and spikes, and one of those highest spikes is NGLA. It represented something that as yet had not been put into a cohesive form in the USA. It was the point-of-no-return for American GCA, and when someone creates something of that magnitude he usually gets the same type of recognition that CBM received."
JimK:
Do you really believe it was just NGLA itself that was of such magnitude (architecturally) above anything else that came before it (or perhaps just after it like Merion East and Pine Valley) to be labeled "the point-of-no-return for Amercian GCA" or do you think a good part of it was also the way Macdonald went about it (highly public) compared to the others who produced truly significant architecture before him and just after him?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying NGLA is not and was not a real watershed, pace-setting golf course and architecture over here but let's not sell some of the others short before it and just after it in comparision just because their architects went about their seminal and highlly significant projects in the history of American GCA a whole lot more quietly than Macdonald went about NGLA.
-
"My point is that one heck of a lot was going on before and after CBM that was and is significant for all sorts of reasons. To pick one guy out of a crowd and proclaim him the father seems pointless. CBM was part of progression, a spike in the progression for sure, but none the less, part of a progression which relied very heavily on a many talented people."
I'm with your point there Sean. But to me that does not mean there were not and are not some pretty interesting distinctions and differences between American architecture compared to architecture abroad at that time.
-
"My point is that one heck of a lot was going on before and after CBM that was and is significant for all sorts of reasons. To pick one guy out of a crowd and proclaim him the father seems pointless. CBM was part of progression, a spike in the progression for sure, but none the less, part of a progression which relied very heavily on a many talented people."
I'm with your point there Sean. But to me that does not mean there were not and are not some pretty interesting distinctions and differences between American architecture compared to architecture abroad at that time.
Tom
I agree, but I don't think the distinctions are all that great. That said, I have always been intrigued by the idea of building a course for the purpose of being able to hold championships which strikes me as a very American idea. I think the GB&I courses selected for championships were essentially the grandees with corresponding clubs. Sure, changes were made to all of the championship courses to retain their "status", especially after the onset of the Haskell and the burgeoning concept of golf architecture - which btw the relationship between the Haskell and the development of gca has always intrigued me. There seemed to be this idea of building tough courses to produce good golfers and I think that idea has carried through up to now. How many courses have been built around the idea of "championship" length and difficulty etc? Of course, this idea of "championship" is also related to "fairness" and what is reasonable for gca. Those courses built by Flynn and Tillie must have been ball busters in their day. In essence, championship concept and its consequences is, I think, the biggest difference between gca in GB&I and US at the time. Though the two sides of the pond are now much closer in what they "expect" of gca these days.
Ciao
-
Sean,
I didn't think you were implying that, so maybe I was unclear in making my point. CBM wasn't about re-inventing the wheel, but he was about making sure it had all its spokes.
TEPaul,
CBM did a great sales job, no doubt. After all, he did get 70 of the wealthiest and savviest men in America to fund nothing more than a plan.
I've read a lot of opinions about the other great courses that preceded NGLA, but I've never read where they contained an ideal assemblage, nor does it seem that's what they were trying to do.
Why did so many people pay so much attention to it? Why did it (does it) have such an effect on other architects? To say it was only marketing is mis-guided, as people,and especially the critics of the day, easily see through the hype. So yes, I have an as-yet unswerving view that CBM took architecture to a new plateau from which it has never looked back. His effort at NGLA was a showcase of classic values and a touchstone for what GCA could and should be. Plus, the whole package at NGLA doesn't diminish any other person's work, at that time or since. He gets the moniker because he stuck his head up the farthest and kept it there.
-
"Why did so many people pay so much attention to it? Why did it (does it) have such an effect on other architects?"
JomK:
Because it was a truly revolutionary idea that apparently had never before been thought of or attempted in golf course architecture and because it was rolled out with tremendous publicity and visibility. And of course it was and is very good.
"To say it was only marketing is mis-guided, as people,and especially the critics of the day, easily see through the hype."
I'm not aware of anyone who has ever said it was all hype.
"So yes, I have an as-yet unswerving view that CBM took architecture to a new plateau from which it has never looked back."
I too think he took architecture to a new plateau but so did a few others before him and shortly after him and on.
"His effort at NGLA was a showcase of classic values and a touchstone for what GCA could and should be. Plus, the whole package at NGLA doesn't diminish any other person's work, at that time or since. He gets the moniker because he stuck his head up the farthest and kept it there."
The point is that American architecture did not exclusively follow his model, style, look etc, and if some did in the beginning it clearly does not seem to have lasted long. The whole idea of just copying GB holes or even what Macdonald referred to as "classical" holes either actually or in principle did not seem to endure. Others had their own ideas, types and styles and developed them and followed them. This fact takes nothing from Macdonald or what he accomplished but for someone to assume that Macdonald set a standard, a type and a style in America architecture that everyone continued to follow would be a pretty wrong interpretation of the evolution and history of American architecture I believe.
-
Tom,
No one has ever said it was all hype, they have said what I wrote, a marketing job.
What I'm talking about is what became of his idea, and that was to transcend the actual architecture. No one was even close to putting together what he did, when he did it, and it even impacts what gets built, and how, to this day.
You are where you will remain, and I am where I will remain. More than likely CBM's position will also remain where it is well after we are gone. He will remain in the annals of history, the Halls of Fame of various associations, and when the story writers wish to describe him it will be with "The Father of Golf Course Architecture in America". ;D
-
"Tom,
No one has ever said it was all hype, they have said what I wrote, a marketing job."
Jim:
Once again, I agree, no one ever said it was all hype; I certainly didn't.
BTW, Jim, remind me how old you are because I have something perhaps sort of interesting to tell you or at least to mention about Long Island and all the Macdonald architecture I grew up around and the way it seem to be percieved in what might be called the middle years.
-
I've read this thread with great interest, especially the responses of those arguing that CBM was NOT the father of GA in A. Interesting arguments but I am not convinced.
Sean, As I understand it, you think that one of the main reasons that CBM was not the father of Golf Architecture in America is that his aesthetic style did not remain in vogue for long, but was replaced by subsequent aesthetic styles and these dominate the landscape still today. Isn't that a bit like arguing that George Washington is not the Father of this Country because his powdered wigs, ruffled shirts, and buckled shoes fell out of fashion?
1. As you might have guessed, my first point and most important point is that "aesthetic style" is picayune when we consider the totality of CBM's impact on golf architecture in America. It wasn't about aesthetics. It was about fundamentally altering the manner in which we approached golf course design.
2. As far as I can tell, your understanding of CBM's "aesthetic style" is inaccurate and misleading. You cannot look at a Macdonald course today and draw conclusions about CBM's aesthetic sensibilities from a century past. Yet that is apparently what you are doing here, only you are including Raynor as well! Looks change. As the photos on the National Bunkers thread indicate, the look at has NGLA changed rather dramatically over the past century.
3. Your comparison of CBM's supposed aesthetic style with the courses today (or even courses 10 - 20 years later) is inapt. It is like drawing conclusions about the Ford Model T and its impact on automobile product by looking solely at how cars are produced today. To study the revolutionary nature of the design and construction of the Model T, we must first understand the state of the art at the time this car was introduced. Likewise, to understand how CBM changed even the aesthetics goals of golf design in America we must consider the predominant aesthetic style of his own time. And generally what existed at the time was pretty abysmal. Rather than emulating nature, many seemed to be going out of their way to make the features on the courses look unnatural. Compared to much of what was going on in golf course design in America at the time, CBM's work was a giant leap toward a more natural aesthetic.
4. I said above, the issue of aesthetic styling is picayune when considering the big picture, but it does hint at what might be CBM's most contribution, his overall approach to design. And that brings me to my fourth point. Whatever the appearance of his courses, there is no denying that CBM's goal was to emulate the principles and features found on the great links golf courses, even aesthetically. And to CBM this largely meant making his features look as natural as he could. This was a huge departure of much of what had gone on in golf architecture in America up until this point. When it came to aesthetics, many of those who you think were heading in their own direction were actually following CBM's lead. This is true whether or not they agreed with all of his aesthetic sensibilities.
Enough about aesthetics already.
Your point about a cross-continental melting pot is more compelling. If I understand you correctly, you believe golf design in America is a mix of ideas and influences from here and abroad. I agree with you, if you meant that during the so-called golden age, America became melting pot of architectural ideas, but pre-golden age I don't think this was the case.
There was a disconnect between links courses and American courses, and the ideas that applied to one weren't really applied to the other. CBM set out to change this by bringing as much of the Scottish links to America as he could reasonably carry, and by convincing American clubs and golfers that the fundamental principles of great golf course design were discoverable within the traditional links courses, and while one couldn't necessarily recreate the links, one could apply those fundamental principles to create classic or even ideal courses in America. Surely some of his contemporaries shared his ideas and even acted on them to some degree. But CBM didn't just act on it, he did so in a manner that sold his ideas to mainstream golf in America. And by so doing he gave all who followed a base on which to build.
But perhaps we disagree on the state of things in America in the first decade of last century?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Some others suggested that the fathers of Golf Architecture in America were the Scottish professionals and others (largely immigrants) who built the first wave of golf courses in America. If one understands father of Golf Architecture in America to me those who staked out the first courses, then these guys are the answer, by definition. While some seem to have excluded CBM from this grouping, I couldn't because CBM was one of those influential men who was spreading golf and building courses (in and near Chicago) very early on.
As I said, it is reasonable to define it this way, but I think of this early generation more as the fathers of Golf in America, but not necessarily golf course design. The were instrumental in spreading golf. Sure they were building courses, but generally these courses were considered far inferior to what existed on Scottish links land, and most of them were wiped off the map just before or during the supposed "Golden Age."
I don't think golf architecture in America really came into its own until we started creating our own world class courses. And that began with NGLA.
-
To fairly gauge CBM's (and NGLA's) impact on golf course design in America we must first understand the state of golf course design at the time.
According to H.J. Whigham's 1909 Article in Scribner's there were only a few courses in all of America that were "nearly good." From the article . . .
It is certainly a great proof of the adaptability of the American character that in less than twenty years the youth of the country has taken up golf, learned the game, produced one world-wide champion and a new generation of golfers who could hold their own in Scotland where the game has been played for centuries. And nothing could prevent golf from becoming by far the most popular game among the grown men of the country if it were not for one drawback. Whereas in Scotland and England seaside golf courses existed before the early Britons wore clothes and require little or no preparation, an American course can only be made and kept up at considerable expense. There is no such thing as a "natural golf course in America; and if there were very few people would benefit, since the vast majority of the population live so far from the sea. Thirty years ago the number of golf courses abroad which were not on the sandy dunes by the sea was a negligible quantity. I believe that the first really good inland courses were made in America. England learned from America that while you could never make a St. Andrews or a Prestwick away from the sea, you could produce something which was almost as good a test of golf. But it takes money to do it, and consequently golf can never be as inexpensive a game here as it is in Great Britain.
And there is another hindrance to the popularity of the game which is really the subject-matter of this article. We started well enough twelve or fifteen years ago by showing how to make a good golf course inland. Yet there has been practically no improvement in that direction since then, although in every other way the game has made great strides. Ninety per cent, of the courses in this country are not to be compared with the real golf links abroad. And the worst of it is that an entirely erroneous standard has grown up so that it is the most difficult thing in the world to introduce reforms. Everything now is sacrificed to the older players who want the path made easy for them, and for some strange reason the younger players are dumb. There are a few golfers in the country who have steadily set themselves to keep up the real standard, like Mr. Herbert Leeds, who, I believe, was responsible not only for Myopia but for the nine-hole course at Bar Harbor, and the winter course at Aiken. There is an excellent inland course also at Manchester, Vermont, and there is Garden City, which lately has been much improved. When one has mentioned these one has included practically all the links in the country which approach in interest and quality the best courses abroad, and even these fall a long way short of perfection. Is it not strange that with all the vast sums of money expended on golf links in America, so few courses should be nearly good?
The defects in most courses I should attribute to two reasons. First of all, since money is an essential, the affairs of the different clubs are generally in the hands of the older men who supply the funds. The older men not only want things made easy for them, but they lack the imagination of youth. The Wheaton and Onwentsia courses in Chicago were the two best in the country when they were laid out, because they represented the last word in making artificial courses at that time. But positively no advance has been made since then. In fact, if anyting they have gone backward, because, as turf has improved, both courses have become far too easy. Their main difficulty is the long grass, which is the worst feature of golf the game in America. Take Garden City as another example. Here conditions are most favorable and no one can doubt that with the Long Island soil and climate a really interesting course might be constructed. As it is, nearly everything is either wrong about the course or else not quite right where it could so easily be right. Walter Travis did a great deal when he put in about fifty new bunkers and imitated the eleventh hole at St. Andrews on the last green. That one change in itself has been a tremendous improvement. Yet he had to risk any amount of hostile criticism, and even now the course is hardly within measurable distance of what it ought to be if properly laid out.
When we come to particulars it will be observed that most American courses consist of a long strip of turf about sixty yards wide laid out like a race course, with long grass or trees, or bushes, on either side. Hazards are placed at stated intervals, generally about 120 yards and 260 yards from the tee, in the form of ditches and cops stretching at right angles across the course. The only difference between one hole and another is the difference of length. Any shot off the tee suffices as long as it carries 120 yards and keeps within a width of sixty yards, unless it is an exceptionally long and straight shot, when it goes into a bunker intended to catch a second. The putting greens are large and flat expanses with no hazards near them so that the approach shot becomes as simple as possible. The one thing the player has to worry about is the chance of a bad slice or pull. If he goes a yard off the course to left or right he will probably lose his ball and his temper. There is no variety or finesse about the game under such conditions. The advantage of skill is reduced to a minimum and the wonder is that the game has remained so popular as it is. A spirit of trade unionism seems to have invaded the game. Just as it is made impossible nowadays for a good bricklayer to lay bricks as fast as he wants to, it is considered wrong that the golfer who can hit the ball far and straight should have any advantage over the short and inaccurate driver. As for the finer points of the game—putting spin on the ball to stop it, etc.—the idea of developing those points is firmly discouraged. I have already mentioned a few courses which do afford opportunities to the fine player and variety to all classes. It must be confessed, however, that this is not the case with the majority.
. . .
The abomination of most courses in this country is long grass. I believe that golf would be twice as popular in America today if long grass and bushes were absolutely abolished and the possibility of a lost ball practically eliminated.
And a few photographs . . .
Merion's Haverford Course in 1909 . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/190910AG17thgreenold3rdatOldMerion.jpg?t=1256867193)
Two of Huntington Valley from 1909 . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/190907HVCC14th.jpg?t=1256867241)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/190907HVCC17th.jpg?t=1256867301)
Baltusrol in 1909 . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/09blstrl.jpg?t=1256867466)
Nassau in 1909 . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1909-Nassau-with-Clubhouse.jpg?t=1256868163)
And some others . . .
Midlothian
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/Midlothian-Pit.jpg?t=1256867660)
Ontwensia . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/_1899-Onwentsia-1st.jpg?t=1256867797)
And a whole bunch of places . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1900-Nassau-Mounds.jpg?t=1242098762)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/copbunker.jpg?t=1256867976)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/Drops.jpg?t=1256868010)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1901-Pot-Bunker.jpg?t=1256868275)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1900-Richmond-wee-drop-gree.jpg?t=1256868881)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1898-St-Augustine-Tee.jpg?t=1256868418)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1891-Shinnecock-Typical-Bun.jpg?t=1256868453)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1901-CC-of-Atlantic-City.jpg?t=1256868676)
This was what existed in America. Sure it wasn't all this bad, but a surprising amount was, and many of these were considered good courses.
-
The "Wee Drop" looks awesome.
-
The "Wee Drop" looks awesome.
Doesn't it? Reminds me of one of those optical illusion cube drawings one might find on a kid's menu. (Tells you where I dine.)
-
I've read this thread with great interest, especially the responses of those arguing that CBM was NOT the father of GA in A. Interesting arguments but I am not convinced.
Sean, As I understand it, you think that one of the main reasons that CBM was not the father of Golf Architecture in America is that his aesthetic style did not remain in vogue for long, but was replaced by subsequent aesthetic styles and these dominate the landscape still today. Isn't that a bit like arguing that George Washington is not the Father of this Country because his powdered wigs, ruffled shirts, and buckled shoes fell out of fashion?
1. As you might have guessed, my first point and most important point is that "aesthetic style" is picayune when we consider the totality of CBM's impact on golf architecture in America. It wasn't about aesthetics. It was about fundamentally altering the manner in which we approached golf course design.
2. As far as I can tell, your understanding of CBM's "aesthetic style" is inaccurate and misleading. You cannot look at a Macdonald course today and draw conclusions about CBM's aesthetic sensibilities from a century past. Yet that is apparently what you are doing here, only you are including Raynor as well! Looks change. As the photos on the National Bunkers thread indicate, the look at has NGLA changed rather dramatically over the past century.
3. Your comparison of CBM's supposed aesthetic style with the courses today (or even courses 10 - 20 years later) is inapt. It is like drawing conclusions about the Ford Model T and its impact on automobile product by looking solely at how cars are produced today. To study the revolutionary nature of the design and construction of the Model T, we must first understand the state of the art at the time this car was introduced. Likewise, to understand how CBM changed even the aesthetics goals of golf design in America we must consider the predominant aesthetic style of his own time. And generally what existed at the time was pretty abysmal. Rather than emulating nature, many seemed to be going out of their way to make the features on the courses look unnatural. Compared to much of what was going on in golf course design in America at the time, CBM's work was a giant leap toward a more natural aesthetic.
4. I said above, the issue of aesthetic styling is picayune when considering the big picture, but it does hint at what might be CBM's most contribution, his overall approach to design. And that brings me to my fourth point. Whatever the appearance of his courses, there is no denying that CBM's goal was to emulate the principles and features found on the great links golf courses, even aesthetically. And to CBM this largely meant making his features look as natural as he could. This was a huge departure of much of what had gone on in golf architecture in America up until this point. When it came to aesthetics, many of those who you think were heading in their own direction were actually following CBM's lead. This is true whether or not they agreed with all of his aesthetic sensibilities.
Enough about aesthetics already.
Your point about a cross-continental melting pot is more compelling. If I understand you correctly, you believe golf design in America is a mix of ideas and influences from here and abroad. I agree with you, if you meant that during the so-called golden age, America became melting pot of architectural ideas, but pre-golden age I don't think this was the case.
There was a disconnect between links courses and American courses, and the ideas that applied to one weren't really applied to the other. CBM set out to change this by bringing as much of the Scottish links to America as he could reasonably carry, and by convincing American clubs and golfers that the fundamental principles of great golf course design were discoverable within the traditional links courses, and while one couldn't necessarily recreate the links, one could apply those fundamental principles to create classic or even ideal courses in America. Surely some of his contemporaries shared his ideas and even acted on them to some degree. But CBM didn't just act on it, he did so in a manner that sold his ideas to mainstream golf in America. And by so doing he gave all who followed a base on which to build.
But perhaps we disagree on the state of things in America in the first decade of last century?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Some others suggested that the fathers of Golf Architecture in America were the Scottish professionals and others (largely immigrants) who built the first wave of golf courses in America. If one understands father of Golf Architecture in America to me those who staked out the first courses, then these guys are the answer, by definition. While some seem to have excluded CBM from this grouping, I couldn't because CBM was one of those influential men who was spreading golf and building courses (in and near Chicago) very early on.
As I said, it is reasonable to define it this way, but I think of this early generation more as the fathers of Golf in America, but not necessarily golf course design. The were instrumental in spreading golf. Sure they were building courses, but generally these courses were considered far inferior to what existed on Scottish links land, and most of them were wiped off the map just before or during the supposed "Golden Age."
I don't think golf architecture in America really came into its own until we started creating our own world class courses. And that began with NGLA.
David
No, I believe in the melting pot theory because I don't think its reasonable to select one man out of many very talented people from both sides of the pond and declare him The Father blah blah. The evolution of architecture is far more worthwhile and complicated than just a simplified figure head which doesn't convey any real meaning.
BTW I: Aesthetics are a very important aspect of gca even if you think of it as inconsequential.
BTW II: I don't believe George Washington was the father of our country. In this area, I also believe in the melting pot theory. Americans like quick clean sound bites and "father of ..." is a one of our favourites. I always take these sorts of pronouncements with a pinch of salt.
BTW III: People before CBM practiced his methods of "science meets art" only they were much quicker about getting the job done. Because they weren't American means absolutely nothing to me.
BTW IV: You make too many assumptions on my part. Stick to reading the words I wrote - it makes dialogue easier to conduct.
Ciao
-
::)
-
Sean,
I thought I had made my last post on this thread two days ago, but I was struck by your investment at undermining the premise and the language of the thread...that, "nobody is the 'Father' of nothing in even an esoteric sense." I guess I say "struck" because I thought the original titular thread question, "Was CMB really the father of GCA." was not only valid, but pretty fun.
I say "valid,' because if we were in another realm of scholarship (science, history, math, literature) or one of their provincial disciplines (plant bilogy, Roman history, governing dynamics, the poetry of the Spenser) these type of amorphous, unanswerable questions about the context of the discipline come up all the time, they are the subject of books, educational materials, lectures and the like, that advance that knowledge of the subject.
If the infinitesimal amount of people (<2000?) who post and visit these discussions and who are golf architects, architectural critics, GCA afficiandos, or (people merely looking for the great courses to play) DON"T ask this type of question, who will? This is it, right here, this (imo) is the leading colloquy for the examination of GCA.
From that obviously speculative titular question we get supports for the premise and refutations of the premise, we get photos of early American architecture some have never seen and we are exposed to direct biographical snippets and contemporary context that we may have never encountered. This is as it should be, imo.
Of course George Washington isn't the actual Father of Our Country, it would only be so if we were all direct descendants of him but he can be summarized in that way and was so well before there was a sound bite for Americans to consume. Yet I have both seen and read scholars debating that very point, often times in agreement, in differing degrees with the occasional new bird chirping about Alexander Hamilton in preference to GW. These dialogs and books are amongst the most entertaining and enlightening I encounter. why shouldn't it be so for our area of concentration
As for the lesser matters in GCA, I will merely paraphrase a portion of my original post: In all the ways that a father can be taken to mean: co-author, co-creator, financier, protector, physical link to the ancestors and their deeds, authority figure, planner, developer CBM, more than anyone else, can be accurately construed as the Father of Golf Architecture in America.
Cheers
vk
-
Sean,
I thought I had made my last post on this thread two days ago, but I was struck by your investment at undermining the premise and the language of the thread...that, "nobody is the 'Father' of nothing in even an esoteric sense." I guess I say "struck" because I thought the original titular thread question, "Was CMB really the father of GCA." was not only valid, but pretty fun.
I say "valid,' because if we were in another realm of scholarship (science, history, math, literature) or one of their provincial disciplines (plant bilogy, Roman history, governing dynamics, the poetry of the Spenser) these type of amorphous, unanswerable questions about the context of the discipline come up all the time, they are the subject of books, educational materials, lectures and the like, that advance that knowledge of the subject.
If the infinitesimal amount of people (<2000?) who post and visit these discussions and who are golf architects, architectural critics, GCA afficiandos, or (people merely looking for the great courses to play) DON"T ask this type of question, who will? This is it, right here, this (imo) is the leading colloquy for the examination of GCA.
From that obviously speculative titular question we get supports for the premise and refutations of the premise, we get photos of early American architecture some have never seen and we are exposed to direct biographical snippets and contemporary context that we may have never encountered. This is as it should be, imo.
Of course George Washington isn't the actual Father of Our Country, it would only be so if we were all direct descendants of him but he can be summarized in that way and was so well before there was a sound bite for Americans to consume. Yet I have both seen and read scholars debating that very point, often times in agreement, in differing degrees with the occasional new bird chirping about Alexander Hamilton in preference to GW. These dialogs and books are amongst the most entertaining and enlightening I encounter. why shouldn't it be so for our area of concentration
As for the lesser matters in GCA, I will merely paraphrase a portion of my original post: In all the ways that a father can be taken to mean: co-author, co-creator, financier, protector, physical link to the ancestors and their deeds, authority figure, planner, developer CBM, more than anyone else, can be accurately construed as the Father of Golf Architecture in America.
Cheers
vk
VK
The questions should absolutely be asked because these lead to discovery, but when a conclusion as clean cut as simple one man answer is offered, I am highly dubious. Which of course means I have more questions! Thats fair enough no?
Ciao
-
Sean,
I agree with you that declarations like "the father of . . ." are often hollow and rarely tell the whole story, but at least the question gives us a chance to discuss a crucial yet often misunderstood period in the development of golf architecture in America. So I agree with VM.
And for me this isn't really an issue of semantics, but an issue of understanding what really happened. While your melting pot concept is appealing in an everyone is a winner sort of way, and it keeps peace among those trying to prop up their pet dead guy, it just didn't happen that way, at least not initially. With NGLA, CBM profoundly altered the approach taken toward golf course design in America, and on a massive scale. Virtually every decent course was significantly altered or entirely rebuilt as a direct result of this sea change.
Sure there were a few talented guys with similar ideas on both sides of the pond-- many of them were directly aiding CBM in his quest. Some of these guys (Travis at Garden City for example) had begun tinkering with various existing courses to bring about positive change, and some links-like sophistication had begun to appear on new courses. But CBM espoused and implemented the ideas on a much grander scale and on a much larger stage.
Who were these other guys to which you refer? Where were their courses? Were writers on two continents writing about any of these courses years before the land had even been purchased? Did clubs across the country plead for their help? Did other clubs send their professionals or chairs on pilgrimages overseas because these guys had? Did other clubs across the country try to build or change their own courses with the same hole types as theirs? What did these guys do to convince the golfing establishment in America that that the fundamental principles of great golf course design were discoverable within the traditional links? Did Hutchinson proclaim that these courses challenged even St. Andrews for the best course in the World?
Speaking of Darwin, in 1913 Bernard Darwin had the honor of acting as Quimet's marker in the historical playoff, and had also toured many of the country's top courses during the visit. Here is what he had to say about the trip in 1921:
When I came back from America after seeing that memorable battle there were two questions which I was asked by all my golfing acquaintances. The first was, "What is Ouimet like?" the second, "What is the National Golf Links like?" The first I have endeavoured to answer, and Mr. Ouimet has answered it himself by coming here, as we all hope he will again. As the National Golf Links cannot be brought here, and as it is one of the two or three finest courses I have ever seen, I will try to answer the second question now.
No surprise that these were the two questions. When Francis Quimet beat Vardon and Ray in the legendary playoff at the Country Club for the US Open Championship it was a watershed moment for golf in America and it sent shockwaves around the world. American golfers had not only arrived, they now challenged (and occasionally even beat) the best golfers in the World. Likewise with NGLA. America now had a golf course that was widely considered to be among the very best in the world.
CBM and NGLA had captured the imagination of golfers and even some non-golfers, for example, future great Perry Maxwell of Oklahoma. And much of that was just the news, descriptions, and debate about the place! Once more saw the course the hype only grew. In the process of imagining, discussing, building NGLA, CBM had started a revolution in golf course design that spread to every corner of America.
-
Sean Arble,
Orville and Wilbur Wright might argue with you regarding the "paternity" of motorized flight.
David Moriarty,
Phrased another way, was NGLA the new benchmark or gold standard for American golf in 1909 ?
Fast forward 100 years.
Has NGLA retained any/most of the attributes, in the context of modern golf, that established it as the benchmark or gold standard in 1909 ?
While Sean wants to argue semantics, the gist of the query seems to ask whether or not it was CBM who launched a new direction and product in GCA, a product of such quality that it remains mostly intact, and highly relevant, a century later.
I too am interested in knowing what other architects, who preceeded CBM, influenced American GCA to the degree that CBM did.
CBM's influence was perpetuated vis a vis, Seth Raynor and Charles Banks.
When one aggregates the body of their collective works, it occupies an enormous segment of GCA in America for two to three decades, paralleling the early growth of golf in this country.
Even courses subsequent to NGLA, not designed by CBM, were influenced by him.
Is not Merion a perfect example ?
How many other courses introduced their version of his templates ?
His/their influence was so monumental, so far reaching that a century later, a prominent modern day architect is replicating/paying homage to his work at a new course in Bandon, Oregon.
Doesn't one have to play NGLA to appreciate and understand CBM's influence on golf in America ?
-
Sean:
Fair enough
PM:
I agree with your responses and last summary of the topic. Because I'm ambivalent about a lot of our classic designs being invested in ultra-exclusive clubs, I wish I had a better argument to refute the very last rhetorical question you posed: "Doesn't one have to play NGLA to appreciate and understand CBM's influence on golf in America ?"
That's a hard call because I can think of many GCA scientists and eager-to-learn critics not getting the opportunity. I had all the local golf juice and well-heeled friends you could ever want (without being a PGA member) and National was a tough "get." Tougher still if you really wanted to have the experience of the course with a couple of regular friends, which is as important to me as the whole damn enterprise.
cheers
vk
-
V Kmetz:
It amuses me that both Moriarty and Mucci, perhaps among others on here, tend to play up the singular importance of NGLA as the absolute beginning of quality golf course architecture in America. There is no question the public splash NGLA made at the time of its creation certainly did make a very big splash and got a lot of public notice all over the place, seemingly as much for Macdonald's revolutionary model for it and its architecture (that it pretty much was a must in architecture to either copy what Macdonald called "classical" holes abroad or the accumulated "principles" of classical holes abroad). That in and of itself was the meat of Macdonald's REVOLUTIONARY idea and HIS new model for quality architecture in America, and including the novel idea that all 18 holes must each be of a high architectural standard (no "weak link" holes as Macdonald even said at that time even the best of the famous linksland courses had).
I don't think anyone denies this was the case with NGLA, but the question is, and my point is, did NGLA represent the FIRST example of quality architecture in America?
I think we know it did not (in the minds of even the top experts on the subject of that time) and we know it from the likes of Macdonald and Whigam and a bunch of others of the significant minds on architecture and abroad at the time.
They ALL seem to say that Myopia and GCGC and even CGC preceded NGLA with quality architecture in America and the only real difference was that the likes of Leeds and Emmet/Travis simply were not anywhere near so public about promoting those clubs and their architecture compared to Macdonald and his NGLA!
So the question becomes was the architecture of NGLA just miles better than either GCGC or Myopia for instance, both of which came some years BEFORE NGLA?
I think we need to deal with that question alone if Macdonald is going to be promoted on here as being the absolute first in America to create quality golf course architecture (again what Macdonald himself said about quality architecture in America before NGLA is obviously a significant indicator to answer this question).
For that answer on here I should note that to my knowledge neither Moriarty nor Mucci has ever even seen Myopia. I think the same is true for MacWood even though he does not seem to be particpating in this subject in the same way and in the same vein the other two are.
-
"Doesn't one have to play NGLA to appreciate and understand CBM's influence on golf in America ?"
Patrick:
Of course they would. In the same vein, wouldn't one have to play and become familiar with Myopia to have an informed opinion on that course and its architecture to appreciate and understand how Leed's influence with it effected golf in America since Myopia came before NGLA by a number of years?
I think the same can and should be said about both Emmet and Travis with GCGC since it also came before NGLA.
-
Can it aid the conversation?, yes, but that idea is one of the biggest red herrings that gets floated on this site. No one talking about these clubs was even a gleam in their father's eye during the architectural period being discussed.
Different story when the discussion comes around to modern times.
-
If "father" is a word that causes such trouble, then howzabout "The Johnny Appleseed" of golf?
The Mary Curie of golf?
-
If "father" is a word that causes such trouble, then howzabout "The Johnny Appleseed" of golf?
Tom Bendelow has that one ;D
The Mary Curie of golf?
Marie Curie was a pioneer in the field of radioactivity. Probably several guys could have that one.
"All of golf paused to marvel at Macdonald's magnificent creation."
-
I don't think anyone denies this was the case with NGLA, but the question is, and my point is, did NGLA represent the FIRST example of quality architecture in America?
I think we know it did not (in the minds of even the top experts on the subject of that time) and we know it from the likes of Macdonald and Whigam and a bunch of others of the significant minds on architecture and abroad at the time.
They ALL seem to say that Myopia and GCGC and even CGC preceded NGLA with quality architecture in America and the only real difference was that the likes of Leeds and Emmet/Travis simply were not anywhere near so public about promoting those clubs and their architecture compared to Macdonald and his NGLA!
So the question becomes was the architecture of NGLA just miles better than either GCGC or Myopia for instance, both of which came some years BEFORE NGLA?
Tom:
Indeed that is the operative question. And I do think that National was miles better than GCGC or Myopia. My evidence is that no one in Britain spoke highly of them and no one in Britain was asking Darwin what he thought of those two.
Plus, of course, I've just done a tribute to NGLA and not to Garden City! ;)
-
TP:
They ALL seem to say that Myopia and GCGC and even CGC preceded NGLA with quality architecture in America and the only real difference was that the likes of Leeds and Emmet/Travis simply were not anywhere near so public about promoting those clubs and their architecture compared to Macdonald and his NGLA!
So the question becomes was the architecture of NGLA just miles better than either GCGC or Myopia for instance, both of which came some years BEFORE NGLA?
I think we need to deal with that question alone if Macdonald is going to be promoted on here as being the absolute first in America to create quality golf course architecture
My response to the underlined meat of your posit(s)
1. I have little scholarship and no playing experience of Myopia and slightly more scholarship but only 1 playing/2 caddyings of GCGC. Due to these limitations and the significant course changes to today's appearance, I really cannot correlate which architecture represented more or less quality and exemplar of style (not in the "steeplechase," "perpendicular" form) for designs executed prior to National. Sorry if that leads to a charge of "cop-out." but I would be a fool to answer conclusively. My halting answer to whether National was miles ahead of the other two, I can only answer..."I think so."
2. I was trained in school to resist agreeing with anything that was proffered as an "absolute" so of course CBM was not the absolute first to create quality golf course architecture in America. For example, while it is a matter of opinion, I think that the Wee Drop looks like quality golf architecture, as an individual hole. CBM may be the first to create quality golf course architecture "experience" sustained throughout the playing of an entire course, and with an intellectual component unifying that entire experience. I don't know that Leeds, Travis, Dunn, Campbell performed a hard search for particular property to site their course, like CBM did or utilized any of the scholarship and study of existing British architecture as CBM did...which would bolster a CBM claim in all the things that "First" or "Father" represents.
3. I don't completely dismiss the element of "public promotion." I agree that it has nothing to do with factual architectural design history, but I think CBM's status as one of - if not THE leading - agitators of GCA culture (ie; critical articles, contests, consultations, dialogues) can speak to the question about how we summarize the period. What I mean is that we will never know the exact first father of Julius Caesar's actual assassination, but it is it historically inaccurate to put Brutus at the lead of that? Brutus was but one of 60 senators purported to be involved in the stabbing, yet will following the career of Brutus not lead us to essential and corroborated knowledge of the event? Are we missing an important truth by making little mention of the Senator, Tillius Cimber, omitted from the generality of a history - though he is reported to be the Senator who first trapped Caesar with a ruse, so that the victim could be engulfed and surrounded.
Again, I apologize for whatever ignorance this demonstrates.
Cheers
vk
-
"My evidence is that no one in Britain spoke highly of them and no one in Britain was asking Darwin what he thought of those two."
TomD:
First of all, I'm not so sure one could say no one in Britain who had seen or played particularly Myopia did not speak highly of it, and even if most in Britain didn't (speak of it) it was probably for some logical reasons---eg it was quite a bit earlier than NGLA and Leeds did not create his course by touting it as a virtually borrowing of "classical" holes and their concepts from abroad as Macdonald did so publicly for so long with his project that would become NGLA.
But obviously, this kind of question is one of architectural taste both back then and today because one must remember that fortunately both NGLA from the time of Macdonald and Myopia from the time of Leeds are actually very little changed----thankfully.
Consequently, it is more than possible for one today who knows both well to compare and contrast their architectural qualities and in some pretty good detail at that.
-
Sean,
I agree with you that declarations like "the father of . . ." are often hollow and rarely tell the whole story, but at least the question gives us a chance to discuss a crucial yet often misunderstood period in the development of golf architecture in America. So I agree with VM.
And for me this isn't really an issue of semantics, but an issue of understanding what really happened. While your melting pot concept is appealing in an everyone is a winner sort of way, and it keeps peace among those trying to prop up their pet dead guy, it just didn't happen that way, at least not initially. With NGLA, CBM profoundly altered the approach taken toward golf course design in America, and on a massive scale. Virtually every decent course was significantly altered or entirely rebuilt as a direct result of this sea change.
Sure there were a few talented guys with similar ideas on both sides of the pond-- many of them were directly aiding CBM in his quest. Some of these guys (Travis at Garden City for example) had begun tinkering with various existing courses to bring about positive change, and some links-like sophistication had begun to appear on new courses. But CBM espoused and implemented the ideas on a much grander scale and on a much larger stage.
Who were these other guys to which you refer? Where were their courses? Were writers on two continents writing about any of these courses years before the land had even been purchased? Did clubs across the country plead for their help? Did other clubs send their professionals or chairs on pilgrimages overseas because these guys had? Did other clubs across the country try to build or change their own courses with the same hole types as theirs? What did these guys do to convince the golfing establishment in America that that the fundamental principles of great golf course design were discoverable within the traditional links? Did Hutchinson proclaim that these courses challenged even St. Andrews for the best course in the World?
Speaking of Darwin, in 1913 Bernard Darwin had the honor of acting as Quimet's marker in the historical playoff, and had also toured many of the country's top courses during the visit. Here is what he had to say about the trip in 1921:
When I came back from America after seeing that memorable battle there were two questions which I was asked by all my golfing acquaintances. The first was, "What is Ouimet like?" the second, "What is the National Golf Links like?" The first I have endeavoured to answer, and Mr. Ouimet has answered it himself by coming here, as we all hope he will again. As the National Golf Links cannot be brought here, and as it is one of the two or three finest courses I have ever seen, I will try to answer the second question now.
No surprise that these were the two questions. When Francis Quimet beat Vardon and Ray in the legendary playoff at the Country Club for the US Open Championship it was a watershed moment for golf in America and it sent shockwaves around the world. American golfers had not only arrived, they now challenged (and occasionally even beat) the best golfers in the World. Likewise with NGLA. America now had a golf course that was widely considered to be among the very best in the world.
CBM and NGLA had captured the imagination of golfers and even some non-golfers, for example, future great Perry Maxwell of Oklahoma. And much of that was just the news, descriptions, and debate about the place! Once more saw the course the hype only grew. In the process of imagining, discussing, building NGLA, CBM had started a revolution in golf course design that spread to every corner of America.
David
You miss my point entirely. I am saying that the artificial divide created by stating Father of American Architecture is meaningless in the big scheme of things because the line between architecture from the UK side of the pond to the American side of the pond was and remains direct and interconnected. I am not sure why this is a difficult concept to grasp. You choose to focus on where the architecture was practiced where I prefer to talk about architecture as a linear progression in which there were influential American designers - one of the most influential being CBM. Hence, I want to hear about the elements CBM brought to the table which were original - not merely original in the US at the time. Then, like now, architecture was a small world regardless of where an archie practiced.
Ciao
-
VKmetz,
Far from demonstrating your ignorance, you post makes a lot of sense. A few comments.
1. In his previous post, TEPaul attempts to change the question. The thread is largely about impact and influence, and with NGLA CBM's impact and influence was massive. While I am sure that Garden City and Myopia were solid courses for their time, I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that their impact and influence remotely compared to NGLA.
2. TEPaul also attempts to play his favorite trump card. The "I've played it so I know more than you card." But he didn't play Myopia in 1907 or 1908. Plus as to the question of impact and influence on golf course architecture in America it is irrelevant what you, me, or TEPaul might think of Myopia. What matters is what they thought at the time, and I don't think many at the time thought that Garden City or Myopia compared to NGLA.
3. While it isn't really the issue, any reasonable person studying what was written at the time would have to conclude that at the time NGLA was considered to be much better than either Garden City or Myopia. As Whigham noted, these two courses were only "nearly good." While they might have been the best that America had to offer, they were by no means considered great by those who knew better. Take a look at Whigham's description of Garden City in 1909:
Take Garden City as another example. Here conditions are most favorable and no one can doubt that with the Long Island soil and climate a really interesting course might be constructed. As it is, nearly everything is either wrong about the course or else not quite right where it could so easily be right. Walter Travis did a great deal when he put in about fifty new bunkers and imitated the eleventh hole at St. Andrews on the last green. That one change in itself has been a tremendous improvement. Yet he had to risk any amount of hostile criticism, and even now the course is hardly within measurable distance of what it ought to be if properly laid out.
Nearly everything is either wrong about the course or else not quite right where it could so easily be right? Hardly high praise, and this was a course that he thought was decent! NGLA was intended to take golf course design well beyond what passed for decent golf course architecture in America, and it succeeded. As Tom Doak points out, one need only look at the reception NGLA received on the world scale. NGLA wasn't considered to be as good as the other substandard courses that existed at the time, it was WORLD CLASS. Hutchinson raved about it and compared it favorably to Saint Andrews. Darwin raved about and noted that none were better in the world. Even Travis, the one responsible for the positive changes at Garden City, thought NGLA "the finest."
Ben Sayers, the long time professional at North Berwick, had this to say about NGLA after touring America's courses in 1914:
I had three days golf over the National course, and I was very highly impressed indeed. I came to the conclusion that the National course is the best course I have ever seen, in fact, I was sorry that I went to see it, because I always thought that St. Andrews was the very best test of golf in the world. But after seeing the National my opinion was altered: I cannot now say that Scotland possesses the best course. Not only is every hole on the National course perfect, but every shot is perfect, and has to be played with great judgment. The architecture of the course is so good and the formation of the greens so natural that the whole place looks as if it was a hundred years old. The course is full of what I call Scotch golf: thinking golf is required for every shot, even more so than at St. Andrews, and I have not played a course where I had to use so many different kinds of clubs, which of course only goes to show what a grand test of golf it must be.
He was rather dismissive of the rest of the courses he saw, only noting that if America had more quality courses it would produce better golfers.
_________________
Sean, I didn't miss your point. It wasn't a linear progression in America. It was many steps backward followed by a huge leap forward. NGLA was that leap.
As for CBM 's originality, you've completely missed MY point. America didn't need original; it had plenty of original and most of it bad. America needed tradition, it needed to connect with the links, it needed excellence. CBM gave America all that, and started the continuum which you mistakenly think had been going on all along.
-
Sean,
I would postulate that Macdonald's greatness was not in his architectual ininovations, but rather, his careful study of what was already really great golf course architecture in the UK. He recognized it as a player. Then he studied it, drew schematics of it, and brought it all back to the masterpiece that he built at NGLA.
And once that was in the ground, and it was promoted the way it was...the "architectural game" could not possibly remain the same. There was a new standard, a new definition of greatness, even if others may have surpassed what Macdonald built.
As a side note, Macdonald's efforts to develop the proper turfgrass to play golf on was also very revolutionary, although probably impossible to quantify.
Maybe "father" is the wrong word. Perhaps "game-changer" or "master catalyst" or some other better word that I can't think of...Wait, I have one: The Evangilist!
-
Sean,
I would postulate that Macdonald's greatness was not in his architectual ininovations, but rather, his careful study of what was already really great golf course architecture in the UK. He recognized it as a player. Then he studied it, drew schematics of it, and brought it all back to the masterpiece that he built at NGLA.
And once that was in the ground, and it was promoted the way it was...the "architectural game" could not possibly remain the same. There was a new standard, a new definition of greatness, even if others may have surpassed what Macdonald built.
As a side note, Macdonald's efforts to develop the proper turfgrass to play golf on was also very revolutionary, although probably impossible to quantify.
Maybe "father" is the wrong word. Perhaps "game-changer" or "master catalyst" or some other better word that I can't think of...Wait, I have one: The Evangilist!
Bill
Its ironic you choose the apt term "Evangelist". What exactly was CBM evangelizing about other than sticking to the imported aspects of the game and architecture as he learned them in the UK? CBM would have been one of the last guys to think architecture in America needed a radical turn of events. I also agree that with NGLA came new standards of excellence in design, design methods and a furthering of the understanding of the importance of the playing surface. But, what CBM accomplished could only have been the case with many, many great people from whom CBM learned from. I have always believed that the idea of an excellent playing surface was CBM's major triumph because that can't necessarily be well translated from across the pond like design concepts on paper can. CBM realized that his concepts relied heavily upon the playing surface and American architecture greatly benefited from these efforts.
Ciao
-
Sean,
First of all, I think he really disliked the golf courses that were in the US prior to 1900. Geeze, he goes to Scotland for school and learns the game on TOC, then returns to Chicago where there are no good courses...Is it hard to believe that he was spoiled? Did he ever fail to give credit to the courses in the UK were be borrowed principles?
Secondly, I did not choose the term evangilist..George Bahto used it in the title of his book. I was making a small joke.
However, enangilist probably is the best term when discussing Macdonald's influence on golf in the US (not the world.) I will grant you that he learned almost everything in the UK. But he not only studied good architecure, he documented it in a way far more powerful than the most gifted writer ever could. He put it in the ground!
I don't think all golf courses were bad in the US at the time, but I believe there were LOTS of terrible golf holes and lots of really bad golf courses. So by building NGLA, Macdonald was saying: LOOK, THIS IS HOW A GOLF COURSE SHOULD BE BUILT.
An evangilist does not invent what he preaches, he but rather, preaches what has been passed down to him over time, what he believes furvantly is the absolute truth.
-
"1. In his previous post, TEPaul attempts to change the question. The thread is largely about impact and influence, and with NGLA CBM's impact and influence was massive. While I am sure that Garden City and Myopia were solid courses for their time, I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that their impact and influence remotely compared to NGLA."
Moriarty:
I'm not changing the question at all. The question of this thread is; Was Charles Blair Macdonald really the father of Golf Architecture in America?
In that vein, the answer may not just be who was the first to make some massive impact on American golf architecture but who was the first to create some real quality golf course architecture in America that people before NGLA recognized and spoke about. Even Macdonald (and almost all others of that time before NGLA) seemed to say it was Leeds of Myopia (and Emmet/Travis of GCGC along with CGC). If you can't handle that apparent historic reality or fact then that's your problem and not ours or American golf architectural history's problem.
-
Tom,
I think you've probably read many of the accounts of architecture from the period and I'd be surprised if you could come up with even one article that places anything of that period in the same class as NGLA.
"All of golf paused to marvel at Macdonald's magnificent creation".- Ben Crenshaw
......and when they picked their tongues up off the floor the world of GCA was a new place.
-
Sean,
First of all, I think he really disliked the golf courses that were in the US prior to 1900. Geeze, he goes to Scotland for school and learns the game on TOC, then returns to Chicago where there are no good courses...Is it hard to believe that he was spoiled? Did he ever fail to give credit to the courses in the UK were be borrowed principles?
Secondly, I did not choose the term evangilist..George Bahto used it in the title of his book. I was making a small joke.
However, enangilist probably is the best term when discussing Macdonald's influence on golf in the US (not the world.) I will grant you that he learned almost everything in the UK. But he not only studied good architecure, he documented it in a way far more powerful than the most gifted writer ever could. He put it in the ground!
I don't think all golf courses were bad in the US at the time, but I believe there were LOTS of terrible golf holes and lots of really bad golf courses. So by building NGLA, Macdonald was saying: LOOK, THIS IS HOW A GOLF COURSE SHOULD BE BUILT.
An evangilist does not invent what he preaches, he but rather, preaches what has been passed down to him over time, what he believes furvantly is the absolute truth.
Bill
I don't believe we are disagreeing. As I too believe CBM had a hard time understanding why architecture in the States was so poor when practically everything one needed to know about the subject was already in the ground somewhere else. I honesty think CBM thought it wasn't so hard to build something decent if one stuck to the tried and tested design concepts.
Ciao
-
"Tom,
I think you've probably read many of the accounts of architecture from the period and I'd be surprised if you could come up with even one article that places anything of that period in the same class as NGLA."
JimK:
I think, at this point, I've read most all the reports and reviews and opinions and such from most everyone back then. Let's put it this way----eg there is very little that ever comes up on this website with the clubs and courses I have concerned myself with over the years that I do not already have on my own computer from places and sources all over the world in the last decade or so. (Some or most on here may not ever suspect that because I am unfortunately one who has no idea how to post (scan or whatever) what I have here on my computer. I wish I could but I can't as others on here do.)
And as to what is better, NGLA or Myopia, as a comparison, I see no real reason to debate that with you or anyone else on this board. I have my own detailed ideas on that and the fact is I know both of those golf courses like the back of my hand, and for years. Who on here can really say that? So, one might say to me---"You weren't alive in 1907 or 1908 Tom Paul," but I would answer them and challenge them to tell me if it is not true that both NGLA and Myopia are about as architecturally unchanged today from the time of Macdonald and Leeds as any two courses in America are, as I believe they are, and so it is pretty important, I think, to intimately know them today and that means really knowing them, and their detailed architectural evolutionary histories, by going to them and getting to know the clubs and their people and their memberships and their administrative records and playing them and studying them as long as I have which in both cases has been around 50 years.
Is there anything about what I just said you disagree with or take issue with, Jim?
-
TEPaul,
Did Myopia remain relevant in American golf once NGLA was operational.
If so, for how long ?
Today, is Myopia relevant in American golf ?
Has NGLA remained relevant in American golf ?
-
Patrick:
What exactly is that last post of yours meant to indicate or prove? We're talking about golf course architecture and its history here aren't we? Look Pat, don't get like Moriarty and MacWood and when you get challenged and essentially disproved try to avoid it by changing the subject or the question.
You are the guy who has claimed on here for ever that to really know a course and its architecture you have to do what Macdonald said in his book----eg you have to know the course in every variable of wind and weather, right?
So don't ask me irrelevent questions about Myopia as you just did on that last post! If you want answers about Myopia you are going to have to hold yourself to the same standard you do with others about NGLA and GCGC----you are going to have to get to know Myopia about as well as you do those two others! ;)
Don't worry about it Patrick, if you even remotely act the hypocrite at this point with me you know damn well I'll call you on it just as you would call me on it.
Who on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com has known NGLA, GCGC and MYOPIA for around fifty years? With Long Island who on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com remembers Piping Rock, Creek, Links, Shinnecock and Maidstone over a period of about fifty years?
-
Sean,
Yes, I think we agree. We are simply defining Macdonald's influence on golf in the US. It was huge, but not all-encompassing. Leading, if not dominant.
-
Tom,
You are awfully good at changing the question when it suits you. No one is asking you which one, NGLA or Myopia, is better and no one is asking you to debate it. The question is not about what course remains unchanged or how many times you've played or walked either one or how well you think you know theses courses. That information is relevant to another set of questions, but not the oneI asked you.
The question is, where in all the supposed archives of golf information in your possession are the written words giving Myopia the same significance as NGLA during the period in question?
If you don't want to answer I'll understand and just take it as a 'no', you don't have the info I asked about because it doesn't exist, and as a 'yes' for the accolade of FoGCAiA that's been paid to CBM.
Thanks Tom
-
First of all, I have very little idea what you are saying or asking. What is that odd acronym supposed to mean? ;) ::) ???
Secondly, I don't mind trying to understand what question you are asking now but the question on this thread is in its title and that is essentially some of what I am responding to by mentioning Leeds and Myopia. I'm talking about who it was over here who produced the first really good architecture but you now want to know who generated the greatest publicity, apparently. Macdonald sure did that a lot better than Leeds did apparently because he wanted to and Leeds frankly didn't or just didn't exactly care about that with his Myopia. But maybe that's just a thought and idea and fact you can't seem to understand for some reason.
-
Please Tom, there's no need to feign stupidity. ;D
As you are smart enough to know, there's a big difference between publicity and articles written by the critics and other assorted professionals of the day. They all seem to have placed NGLA at a level far above any the competition, they recognized a game changer.
They were there, no one that still has the ability to type was.
-
JimK:
Whatever you say; everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but apparently you must not know that much about Myopia's reputation back then.
-
No Tom, I'm not 'saying' it, but I await your post to see who did.
This should be easy for you.
If the question posed by this thread is 'no', then you should be able to show that the writers, critics, and 'those-in-the-know' of the day viewed the other courses you mention in the same game changing category as NGLA.
-
Patrick:
What exactly is that last post of yours meant to indicate or prove? We're talking about golf course architecture and its history here aren't we? Look Pat, don't get like Moriarty and MacWood and when you get challenged and essentially disproved try to avoid it by changing the subject or the question.
You are the guy who has claimed on here for ever that to really know a course and its architecture you have to do what Macdonald said in his book----eg you have to know the course in every variable of wind and weather, right?
So don't ask me irrelevent questions about Myopia as you just did on that last post!
My question was far from irrelevant, it was germane, even central to the core issue.
That you were unable to answer it, or chose not to answer it, would seem to reaffirm the premise that NGLA. not any course that preceeded it, was the signal event in American golf course architecture.
Myopia, and to a lesser degree GCGC had their stature in American golf course architecture diminished, with the advent of NGLA.[/size]
If you want answers about Myopia you are going to have to hold yourself to the same standard you do with others about NGLA and GCGC----
you are going to have to get to know Myopia about as well as you do those two others! ;)
I'd certainly like to do that, but, I'm not discussing the merits of the holes nor the playability of any course, I'm discussing the position each course maintained, pre and post NGLA, and, which course prevailed in terms of maintaining its architectural stature.
Don't forget that other courses weren't the product of a single effort, but multiple efforts over time.
NGLA was/is a single effort, created over a relatively short time frame, not decades like others.
Hence NGLA's impact was singular, it was one event, not a series of events, modifications or evolution as others were.
Don't worry about it Patrick, if you even remotely act the hypocrite at this point with me you know damn well I'll call you on it just as you would call me on it.
I always appreciate your vigilance and your oversight, but, in this case there's nothing hypocritical about my posts.
Who on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com has known NGLA, GCGC and MYOPIA for around fifty years?
With Long Island who on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com remembers Piping Rock, Creek, Links, Shinnecock and Maidstone over a period of about fifty years?
Your experience in playing these clubs is unmatched.
However, by your own admission, you didn't begin studying and appreciating the architecture until recently.
I liken Myopia to Prestwick.
At one time they WERE amongst the gold standards, but subsequently, others took their place.
-
"Your experience in playing these clubs is unmatched.
However, by your own admission, you didn't begin studying and appreciating the architecture until recently."
Pat:
You are probably right on the first point and your are definitely right on the second. I did not even begin to pay attention to golf course architecture before maybe 12-15 years ago despite knowing a lot of these old east coast famous clubs and courses my whole life. But I didn't even start playing serious golf until I was in my early thirties.
"I liken Myopia to Prestwick.
At one time they WERE amongst the gold standards, but subsequently, others took their place."
That could be but it's hard for me to say because I've never seen Prestwick even if I am familiar with its early tournament history and the fact that it later got dropped out of "The Championship" rota.
Pat, I would be fascinated to see what you think of Myopia and hear what you say about it and its architeture. All I can say, at this point, is, in my opinion, it is inherently great golf course architecture, it is incrediblly old for great golf architecture in America (more than ten years older than NGLA), it is very different from NGLA in many ways but nevertheless it is amazing for other reasons than NGLA.
One of the quirks or funk about Myopia are the two par 4s which are like pretty inscrutable holes for very good players as both are eminently driveable but with some ineffable risk. Did Leeds design those holes for that? Of course not and that's what's so cool about some of the really old American architecture like Myopia's!
The other thing I think Myopia tops NGLA for is Myopia has some of the most beautiful (what I call) "natural landform" greens I've ever seen.
-
Its ironic you choose the apt term "Evangelist".
"The Evangelist" was the title of CBM's obituary, written by H. J. Whigham, and published in Country Life.
What exactly was CBM evangelizing about other than sticking to the imported aspects of the game and architecture as he learned them in the UK?
Sean it seems you have no concept of what golf course design was like in America in the first decade of last century. "Sticking to the imported aspects of the . . . architecture?" For the vast majority of American golf, there was NOTHING to "stick to" until CBM taught them about excellent golf course design! Whigham described golf in America at this time as "the ideal sport for incompetence" and described the courses as follows:
The links in those days were laid out rather like race courses. Each hole was a fairly wide, straight strip of turf with narrow trenches dug across it at right angtles to trap a poor shot. The fairway between trenches was as smooth and level as possible so as to make every shot an easy one. The greens were flat and slow.
With courses like these, just what do you suppose they ought to have stuck to?
CBM would have been one of the last guys to think architecture in America needed a radical turn of events.
You are absolutely WRONG about this. Again from Whigham:
During the rather dreary years of this period Macdonald was planning the rebirth of American golf. . . . Pondering the grievous depths to which American golf had sunk, Macdonald conceived the idea of building a truly great links which would so change the minds of golfers that they would never again put up with the miserable game to which they were accustomed.
What could be a more radical change than a "rebirth of American golf?" What could be more radical that countering "the grievous depths to which American golf had sunk" with "a truly great links?" Again, it boils down to your lack of understanding what golf courses were really like.
I also agree that with NGLA came new standards of excellence in design, design methods and a furthering of the understanding of the importance of the playing surface. But, what CBM accomplished could only have been the case with many, many great people from whom CBM learned from.
This is true of absolutely everyone who ever accomplished anything great ever, and no one had ever denied it. Old Tom was important to CBM. Hutchinson was very helpful. The Whighams obviously contributed immensely, as did Emmet and Raynor. But in America it was CBM who had the audacity to take golf course design to an entirely different level, and to do it on a grand stage with the World watching. More importantly, it was CBM who convinced the American golfing establishment that they could do it too.
In short, your assumption that there was some sort of a "linear progression" in American golf design is just not supported by the facts.
_______________________________________________
TEPaul,
Garden City and Myopia were considered the best we had, but to those who knew courses across the ocean this was far from a compliment. It was more like, Garden City and Myopia are the best they have, but the best they have falls well short of real links golf. As Whigham put it in 1909, these courses were "nearly good," which seems a perfect description to me. But NGLA was considered to be great.
As for what you think of Myopia, it is irrelevant. What matters is what those who knew golf at the time thought, and they thought NGLA was on an entirely different level; world class.
-
Its ironic you choose the apt term "Evangelist".
"The Evangelist" was the title of CBM's obituary, written by H. J. Whigham, and published in Country Life.
What exactly was CBM evangelizing about other than sticking to the imported aspects of the game and architecture as he learned them in the UK?
Sean it seems you have no concept of what golf course design was like in America in the first decade of last century. "Sticking to the imported aspects of the . . . architecture?" For the vast majority of American golf, there was NOTHING to "stick to" until CBM taught them about excellent golf course design! Whigham described golf in America at this time as "the ideal sport for incompetence" and described the courses as follows:
The links in those days were laid out rather like race courses. Each hole was a fairly wide, straight strip of turf with narrow trenches dug across it at right angtles to trap a poor shot. The fairway between trenches was as smooth and level as possible so as to make every shot an easy one. The greens were flat and slow.
With courses like these, just what do you suppose they ought to have stuck to?
CBM would have been one of the last guys to think architecture in America needed a radical turn of events.
You are absolutely WRONG about this. Again from Whigham:
During the rather dreary years of this period Macdonald was planning the rebirth of American golf. . . . Pondering the grievous depths to which American golf had sunk, Macdonald conceived the idea of building a truly great links which would so change the minds of golfers that they would never again put up with the miserable game to which they were accustomed.
What could be a more radical change than a "rebirth of American golf?" What could be more radical that countering "the grievous depths to which American golf had sunk" with "a truly great links?" Again, it boils down to your lack of understanding what golf courses were really like.
I also agree that with NGLA came new standards of excellence in design, design methods and a furthering of the understanding of the importance of the playing surface. But, what CBM accomplished could only have been the case with many, many great people from whom CBM learned from.
This is true of absolutely everyone who ever accomplished anything great ever, and no one had ever denied it. Old Tom was important to CBM. Hutchinson was very helpful. The Whighams obviously contributed immensely, as did Emmet and Raynor. But in America it was CBM who had the audacity to take golf course design to an entirely different level, and to do it on a grand stage with the World watching. More importantly, it was CBM who convinced the American golfing establishment that they could do it too.
In short, your assumption that there was some sort of a "linear progression" in American golf design is just not supported by the facts.
_______________________________________________
TEPaul,
Garden City and Myopia were considered the best we had, but to those who knew courses across the ocean this was far from a compliment. It was more like, Garden City and Myopia are the best they have, but the best they have falls well short of real links golf. As Whigham put it in 1909, these courses were "nearly good," which seems a perfect description to me. But NGLA was considered to be great.
As for what you think of Myopia, it is irrelevant. What matters is what those who knew golf at the time thought, and they thought NGLA was on an entirely different level; world class.
David
You are at least the second person to point out the obvious to me. I have been reading George's superb book for many years.
When I said CBM stuck to the imported architecture it was with the meaning that HE imported it. That was the whole idea no? He wanted to continue all aspects of British golf in the State and I suspect the more American golf drifted from these idealized goals the more CBM drifted from the scene - probably in disgust.
Again, CBM didn't think American architecture needed a radical turn of events from the British model. You are stuck on the idea of American architecture. If there is such a thing, it would have come well after CBM and he would not have liked it.
The reason why we differ on this issue is precisely because I view architecture from a broader perspective and in that context CBM was a DIRECT extension of what was begun with the widening of TOC, something CBM would have been cognizant of aware of. I would suggest getting off your high horse with pronouncements of me being wrong and instead open your mind up to the bigger picture of how CBM and American architecture fits into things. I know exactly where you are coming from, but I don't believe that angle of approach which creates some sort of artificial dividing line between the US and UK is all that helpful when looking at CBM and NGLA.
Ciao
-
David
You are at least the second person to point out the obvious to me. I have been reading George's superb book for many years.
The first person credited George's book, I was correcting the record.
When I said CBM stuck to the imported architecture it was with the meaning that HE imported it. That was the whole idea no? He wanted to continue all aspects of British golf in the State and I suspect the more American golf drifted from these idealized goals the more CBM drifted from the scene - probably in disgust.
When it came to golf courses they couldn't have drifted ant further than before NGLA. As for the rest of your speculation, I don't think there is a factual basis to support it.
Again, CBM didn't think American architecture needed a radical turn of events from the British model. You are stuck on the idea of American architecture. If there is such a thing, it would have come well after CBM and he would not have liked it.
.
Your position changes with every post. Didn't need a radical change from the British model? Wouldn't we have to have embraced it first?
And American courses were very different than the British links courses! That was the problem as CBM saw it. The radical departure was away from the horrible dark ages courses and toward the British links.
Your world view fails you here because it neither acknowledges nor addresses the state of golf courses in America during the first decade of last century. And it does not explain the radical changes which took place.
The reason why we differ on this issue is precisely because I view architecture from a broader perspective and in that context CBM was a DIRECT extension of what was begun with the widening of TOC, something CBM would have been cognizant of aware of. I would suggest getting off your high horse with pronouncements of me being wrong and instead open your mind up to the bigger picture of how CBM and American architecture fits into things. I know exactly where you are coming from, but I don't believe that angle of approach which creates some sort of artificial dividing line between the US and UK is all that helpful when looking at CBM and NGLA.
My high horse? I'm not the one rewriting the history of golf in America to make it fit nicely with my World view. This thread is about CBM's impact on golf course architecture in America so please pardon me if I address that topic. As to the topic, CBM was the maincatalyst in bringing about a radical transformation in golf course architecture in America.
CBM was aware of the widening at St. Andrews, but I won't bother to tell you what he thought of it. From your posts above, you obviously think you know better what CBM was thinking than did CBM himself.
[/quote]
-
David
You are at least the second person to point out the obvious to me. I have been reading George's superb book for many years.
The first person credited George's book, I was correcting the record.
When I said CBM stuck to the imported architecture it was with the meaning that HE imported it. That was the whole idea no? He wanted to continue all aspects of British golf in the State and I suspect the more American golf drifted from these idealized goals the more CBM drifted from the scene - probably in disgust.
When it came to golf courses they couldn't have drifted ant further than before NGLA. As for the rest of your speculation, I don't think there is a factual basis to support it.
Again, CBM didn't think American architecture needed a radical turn of events from the British model. You are stuck on the idea of American architecture. If there is such a thing, it would have come well after CBM and he would not have liked it.
.
Your position changes with every post. Didn't need a radical change from the British model? Wouldn't we have to have embraced it first?
And American courses were very different than the British links courses! That was the problem as CBM saw it. The radical departure was away from the horrible dark ages courses and toward the British links.
Your world view fails you here because it neither acknowledges nor addresses the state of golf courses in America during the first decade of last century. And it does not explain the radical changes which took place.
The reason why we differ on this issue is precisely because I view architecture from a broader perspective and in that context CBM was a DIRECT extension of what was begun with the widening of TOC, something CBM would have been cognizant of aware of. I would suggest getting off your high horse with pronouncements of me being wrong and instead open your mind up to the bigger picture of how CBM and American architecture fits into things. I know exactly where you are coming from, but I don't believe that angle of approach which creates some sort of artificial dividing line between the US and UK is all that helpful when looking at CBM and NGLA.
My high horse? I'm not the one rewriting the history of golf in America to make it fit nicely with my World view. This thread is about CBM's impact on golf course architecture in America so please pardon me if I address that topic. As to the topic, CBM was the maincatalyst in bringing about a radical transformation in golf course architecture in America.
CBM was aware of the widening at St. Andrews, but I won't bother to tell you what he thought of it. From your posts above, you obviously think you know better what CBM was thinking than did CBM himself.
[/quote]
David
I can't be bothered to discuss this issue with you anymore. Its damn difficult. I am kicking on.
Ciao
-
That is fine Sean, but you are leaving the conversation without ever having addressed two crucial questions:
1. Just who were the others cooking away in this melting pot and how did they directly impact golf design in America?
2. How does your "linear progression" theory account for the state of architecture in America in the first decade of the last century?
Also, Sean I've gone back and looked at your posts on this thread, you started out arguing aesthetics but your position has evolved into a broad based refusal to even address the question asked, even criticizing me for focusing on the issue of the thread instead of "opening my mind" to your ambiguous and ill-defined world view of golf course architecture. Dare I say that, reading your posts as a whole, you seem pretty intent on refusing to acknowledge CBM's tremendous impact on golf design, despite the facts?
Even the top British thinkers and writers on course design thought that NGLA was an extraordinary leap the the quality of American course design. Who are you to second guess them?
-
David
Above you made the statement that "America now had a golf course that was widely considered to be among the very best in the world" based on a single quote by Darwin. In your reply to Sean you stated "Even the top British thinkers and writers on course design thought that NGLA was an extraordinary leap..."
Other than Darwin's comments can you support either or even both of these two statements with any another direct contemporary (i.e. ~1911-1915) references from any, if not all (since you used the definite article), of the "top British thinkers and writers on course design"?
Thanks in advance.
Rich
-
IF CB Macdonald is Father of Golf in America
THEN National Golf Links is "The Immaculate Construction"
-
That is fine Sean, but you are leaving the conversation without ever having addressed two crucial questions:
1. Just who were the others cooking away in this melting pot and how did they directly impact golf design in America?
2. How does your "linear progression" theory account for the state of architecture in America in the first decade of the last century?
Also, Sean I've gone back and looked at your posts on this thread, you started out arguing aesthetics but your position has evolved into a broad based refusal to even address the question asked, even criticizing me for focusing on the issue of the thread instead of "opening my mind" to your ambiguous and ill-defined world view of golf course architecture. Dare I say that, reading your posts as a whole, you seem pretty intent on refusing to acknowledge CBM's tremendous impact on golf design, despite the facts?
Even the top British thinkers and writers on course design thought that NGLA was an extraordinary leap the the quality of American course design. Who are you to second guess them?
Ok David, despite my better judgment I will give this one more go.
My argument was never about aesthetics. I raised this issue as an area in which CBM's ideals didn't last long and thus questioned how influential he was in this area.
1. The melting pot was anybody creating anything worthwhile before and during the creation of NGLA. We know the CBM essentially borrowed parts of British design, added a bit of his know how and determination, looked for a site in which he could house these borrowed ideas (I think this was the part he should be given tons of credit for) and created an "ideal" course which by many accounts was acclaimed one of the very finest in all the world upon its opening. So, this is a melting pot which includes CBM. Crazily, you give CBM all the credit of an American design because it happened to be built on American soil. That is like calling a car American because its built in America when much of the concept of the car and many of its parts are imported.
2. Much of the reason the course was likely better than anything known in the US up until that time is because archies didn't use the best design aspects from the UK. CBM thought it was silly to try and reinvent the wheel when it could be transported across an ocean, rolled off the ship and across the right landscape with ease and grace. You know what, he was right!
3. I never denied or reduced CBM's impact on architecture. I merely stated that he was one of many who had a tremendous impact on architecture. For instance, I think Colt had a big impact because he laid the ground work for what we now consider good parkland courses. And if this is the case, then Park Jr and Fowler have to have some credit in this melting pot evolution. That doesn't mean by any stretch that CBM wasn't important, he was terribly important.
4. Finally, I don't think its terribly valuable to try and separate out American architecture at this time because I don't see it as distinctly American. CBM was a direct product of the UK and he would be the first to say that British ideals of the game and architecture should hold strong. That is why he built NGLA from the mould of the British. CBM wanted to continue the British ideal of the game both in terms of how it was played and the sort of course it should be played over.
5. Finally, finally, this entire thing we call golf architecture and what we deem as the best and worst of it is completely subjective. Never lose sight of that. To rely on so called expert opinion too much is a game I not interested in. To some degree, I should be challenging that sacred cow wisdom because no one is infallible.
If this post doesn't make sense, nothing else I can write will help.
Ciao
-
IF CB Macdonald is Father of Golf in America
THEN National Golf Links is "The Immaculate Construction"
How do you know that NGLA was a virgin at the time, Slagbert? Maybe she was the Daddy and CBM the Mommy...........
-
Rich,
I could have said the British experts of which I am aware, but I thought that was obvious. But really in both quotes I am speaking about those who were knowledgeable about the British links and who had seen NGLA and perhaps some of the other "nearly good" courses in America. In addition to the quotes by Darwin, see the various quotes by Whigham, who may have seen a wider variety of courses across the world than anyone. Also you must have missed this quote by Ben Sayers, who I am sure you would agree knew something of the quality of golf courses in Scotland . . .
I had three days golf over the National course, and I was very highly impressed indeed. I came to the conclusion that the National course is the best course I have ever seen, in fact, I was sorry that I went to see it, because I always thought that St. Andrews was the very best test of golf in the world. But after seeing the National my opinion was altered: I cannot now say that Scotland possesses the best course. Not only is every hole on the National course perfect, but every shot is perfect, and has to be played with great judgment. The architecture of the course is so good and the formation of the greens so natural that the whole place looks as if it was a hundred years old. The course is full of what I call Scotch golf: thinking golf is required for every shot, even more so than at St. Andrews, and I have not played a course where I had to use so many different kinds of clubs, which of course only goes to show what a grand test of golf it must be.
Horace Hutchinson also sang the praises of the course:
My own opinion of the qualities of this course is so high that I am almost afraid of stating it to strongly. . . . [W]hen the National Links is opened next year it will be far and away the best in the United States. . . . It has no weak point.
Who of the British experts did not see NGLA as head and shoulders above what else was in America?
_______________________________________
Sean,
Thanks for the attempted clarification.
My argument was never about aesthetics. I raised this issue as an area in which CBM's ideals didn't last long and thus questioned how influential he was in this area.
Not sure I understand the difference between your argument and an issue you raised, but whatever. Your argument/issue on aesthetics fell short because of a lack of understanding of what came before and even NGLA's aesthetic style at the time.
1. The melting pot was anybody creating anything worthwhile before and during the creation of NGLA.
So in America, who were these anybodies? We know that numerous changes at Myopia and Garden City and made them "nearly good." But who else?
We know the CBM essentially borrowed parts of British design, added a bit of his know how and determination, looked for a site in which he could house these borrowed ideas (I think this was the part he should be given tons of credit for) and created an "ideal" course which by many accounts was acclaimed one of the very finest in all the world upon its opening. So, this is a melting pot which includes CBM.
We agree on all this, but you do neglect the importance of CBM's intellect in being able to discern what it was that made these British holes great, and the incredible artistry of putting these things together in a single course that worked.
Crazily, you give CBM all the credit of an American design because it happened to be built on American soil. That is like calling a car American because its built in America when much of the concept of the car and many of its parts are imported.
I do what? No way. As far as I know, I give CBM all of the credit for building was was essentially a Scottish links-like course on American soil. That is the entire point. You seem to be caught up on this notion that CBM got his ideas from elsewhere as if this diminishes what he did. To the contrary, it was the application of the Scottish links ideals that made him great.
Arguably, Henry Ford didn't have too many original ideas concerning the automobile, with at least some of the major design and engineering concepts being borrowed from the French. However, can there be any doubt that he revolutionized automobile design and production by discerning what worked and figuring out how to produce automobiles quickly, efficiently, and inexpensively?
2. Much of the reason the course was likely better than anything known in the US up until that time is because archies didn't use the best design aspects from the UK. CBM thought it was silly to try and reinvent the wheel when it could be transported across an ocean, rolled off the ship and across the right landscape with ease and grace. You know what, he was right!
Yes, he was right, and him realizing this and pulling it off significantly changed golf course design in America from that point on. Thus the revolutionary nature of his work and words.
3. I never denied or reduced CBM's impact on architecture. I merely stated that he was one of many who had a tremendous impact on architecture. For instance, I think Colt had a big impact because he laid the ground work for what we now consider good parkland courses. And if this is the case, then Park Jr and Fowler have to have some credit in this melting pot evolution. That doesn't mean by any stretch that CBM wasn't important, he was terribly important.
You are backtracking here. You did deny or reduce his impact by your strange focus on aesthetics. You also diminish his importance when you label him as just one more person in the melting pot. Park Jr. and Fowler do deserve some credit, but for whatever reason they did not change the way Americans approached golf design in America. CBM did. And that was an incredible accomplishment and when combined with the excellence of NGLA, CBMy went well beyond building nearly good but not great golf courses. As for Colt, his impact in America came AFTER and at least in part as a result of CBM changing the way Americans looked at golf design.
4. Finally, I don't think its terribly valuable to try and separate out American architecture at this time because I don't see it as distinctly American. CBM was a direct product of the UK and he would be the first to say that British ideals of the game and architecture should hold strong. That is why he built NGLA from the mould of the British. CBM wanted to continue the British ideal of the game both in terms of how it was played and the sort of course it should be played over.
You confuse CBM's experiences with American golf course architecture. CBM was a product of the Scottish ideals, but for the most part American golf course was NOT. Therein was the problem as CBM saw it, and that was what he set out to change.
5. Finally, finally, this entire thing we call golf architecture and what we deem as the best and worst of it is completely subjective. Never lose sight of that. To rely on so called expert opinion too much is a game I not interested in. To some degree, I should be challenging that sacred cow wisdom because no one is infallible.
Huh? Just because something is subjective does not mean it cannot have real world impact. I happen to like some of the dark ages stuff, but my subjective opinion of it doesn't change the fact that CBM's ideas and example virtually wiped those courses off the map.
In other words, yours and my opinion may be subjective, and the opinion that many held at the time may have been subjective, but the tangible impact that CBM's approach and work had on American golf design was not subjective. That is why it is more important to understand their opinions than our own. Their subjectivity changed the direction of golf design in America.
-
"Visitors from across the water confess that The National Golf Links of America is just about the best course that there is to be found anywhere.......Every branch of industry, every profession, every avocation, has itsgeniuses; golfing America should be proud of the factthat she has the finest golf architectural genius ofmodern times in Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, whose constructive work on these lines is unequalled."- John G. Anderson
From Long Island to St. Louis there are courses which bear the imprint of Mr. C. B. Macdonald and the National. And anyone interested in laying out a new course can surely afford a journey to the National where he can get ocular demonstration of what should be done- Robert White
..."from my own point of view, the courses I have seen in this country compare very favorably indeed with those abroad. I am sorry to say—for I am a Scotsman—that I was under the impression that the finest golf course in the world was situated in Scotland. Alas! and I say it very humbly, I was greatly mistaken. I have seen Garden City, Brookline, and Myopia, and they are all very good, but the course without doubt, is the National Golf Links of America. I have been over it several times, and have studied it very carefully. I cannot find a fault and am ready to challenge anyone to show me the golfer who can point out one unfair hole"........"I read a lot about it before I came over to this country, but I had no idea of its excellence. I quite agree with Ben Sayers and sympathize with him when he says he wishes he had never seen it. Facts are"chiels that winna ding" however, and that ends it." -Peter Lees
The National Golf Links of america - to give it its full name- was a stunning success. As the first illustration on this side of the ocean of what a real championship course had to have in shot values and overall character, it had an enormous influence on golf-minded people in all corners of the United states. They traveled hundreds and sometime thousands of miles to study the course so that they would be able to incorporate some of the tenets it dramatized in the courses they planned to build in their own home towns. It also placed Macdonald in the enviable position of being able to work only on those projects that, for one reason or another, appealed to him the most. While he was extremely confident about his knowledge of the elements of golf-course design, he was wise enough to always see to it that a professional engineer (usually Seth Raynor or Charles Banks) was on hand to superintend that phase of his creations."-Herbert Warren Wind
"Any one who has seen Prestwick, or Sandwich, St. Andrews, or dozens of other natural golf courses in Great Britain, will readily recognize the ideal. Sad to say, we have nothing like it on this side—that I know of! The nearest approach to the real thing is the National Golf Links at Shinnecock Hills, just nearing completion." - Walter Travis
Immediately alongside is the new course of the National Golf Links of America, now nearing completion,with rare natural advantages in soil and contour of surface. Here no money or pains have been spared to make each and every hole the most perfect of its kind, and so far the results justify the belief that the course as a whole will easily be the best in this country, if not in the world . . .which we are quite aware is saying a great deal.- Around The 19th Hole
"From our point of view, I should like to see the supreme struggle take place on the National Golf Links at Southampton. It is one of the best and perhaps the most difficult course in the world, and it has a fine seaside wind very often blowing"......."Of the American courses that I have seen. I should prefer Myopia next to the National." -Bernard Darwin
-
.....and if any modern voices need to be added I would take the impressions of these two guys before a couple others I can think of.
Crenshaw: "All of golf paused to marvel at Macdonald's magnificent creation."
Doak: "I do think that National was miles better than GCGC or Myopia. My evidence is that no one in Britain spoke highly of them and no one in Britain was asking Darwin what he thought of those two".
-
Great quotes Jim.
Here is one more, from the lead article in 1910 American Golfer, probably by Travis, who was the editor and at the event. (emphasis added)
Suffice it to say that nature has been exceedingly generous in providing ground which is admirably suited in every respect, in contour, quality of soil and situation, for a really first class links. . . . [T]he whole lay-out is as near perfect as can be, and Dame Nature has been most ably seconded by the infinite and painstaking care which has been bestowed on the arrangement of the holes, no two of which are alike, furnishing a most charming diversity of play. . . . It is not too much to say that none of the most famous courses abroad have more than four or five holes at the outside which stand out as being pre-eminent —the others are more or less tinged with mediocrity. Here we have eighteen holes which constitute perfection, or as near thereto as it is possible to attain in any single course.
. . .
A great deal of credit is due to Mr. Macdonald for providing such a classical links, which will ever remain a monument unto himself, and much good will be done to the game as a whole in the way of furnishing such a magnificent object lesson of what a first-class course should be in suggesting ideas to those interested in the lay-out of new courses or the improvement of existing ones throughout the country. The name, The National Golf Links, is appropriate by reason of the fact that the sixty-seven founders, each of whom has put in $1,000, and in whom the ownership of the property is vested, reside in various parts of the country; while as to the term "Links" it is really about the only course on this side which is deserving of such a title.
-
Perhaps one should also post American Golfer's 1910 opinion of Horace Hutchinson's written opinion of American golf architecture (other than NGLA ::)). The article is written under the pseudonym "Americus" (who is clearly Travis ;) ).
It just might be one of the most scathing and detialed damnations of a supposedly well-known golf architectural critic from abroad I've ever seen in print!
I do admit if Americus was Travis which he clearly was there are probably some other historical reasons at that very time Travis was so highly critical of Hutchinson and the opinons of the other side on things to do with golf and American golf and architecture.
Among other things, Americus (Travis) criticized Hutchinson for criticizing Myopia for too many blind shots when in fact NGLA had more blind shots than Myopia! ;)
-
"TEPaul,
Garden City and Myopia were considered the best we had, but to those who knew courses across the ocean this was far from a compliment. It was more like, Garden City and Myopia are the best they have, but the best they have falls well short of real links golf. As Whigham put it in 1909, these courses were "nearly good," which seems a perfect description to me. But NGLA was considered to be great.
As for what you think of Myopia, it is irrelevant. What matters is what those who knew golf at the time thought, and they thought NGLA was on an entirely different level; world class."
Moriarty:
Unfortunately, that's a premise I wouldn't even come close to accepting, certainly not from someone like you. To even begin to understand and appreciate what those who knew golf at that time thought (the first decade of the the 20th century), one pretty much needs to have a real familiarity with Myopia because frankly it has changed very little compared to almost any other course of that age. The fact is you have zero familiarity with Myopia or its architecture.
If you want to cover your opinion by quoting what Tom Doak said on here about Myopia compared to NGLA go ahead and do it. It would certainly not be the first time I've disagreed with Tom Doak on things to do with golf architecture as he knows just as well as I do! ;)
-
"TEPaul,
Moriarty:
Unfortunately, that's a premise I wouldn't even come close to accepting, certainly not from someone like you. To even begin to understand and appreciate what those who knew golf at that time thought (the first decade of the the 20th century), one pretty much needs to have a real familiarity with Myopia because frankly it has changed very little compared to almost any other course of that age. The fact is you have zero familiarity with Myopia or its architecture.
If you want to cover your opinion by quoting what Tom Doak said on here about Myopia compared to NGLA go ahead and do it. It would certainly not be the first time I've disagreed with Tom Doak on things to do with golf architecture as he knows just as well as I do! ;)
I didnt quote Tom Doak. Jim Kennedy did, and also quoted a number of other thinkers. I quoted Darwin, Hutchinson, Whigham, Travis, and Ben Sayers, the golf professional from North Berwick. Plus I don't think Tom Doak was relying on his own personal tastes like you are, but instead is relying on what experts thought at the time. His is undoubtedly the more reasonable approach but that hasn't stopped you yet.
And by the way if you don't think Myopia was changed much since NGLA was in the ground, then it is you who needs to bone up on the history of the place. While the likes of Travis and others protested the Hutchinson's criticisms, Myopia nonetheless made a number of substantial changes to the course to address the blindness issues. Other changes were made over the years as well.
As for your tiresome shots at me for not having seen Myopia, I am not so foolish to think my personal opinion of the place would matter anyway. Neither of us were there. Yet you continue to rely on your bizarre and illogical I always know best because I have access mantra. All the access in the world will not change the fact that NGLA was considered World Class while Myopia was merely "nearly good."
As for the backlash with "Americus" I think even you realize that it had as much to the Schenectady putter dispute and Travis' relationship with CBM than anything else.
-
Moriarty:
Believe me, I'm used to that same old mantra from you that's so apparent in your last post. Just like your complete revelation regarding Macdonald and NGLA after seeing NGLA once, I have no doubt at all you would have the same reaction exactly to Myopia and Leeds if and when you ever actually see it. I just got an IM from TomD who admits he only saw it once over twenty years ago and never played it. I told him if he finds himself in the area to let me or Gil know and we'll sure make it happen for him. The same goes for you. You really do need to experience this kind of thing with the great early American courses and architecture as you did once with NGLA. See how that one time seemed to transform you. The same will happen with Myopia.
Always remember "to try to know what you don't know!"
-
TEPaul,
Tom, did I write that I had only seen NGLA once, or are you just assuming it? You might be surprised how much one can learn about a place in only a limited number of plays, if they put their mind to it.
NGLA was a revelation for me, but other "great" courses haven't had the same impact. I learn from all of them, but some lessons hit home more than others. I don't doubt for a minute that I would very much enjoy Myopia, but then that wouldn't change what others thought of these courses 100 years ago, would it? Likewise, it doesnt matter that Tom Doak had only seen the course once. He wouldn't have had to see it at all to understand how it was viewed 100 years ago in comparison to NGLA.
I don't mean to downplay the quality of Myopia or even to express any opinion on it whatsoever. I suspect that there was plenty to Myopia and I would love. But Myopia did not spark the kind of change that NGLA did. Surely you realize that CBM and NGLA had a much larger and more lasting impact on gca in America than Myopia, don't you? Myopia and Garden City had been around for years, but golf design in America still languished. With CBM and NGLA that changed, and quick. You need look no further than Merion to see the immediate and concrete impact CBM and NGLA had on golf design in America.
-
TEPaul,
Would you take this guys word for it?
"Even though there were many working on developing American golf and architecture in the early years (between the mid-1890s and perhaps the mid-teens) if one wants to pick out one person who probably had the largest and the most important and significant impact on golf architectural thinking in that time span I think it would have to be Macdonald. And if one thinks for that it's appropriate to label him the "Father of American Golf Architecture" I would agree with it and I have for years."
-
JimK:
Sure I would. ;)
I'm not sure why anyone feels the need to include all the quotes about Macdonald and NGLA and his contribution to American architeture, at least on my account. I think I've been pretty explanatory over the years about how I feel about him and his architecture. After-all I'd have to say I arguably grew up around more Macdonald architecture than anyone else on this website and probably by a mile. If anyone on this website thinks I don't appreciate and admire Macdonald in many ways as well as his architecture that notion probably came from particularly Moriarty and perhaps MacWood who've implied a number of times on here I've tried to insult or minimize Macdonald or his architecture. Nothing could be further from the truth; neither of those two know what I think of Macdonald and his architecture, that's for sure. They're probably just over-reacting to some of the things they've said about him that I feel are just wrong and historically wrong such as that whole Merion thing those two fellows promoted.
All I've tried to stress on this thread is that he wasn't the only one doing some really good golf architecture back then and he wasn't the first either. He just generated a lot of more publicity over what he did at NGLA, and particularly the way he went about it compared to some of the others who did really good architecture such as Leeds, Emmet, Travis, the Fownses, Wilson, Crump, Thomas, Flynn et al. Those are just the ones I know well and some of them came before him with excellent architecture but there were others around the time of NGLA and just after it that were certainly not following Macdonald's model and even some of them very much on purpose.
-
"You might be surprised how much one can learn about a place in only a limited number of plays, if they put their mind to it."
Yes, I think that would be very true to say, at this point; I would be surprised. You might be surprised how much one continues to learn about some great architecture even after having known it like the back of their hand for a number of decades.
-
"I don't mean to downplay the quality of Myopia or even to express any opinion on it whatsoever."
I hope not. I think there's a ton about it any dedicated golf course historian/analyst can learn about the beginning of real quality golf architecture in America.
"I suspect that there was plenty to Myopia and I would love."
I would suspect as much as well.
"But Myopia did not spark the kind of change that NGLA did."
No, it didn't spark the same degree of interest NGLA did but there are some pretty obvious reasons for that which do not relate to its architecture.
"Surely you realize that CBM and NGLA had a much larger and more lasting impact on gca in America than Myopia, don't you?"
Yes, I do and I feel a lot of it had to do with how Macdonald went about NGLA compared to how Leeds went about Myopia or how Emmet and Travis went about GCGC.
"Myopia and Garden City had been around for years, but golf design in America still languished. With CBM and NGLA that changed, and quick. You need look no further than Merion to see the immediate and concrete impact CBM and NGLA had on golf design in America."
If you bother to really study Macdonald and his own outlook on American golf architecture it appears he felt American architecture continued to languish for many years following NGLA (with some notable exceptions). I think proof of that is it appears his famous remark of the state of America architecture----"It makes the very soul of golf shriek" was very likely penned by him around 1927-28, and even one of his specific descriptions of why would also seem to indicate that.
So, if you are trying to imply that American architecture would not have progressed in any way as it did had Macdonald never been a part of it I think I might have to say that might be a very debatable point! I don't believe that statement takes anything away from what he did do but I think there were a ton of other people and forces at play throughout those years (The Golden Age?) that could have and would have done what they did without him.
Apparently you don't see it that way at all and of course you are just as welcome to your opinion as I am to mine.
-
The role of CBM in golf in America is enormous to be sure. But I wonder if he had not produced NGLA if architects such as Colt, Fowler and Park would not have had the success anyway here. It's debatle to be sure, but eventually someone would've made that step. IMO, I see very little evidence to suggest that CBM's work heavily influenced the above mentioned architects and how they decided to design their courses here in America. I'm sure there was admiration and respect for the effort and passion of CBM, but I'm not aware of his work influencing them, especially Colt. He seemed to keep his own counsel in regards to course design.
-
Frankly, I think a great subject on here would be a complete review and discussion of the evolution of the so-called "National School" of golf architecture, particularly its popularity or lack of it, at any point in time over the last century.
There is no question at all that Macdonald's revolutionary idea of pretty much copying famous GB holes and/or their principles to produce comprehensively good eighteen hole golf courses and architecture in America created a huge splash when he developed it with his NGLA and continued to do it for a time.
We also know and can document it that a few others emulated his model (famous GB holes and architecture) for a time and even used the same famous names for those holes but it also seems historically documentable that that idea and model just ran out of steam and interest with a decade or so.
Why was that? It seems to me there are all kinds of good and historically factual reasons for it not the least being a large and vibrant and philosophically interested group of architects came to look at that model and modus operandi as perhaps a limited and stultifying way to go about design.
The whole idea of "naturalism" and what look and type and style that constituted was in the wind and running rampant and various architects came to develop and have their own individual and unique ways of interpreting that and applying it.
If someone on here actually thinks the world of American architecture completely stuck with Macdonald's model for the rest of time, I'd have to say they really aren't using their minds or their eyes well unless they actually think the National School's look and style is the same as Tillinghast's style or Flynn's style or MacKenzie's style over here, not to even mention the so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects, Leeds, Emmet, Travis, Fownes, Wilson, Crump etc and their unique and individual types and styles. And this isn't even going beyond the end of the so-called Golden Age-----YET! ;)
And then there is the evolution of types and styles on the other side. Does anyone really think Colt's style or Alison, Fowler, Simpson, Abercrombie, Park Jr's style etc were emulating Macdonald's model and his National School style?
If one does think that I feel they are definitely missing the REAL DEAL in the differences!
-
DavidS:
Regarding your last post the one who actually interests me more than even Colt is Mackenzie. If one is to say that Macdonald created something of a revolution in golf architecture with his GB famous or "classical" hole model or modus operandi for far better architecture one should also consider the potential design revolution Mackenzie may've created for architecture and its future with his revolutionary "camouflage" ideas and application.
I'm not saying Macdonald shouldn't be considered a superstar in the history and evolution of architecture, even American architecture, but for someone on here to imply he was somehow essentially the only superstar or even the greatest of them all or even the first of them, seems a bit of a misreading and mispresentation of golf architecture's history.
-
Tom, yes, of course MacKenzie played a role, especially in California where most of his work in this country was done. MacK was quite different in his approach to design compared to CBM. And I feel whatever CBM did at NGLA did not have much, if at all, of a bearing on how he approached his work here in California. Now, I do think there is work in California that was influenced to some degree by NGLA, namely Thomas and Behr's courses. And this would make sense knowing their backgrounds and history in golf on the east coast.
-
TEPaul,
What are you talking about? Who 's even considering that CB's influence extended abroad? That's the most bass ackwards thought process I've seen on this whole thread.
No one has said that 'the world of American architecture completely stuck with Macdonald's model for the rest of time"', that is something you have made up and you are the only person to think it.
Once again you show yourself up for what you are, a Macdonald basher, which has nothing to do with history and everything to do with the reality that you are overly invested in the work of another.
Of course you are free to believe what you will, therefore you can continue to delude yourself into believing that you have a fair position.
-
TEPaul,
Once again you show yourself up for what you are, a Macdonald basher, which has nothing to do with history and everything to do with the reality that you are overly invested in the work of another.
Jim
Huh? You can call Tom P a lot of things (and please do - tee hee), but a CBM basher is not at all accurate. I have been on the site for 5 years and never, not even once, did I ever get the impression TomP was a CBM basher. Where on earth did you get this idea from? If anybody else has this idea, where did you get it from? If anything, I would say Tom P is a huge fan of CBM.
Ciao
-
Sean,
You, too, can believe whatever you choose.
Tom professes to be a 'fan', but he always ends up bashing Macdonald on threads like this. He consistently promotes the idea, mostly of his own creation, that CBM's influence was somehow lost on the other architects of the time. That's ridiculous.
He seems to think that the other architect's of the time kissed CB off because they didn't like his style, when it was more likely that their massive egos wouldn't let them feel subservient to CBM, in any way, shape or form. I think they were more worried that he was getting all the attention paid to him and he wasn't even taking any money to build courses. These guys were trying to tear him down back them because they were pissed, there are even articles written that chastise Macdonald for telling the general public where he got the inspiration for his ideas, the essence being that if you tell them you ruin it for the 'rest' of us.
No, if Tom wanted an unvarnished record of history he'd have to stop his incessant and worn-out technique of masking his attacks on CBM with praise.
-
JimK
Your post #140 just shows me again that some of us look at various subjects differently and speak about various subjects in quite different ways. That post also reminds me why I don't believe it is worthwhile trying to discuss most any subject with you. I also don't think it is important to try to construct some opinion consensus on here and so you're just as welcome to whatever opinion you hold as I am, and one of my opinions is that you calling me a Macdonald basher for whatever I've said about him and his architecture on here shows a pretty good degree of pettiness or perhaps even stupidity, or both, on your part.
-
"These guys were trying to tear him down back them because they were pissed, there are even articles written that chastise Macdonald for telling the general public where he got the inspiration for his ideas, the essence being that if you tell them you ruin it for the 'rest' of us."
I frankly don't remember reading anything like that, at least not while Macdonald was still working in architecture. But if you know of a series of articles or accounts that show others trying to tear him down for any reason I would love to see them. Where are they?
-
Tom,
We do look at things differently, but that wouldn't encourage me to call you stupid, as you just did to me. I might think your position is bass-ackwards, but that doesn't mean I think you're an idiot for holding it.
People form their own opinion's, all we are doing is debating. If you can't do that without taking it personally then so be it, but there already is a consensus opinion about this subject and it was established a long time before we've taken up arguing about it.
-
Tom,
I will find it and post it, which is more than you did for me.
-
"Tom,
We do look at things differently, but that wouldn't encourage me to call you stupid, as you just did to me. I might think your position is bass-ackwards, but that doesn't mean I think you're an idiot for holding it."
Well, JimK, that's probably just another good example of how we look at things differently and express them differently. In that particular way it would seem I'm a whole lot more like Charles Blair Macdonald than you are, wouldn't you say? ;)
-
"I will find it and post it,......"
What do you mean post "it?" Do you mean it's one person's opinion back then or something written that says "they" (apparently meaning a lot of people back then) were tearing him down?
Whatever it is you're referring to I look forward to seeing it and considering it because I can't exactly remember people tearing him or his architecture down back when he was still working. In his obituary to him in 1939 Tillie did say they had had many difference of opinion on golf course architecture but that they had basically been pretty good-natured about their differences.
-
The role of CBM in golf in America is enormous to be sure. But I wonder if he had not produced NGLA if architects such as Colt, Fowler and Park would not have had the success anyway here. It's debatle to be sure, but eventually someone would've made that step. IMO, I see very little evidence to suggest that CBM's work heavily influenced the above mentioned architects and how they decided to design their courses here in America. I'm sure there was admiration and respect for the effort and passion of CBM, but I'm not aware of his work influencing them, especially Colt. He seemed to keep his own counsel in regards to course design.
David Stamm,
As for if and when Colt and/or Fowler would have had had the success here anyway, it is certainly arguable. But we could just as easily argue about whether the United States would have eventually broken away from Great Britain, had the revolutionary war not gone as it did. My point is that we cannot rewrite history with "what if's." With CBM we don't need to speculate as to "would have" and "could have" because CBM did it. And we cannot erase his influence from the landscape to give these guys a free shot at trying to accomplish what CBM accomplished.
So while some of these guys who followed may not have been borrowing anything from CBM, they were preaching many of the same ideas and/or utilizing many of the same concepts, and CBM set the stage for these guys here. He started the ball rolling and they (and others) took it all sorts of places.
Tom, yes, of course MacKenzie played a role, especially in California where most of his work in this country was done. MacK was quite different in his approach to design compared to CBM. And I feel whatever CBM did at NGLA did not have much, if at all, of a bearing on how he approached his work here in California. Now, I do think there is work in California that was influenced to some degree by NGLA, namely Thomas and Behr's courses. And this would make sense knowing their backgrounds and history in golf on the east coast.
When you say that AM's approach was much different than CBM's just what exactly do you mean? There are differences obviously, but there are plenty of remarkable similarities as well. AM was espousing many of the same fundamental principles as CBM, and building many golf holes with very similar strategic underpinnings. Diagonal hazards, undulating and interesting greens, undulating fairways, multiple routes to the hole, equally challenging and interesting to the scratch and the duffer, every hole different in character, undulations but no hill climbing, dislike of high rough, as natural appearance as possible, minimization of blind approaches (CBM obviously had a few exceptions to this, but preached minimum blindness nonetheless while noting these exceptions.) The both shared a deep affection for the Old Course, and both had very similar views on the purpose of hazards, they both even praised the same holes from overseas. They differed on trees, but only to a degree.
MacKenzie was quite fond of NGLA. From The Spirit of St. Andrews:
North America is rapidly becoming a greater golf center than even the home of golf, Scotland. The average American golf course is vastly superior to the average Scottish golf course, but I still think the best courses in Scotland, such as the Old Course at St. Andrews ,are superior to any in the World. In the East, the National and Pine Valley are outstanding, and the excellence of many other courses may be traced to their shining example. My personal preference is for the National. Although not so spectacular as Pine Valley, it has a greater resemblance to real links land than any course in the East.
It is also essentially a strategic course; every hole sets a problem. At the National there are excellent copies of classic holes, but I think the holes, like the 14th and 17th, which C. B. Macdonald has evolved, so to speak, out of his own head, are superior to any of them.
As an example of how similarly they thought on architecture, recall that CBM had Raynor build AM's "ideal two-shot hole" at the Lido. From the caption of the photograph of his winning plan (SoSA):
"The ideal two shot hole that launched my golf architecture career. C.B. Macdonald and Bernard Darwin awarded this design first place in Country Life magazine. July 25, 1914."
One thing I found fascinating is when Gib in his usual off-the-cuff, less than serious manner recently went around CPC naming the Raynor holes. While he was joking (I think,) one could easily go right around CPC and find quite a few holes with similar strategic concepts to those at NGLA. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this was done intentionally or that AM was working off of Raynor's plan. But I am saying that CBM and AM viewed many things similarly and so it should be of no surprise that their courses end up presenting some very similar strategic problems.
So I am curious as to what you meant when you wrote that AM's approach was much different than CBM's?
-
I thought the following might be of interest to the more open-minded on here in considering the basic subject of this thread.
In an article in the November 8. 1901 British Golf Illustrated, Walter Travis spoke of his impressions on British golf. In it he contrasted what is found in Britain and is lacking in the US.
"Where for instance, have we any bunkers that suggest the faintest resemblance to the "Himalayas" or the "Redan" at Prestwick, or the "Maiden," "Sahara" or "Hades" at Sandwich? Where have we any holes comparable with the 7th, 11th and 13th at St. Andrews, the 7th and 10th at Troon, the 5th and 17th at Prestwick, the 7th, 8th, 11th and 12th at Formby, the 2nd and 15th at Carnoustie, the 3rd, 7th and 14th at Prestwick St. Nicholas, the 7th, 14th and 15th at North Berwick, the proposed new 12th and 13th at Blundellsands, the 5th 11th, 12th and 18th at Muirfield, the 11th, 13th and 14th at Hoylake, the 3rd, 6th, 8th and 17th at Sandwich, the 3rd and 8th at Mid-Surrey, the 7th and 14th at Deal, or the 3rd, 4th and 10th at Huntercombe? -- to say nothing of many others. Golf, with us, is mostly of a Kindergarten order. The holes are too easy, and there is too much of a family resemblance all through, generally speaking. There are undoubtedly some notable exceptions which will at once suggest themselves to those familiar with the leading courses on both sides. But, speaking broadly, our courses seem to be mainly laid out, not with reference to first-class play, but rather to suit the game of the average player. And what is the result? On the ordinary courses a premium is placed on mediocrity. But let the average good player on such courses "stack up against" golf as it should be played -- on links such as Prestwick, Sandwich or Formby, or Garden City or Wheaton -- and where is he? Really good links develop really good players, a few remarkably so, while the general standard of play is at the same time very sensibly improved. This fact is meeting with increasing recognition, as is evidenced by the growing improvement of our courses in the direction of making them more difficult."
The above comes from the on-going architectural research of Merion architectural historian Wayne Morrison.
-
I don't know what you are trying to show tom, no one has ever said that good examples of quality architecture didn't existence pre-NGLA, only that none of them rose to the level of CBM's masterwork.
There isn't one credible golf historian who disputes that fact, but you and Wayne still can't absorb the idea. I sympathize with you guys, but I guess if I invested as much of my life as you two have in trying to drag Macdonald down so I could elevate the subject of a biography I was writing I'd be upset too. What's really sad is that if you guys were willing to embrace new information as it was shown to you your work would be a lot more history and a lot less fiction.
But I'm not either of you guys.
-
"I don't know what you are trying to show tom, no one has ever said that good examples of quality architecture didn't existence pre-NGLA, only that none of them rose to the level of CBM's masterwork.
There isn't one credible golf historian who disputes that fact, but you and Wayne still can't absorb the idea. I sympathize with you guys, but I guess if I invested as much of my life as you two have in trying to drag Macdonald down so I could elevate the subject of a biography I was writing I'd be upset too. What's really sad is that if you guys were willing to embrace new information as it was shown to you your work would be a lot more history and a lot less fiction.
But I'm not either of you guys."
Jim Kennedy:
Perhaps you think I implied it before but now I'll just come right out and say it----with that last post of yours you just proved you really are an idiot.
This thread is about whether Macdonald really was the father of Golf Architecture in America and not exactly whether he had the biggest impact at some particular time as you seem to be trying to pigeon-hole it into. ???
This quotation from Walter Travis in a British publication in 1901 (about 6-7 years before NGLA) is nothing more than some food for thought and consideration for the viewers and contributors to this website about the subject and title of this particular thread and particularly about the subject of template holes or that idea here in American which has generally been assigned just to Macdonald!
-
Perhaps you think I implied it before but now I'll just come right out and say it----with that last post of yours you just proved you really are an idiot.
Childish and unoriginal Tom.
-
Ding, Ding, Ding.
After a spirited round one I want to get back to the influence that Macdonald may have had at that time in history.
Much like today’s golf course designers including Pete Dye. I believe that C.B Macdonald had a big influence. I believe that if history repeats itself and today golf architecture is really a spin off of what has already been done then the golf course designers of the early 1900s. were simply searching out and hearing of the latest and greatest golf courses of that era. Using ideas to further enhance what they thought was crucial to sound golf design. As stated in one media outlet Maxwell was influenced by what was in vogue at that time and clearly the golf business was even a smaller circle back then. Did Mackenzie stop in to see the National or read about it before venturing out West? Did the Olmstead Brothers spread the word about the courses being built in the East? Was the media also a big influence on what was being developed out on the Eastern edge of Long Island and brought to communities across America?
Was Donald Ross as important to Golf Architecture in America?
-
Jim Kennedy:
I've never been too sure why you try to limit the discussion on this thread as you do to some question or point you think should only be discussed but if you can't appreciate the value of Walter Travis' interesting remarks in a British publication in 1901 (five years before NGLA's land was even purchased) about the use of template holes from abroad in America, I would have to say you don't have much of an open mind or curiosity about the point and question of this entire thread's subject.
And then when you accuse me or Wayne Morrison, as you often have in the past, of trying to bash Macdonald for offering that interesting information on Travis, it gets odder still.
-
The role of CBM in golf in America is enormous to be sure. But I wonder if he had not produced NGLA if architects such as Colt, Fowler and Park would not have had the success anyway here. It's debatle to be sure, but eventually someone would've made that step. IMO, I see very little evidence to suggest that CBM's work heavily influenced the above mentioned architects and how they decided to design their courses here in America. I'm sure there was admiration and respect for the effort and passion of CBM, but I'm not aware of his work influencing them, especially Colt. He seemed to keep his own counsel in regards to course design.
David Stamm,
As for if and when Colt and/or Fowler would have had had the success here anyway, it is certainly arguable. But we could just as easily argue about whether the United States would have eventually broken away from Great Britain, had the revolutionary war not gone as it did. My point is that we cannot rewrite history with "what if's." With CBM we don't need to speculate as to "would have" and "could have" because CBM did it. And we cannot erase his influence from the landscape to give these guys a free shot at trying to accomplish what CBM accomplished.
So while some of these guys who followed may not have been borrowing anything from CBM, they were preaching many of the same ideas and/or utilizing many of the same concepts, and CBM set the stage for these guys here. He started the ball rolling and they (and others) took it all sorts of places.
Tom, yes, of course MacKenzie played a role, especially in California where most of his work in this country was done. MacK was quite different in his approach to design compared to CBM. And I feel whatever CBM did at NGLA did not have much, if at all, of a bearing on how he approached his work here in California. Now, I do think there is work in California that was influenced to some degree by NGLA, namely Thomas and Behr's courses. And this would make sense knowing their backgrounds and history in golf on the east coast.
When you say that AM's approach was much different than CBM's just what exactly do you mean? There are differences obviously, but there are plenty of remarkable similarities as well. AM was espousing many of the same fundamental principles as CBM, and building many golf holes with very similar strategic underpinnings. Diagonal hazards, undulating and interesting greens, undulating fairways, multiple routes to the hole, equally challenging and interesting to the scratch and the duffer, every hole different in character, undulations but no hill climbing, dislike of high rough, as natural appearance as possible, minimization of blind approaches (CBM obviously had a few exceptions to this, but preached minimum blindness nonetheless while noting these exceptions.) The both shared a deep affection for the Old Course, and both had very similar views on the purpose of hazards, they both even praised the same holes from overseas. They differed on trees, but only to a degree.
MacKenzie was quite fond of NGLA. From The Spirit of St. Andrews:
North America is rapidly becoming a greater golf center than even the home of golf, Scotland. The average American golf course is vastly superior to the average Scottish golf course, but I still think the best courses in Scotland, such as the Old Course at St. Andrews ,are superior to any in the World. In the East, the National and Pine Valley are outstanding, and the excellence of many other courses may be traced to their shining example. My personal preference is for the National. Although not so spectacular as Pine Valley, it has a greater resemblance to real links land than any course in the East.
It is also essentially a strategic course; every hole sets a problem. At the National there are excellent copies of classic holes, but I think the holes, like the 14th and 17th, which C. B. Macdonald has evolved, so to speak, out of his own head, are superior to any of them.
As an example of how similarly they thought on architecture, recall that CBM had Raynor build AM's "ideal two-shot hole" at the Lido. From the caption of the photograph of his winning plan (SoSA):
"The ideal two shot hole that launched my golf architecture career. C.B. Macdonald and Bernard Darwin awarded this design first place in Country Life magazine. July 25, 1914."
One thing I found fascinating is when Gib in his usual off-the-cuff, less than serious manner recently went around CPC naming the Raynor holes. While he was joking (I think,) one could easily go right around CPC and find quite a few holes with similar strategic concepts to those at NGLA. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this was done intentionally or that AM was working off of Raynor's plan. But I am saying that CBM and AM viewed many things similarly and so it should be of no surprise that their courses end up presenting some very similar strategic problems.
So I am curious as to what you meant when you wrote that AM's approach was much different than CBM's?
David, I apologize for missing your questions until now. Give me a little time to put forth a thoughtful response.
-
"Did the Olmstead Brothers spread the word about the courses being built in the East?"
JC:
The involvement of Olmsted & Co (the Boston landscape architecture and land planning company that was arguably the most famous and prestigous in America at the time) in some of the great golf and development projects of that time has always fascinated me.
As far as I know Olmsted was generally involved with a number of the projects of Seth Raynor, including Mountain Lake in Florida in 1915 which may've been the first dedicated golf and residential community development in America. The same team of Raynor, Olmsted and Baltimore developer Frederick Ruth that had been used at Mountain Lake was later used to do Fishers Island. By the way, Mountain Lake and Fishers Island in the old days were something like sister clubs with the same staff going from one to the other during the winter and summer seasons.
Apparently the great Marion Hollins may've had Raynor and Olmsted on the drawing boards to do Cypress Point too but Raynor died before it began. Marion also used Olmsted Brothers to do the over-all development of Pasatiempo with the golf course by Mackenzie.
Marion had a strong connection with Macdonald and Raynor since she was from New York and her father, Harry Hollins was one of the founding members of NGLA (as a young up and coming golfer Marion played NGLA all the time). Marion also got Macdonald (and perhaps Raynor) to do some consulting on her interesting Womens National golf course in the early 1920s before she went west even though Devereux Emmet is the architect of record for Womens National.
-
"Was Donald Ross as important to Golf Architecture in America?"
JC:
Of course he was even if perhaps at a somewhat later time in the evolution of golf architecture in America. Even though that is undeniably the case I have little doubt that very question and answer will probably drive a few of the notable Macdonald Butt-Boys on here to become hysterical once again and accuse me of trying to bash Macdonald. They will probably accuse you too of trying to shift the question and point of this thread in some attempt to bash Macdonald! ;)
-
Jim Kennedy.
While I find the Travis paragraph posted by TomPaul and Wayne interesting, I am with you in not quite understanding its significance to this topic.
All acknowledge that Travis was probably on the right track, at least by the middle of the decade-- this would explain why CBM chose him to help at NGLA. But that paragraph is a far cry from any sort of coherent and cohesive plan to overthrow of the existing order of American design, and I am not aware that this blurb or Travis had much impact or influence at all. Only a little changed for the better in during most of that decade, and much changed for the worse! TEPaul pretends that one's impact and influence have little to do with the issue at hand, but this is just plain wrong. Even Jim Urbina has directed the conversation to CBM's impact and influence a few times now.
Plus, it is not clear that Travis was entirely on the right track in the paragraph. His main focus was on making courses harder, emphasizing " . . . the growing improvement of our courses in the direction of making them more difficult.". Along these lines, he presents the 1901 version of Garden City as an excellent test of golf, along with Weaton and some excelelnt courses abroad. "But let the average good player on such courses "stack up against" golf as it should be played -- on links such as Prestwick, Sandwich or Formby, or Garden City or Wheaton -- and where is he?" Difficulty is the apparent measure of quality, and this entirely misses the point of what was to come.
It is telling, though, that this is the best these guys could come up with. Travis mentioned some holes abroad, called American courses Kindergarten, and praised the 1901 version of Garden City (even placing it with great links courses) because it was difficult. What are we supposed to draw from this? I have no idea except to know that it that it looks like a very, very weak argument is in the making.
_______________________________
TEPaul is likely insulting and upset in his response to you because you hit on the absolute key to understanding why these two approach CBM as they do. They (and others) are trying to make a bigger place at the table for their own favorite dead guy or pet theory, and they think they can accomplish this by elbowing CBM over a bit, and out of the way. What they don't seem to get is that with a little help here and there, CBM built the table at which they sit. Not only that, he built the room containing the table, and that room is but an extension of a larger structure that is Scottish links golf.
But why is it so important for these two and many others to try and elbow CBM out of the way? Because, as you have also mentioned, their entire understanding of the evolution of early golf design can only exist if CBM's approach and ideas were nothing but a passing fad. That way, they can argue that __________ (fill in your favorite dead guys here) rejected CBM's ideas and approach and instead took American golf design in an entirely new direction.
So it is not as if TEPaul hates CBM's work-- I believe him when he says he really likes CBM courses. But he needs to limit CBM's influence in order to leave room for the legend of his supposed "Naturalism School." That is the reason why he is so passive-aggressive about it. He's torn. On the one hand he loves the courses, but on the other he has to get him out of the way. So he tries to damn CBM with faint praise, complimenting the courses while minimizing the impact and influence CBM had on golf design in America.
__________________________________________________________________
David, I apologize for missing your questions until now. Give me a little time to put forth a thoughtful response.
No problem. I just figured there was nothing to answer because you agreed with my post in its entirety.
-
What is interesting or perhaps significant about Walter Travis' remarks on his impressions of British and American golf architecture in his 1901 statement posted above and posted again below that is from The British (London?) Golf Illustrated magazine (November, 1901)?
Well, first of all, that might be a very good question, or, on the other hand, perhaps it's not. To determine the answer of whether it's an interesting question or not, I would say a few details surrounding his remarks need to be determined first. I don't know the details surrounding his remarks but others on here might. Even if they don't at the moment, the details surrounding that magazine article with Travis' remarks probably can be determined.
Where, for instance, did Travis' idea for the use of all those famous holes abroad he listed in that article, including the way some of them were bunkered, come from? Was that his original idea or did he get it from someone else or some others who originated that novel idea for American architecture before him?
We know from Macdonald's autobiography, written between 1927 and 1928 that he wrote an article in 1897 while still living in Chicago that an ideal first class course should have eighteen holes and sandy soil and the right distance between the holes, the shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfecting of putting greens, and all must be evolved by a process of growth and it all requires study and patience. But where in that 1897 article did Macdonald talk about the famous time-tested "classical" (his word) holes and their principles from abroad, and further, where or even when did Macdonald talk about them as a virtual model to draw from to create ideal courses and architecture in America?
Macdonald also tells us in his autobiography that he was inspired by a controversy surrounding the “Best Hole Discussion” in the London Golf Illustrated magazine (presumably a number of the holes Macdonald used in America and first at NLGA as templates were not necessarily his personal favorites from abroad (how many did he even have or know from abroad, at that point?) but they came from that “Best Hole Discussion” apparently first generated in that London Golf Illustrated magazine controversy.
Is this the same magazine that contains the article that Travis’ idea to use holes from abroad came from (he listed a good many holes and courses in that article, so presumably Travis knew them all very well, at that point. We do know Travis had been abroad in the 1890s as well)? Was it Travis who inspired that “Best Hole Discussion” in London Golf Illustrated with his remarks or was it someone else? I doubt it was Macdonald because it appears he wasn’t even over there at that time, as Travis was.
Macdonald also tells us in his autobiography that this idea was what motivated him to go abroad and begin the first of three architectural “study” trips. The other two came in 1904 and 1906.
Is it possible that it was Walter Travis who came up with this concept or model of using famous GB holes and their bunkering ideas over here in America to make better architecture compared to the architecture Travis said we had over here at the time which he believed to be very weak?
If it turns out Travis inspired Macdonald into using GB template holes (Macdonald called them “classical” holes) and perhaps with this British Golf Illustrated article quoted above and below perhaps it was Travis who had the significant and important architectural influence on Macdonald in this particular important vein.
I have no idea at this time whether that is true or even what the chronology was of this concept or model of using famous GB holes and their bunkering ideas for better architecture but I’m sure we can all find out somehow and it may turn out that Travis’ remarks were very important and even a significant influence effecting some of the questions that began this thread.
Again, Travis’ remarks in the British Golf Illustrated magazine article of November, 1901.
"In an article in the November 8. 1901 British Golf Illustrated, Walter Travis spoke of his impressions on British golf. In it he contrasted what is found in Britain and is lacking in the US.
"Where for instance, have we any bunkers that suggest the faintest resemblance to the "Himalayas" or the "Redan" at Prestwick, or the "Maiden," "Sahara" or "Hades" at Sandwich? Where have we any holes comparable with the 7th, 11th and 13th at St. Andrews, the 7th and 10th at Troon, the 5th and 17th at Prestwick, the 7th, 8th, 11th and 12th at Formby, the 2nd and 15th at Carnoustie, the 3rd, 7th and 14th at Prestwick St. Nicholas, the 7th, 14th and 15th at North Berwick, the proposed new 12th and 13th at Blundellsands, the 5th 11th, 12th and 18th at Muirfield, the 11th, 13th and 14th at Hoylake, the 3rd, 6th, 8th and 17th at Sandwich, the 3rd and 8th at Mid-Surrey, the 7th and 14th at Deal, or the 3rd, 4th and 10th at Huntercombe? -- to say nothing of many others. Golf, with us, is mostly of a Kindergarten order. The holes are too easy, and there is too much of a family resemblance all through, generally speaking. There are undoubtedly some notable exceptions which will at once suggest themselves to those familiar with the leading courses on both sides. But, speaking broadly, our courses seem to be mainly laid out, not with reference to first-class play, but rather to suit the game of the average player. And what is the result? On the ordinary courses a premium is placed on mediocrity. But let the average good player on such courses "stack up against" golf as it should be played -- on links such as Prestwick, Sandwich or Formby, or Garden City or Wheaton -- and where is he? Really good links develop really good players, a few remarkably so, while the general standard of play is at the same time very sensibly improved. This fact is meeting with increasing recognition, as is evidenced by the growing improvement of our courses in the direction of making them more difficult."
-
Was Donald Ross as important to Golf Architecture in America?
JC,
In a general context, I think Ross took GCA in America to the next level, especially in terms of an organization, and the volume and quality of his work.
While there were other great architects producing great golf courses, Ross seems to emerge as the "Dean".
His work spanned the continent and beyond.
The quantity and quality of his courses was also outstanding.
If you had to list the general progression of architecture in America, it would seem to be CBM/SR/CB, Ross, RTJ then Pete Dye.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
-
Wayne Morrison and/or TEPaul, If Wayne wants to participate in these conversations he should re-register instead of hiding behind TEPaul.
The post above is is almost completely absent of any real substance. It intimates plenty, but unfortunately almost all that it intimates is wrong or misleading. Just about every answer is easily discoverable by some very basic research, so instead of blurring the issue with conjectures and half-considered theories, why don't you answer your own questions? Then come back and tell us what if anything is left.
Isn't TEPaul the self-proclaimed CBM expert? So he must know all about the origins and inspirations of the pre-1900 versions of Chicago Golf Club? Surely he understands where CBM stood on these issues by November 1901?
Where, for instance, did Travis' idea for the use of all those famous holes abroad he listed in that article, including the way some of them were bunkered, come from? Was that his original idea or did he get it from someone else or some others who originated that novel idea for American architecture before him?
What are you talking about? These two sentences are nothing but wishful thinking of the anyone-but-CBM variety. While Travis noted that courses in America did not have features and holes like those listed, he did NOT suggest that those famous holes should be copied or recreated in America. At least he didn't in the paragraph presented from 1901. He did write that the American courses needed to be made more difficult. If you disagree, please show us exactly where in this paragraph did Travis contemplate copying these holes in America?
We know from Macdonald's autobiography, written between 1927 and 1928 that he wrote an article in 1897 while still living in Chicago that an ideal first class course should have eighteen holes and sandy soil and the right distance between the holes, the shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfecting of putting greens, and all must be evolved by a process of growth and it all requires study and patience. But where in that 1897 article did Macdonald talk about the famous time-tested "classical" (his word) holes and their principles from abroad, and further, where or even when did Macdonald talk about them as a virtual model to draw from to create ideal courses and architecture in America?
You are paraphrasing a few sentences from that article, and not very well. Why not post the entire article or at least the passage? I know TEPaul quoted it in his recent piece for the Walker Cup, so you guys must have checked the quote against the original.
Macdonald also tells us in his autobiography that he was inspired by a controversy surrounding the “Best Hole Discussion” in the London Golf Illustrated magazine (presumably a number of the holes Macdonald used in America and first at NLGA as templates were not necessarily his personal favorites from abroad (how many did he even have or know from abroad, at that point?) but they came from that “Best Hole Discussion” apparently first generated in that London Golf Illustrated magazine controversy.
Why don't you tell us what CBM knew about courses abroad before 1901, instead of implying that he might not have known about them?
Is this the same magazine that contains the article that Travis’ idea to use holes from abroad came from (he listed a good many holes and courses in that article, so presumably Travis knew them all very well, at that point. We do know Travis had been abroad in the 1890s as well)? Was it Travis who inspired that “Best Hole Discussion” in London Golf Illustrated with his remarks or was it someone else? I doubt it was Macdonald because it appears he wasn’t even over there at that time, as Travis was.
1. Surely you can figure out whether it is the same magazine, can't you?
2. He knew them all very well because he can name them? I can name every hole at ANGC, so I guess I know them all very well.
3. Are you asking us or telling about Travis' possible travels abroad in the 1890's?
4 Come on Tom or Wayne or whoever. Why speculate about whether Travis inspired the "Best Hole Discussion" in this paragraph? Just look it up. You may want to start your research here, because it will put much of the rest of this nonsense to rest.
5. He wasn't over there at that time, as Travis was? How do you know that CBM was not abroad in the 1890's? And what to you mean by "at that time?" At WHAT time? Again just a huge logical leap on your part. You assume that because Travis was abroad "in the 1890s" that he was present for the inspiration for the discussion? What makes you think the discussion took place in the 1890's?
Macdonald also tells us in his autobiography that this idea was what motivated him to go abroad and begin the first of three architectural “study” trips. The other two came in 1904 and 1906
.
Why did you skip the date of the first study trip? What date did CBM say that his preparation for the ideal course began? Was it before or after Travis' paragraph?
Is it possible that it was Walter Travis who came up with this concept or model of using famous GB holes and their bunkering ideas over here in America to make better architecture compared to the architecture Travis said we had over here at the time which he believed to be very weak?
If it turns out Travis inspired Macdonald into using GB template holes (Macdonald called them “classical” holes) and perhaps with this British Golf Illustrated article quoted above and below perhaps it was Travis who had the significant and important architectural influence on Macdonald in this particular important vein.
You are so far afield of facts and reality that it really says something about your motivations here. Why would you put this fantasy out here without looking into it. It is all readily available!
I have no idea at this time whether that is true or even what the chronology was of this concept or model of using famous GB holes and their bunkering ideas for better architecture but I’m sure we can all find out somehow and it may turn out that Travis’ remarks were very important and even a significant influence effecting some of the questions that began this thread.
Is "find out somehow" a euphemism for someone finding out for you? If so, it won't be me. I know many of the answers, as well a some of the places your theory falls apart, but to me the bigger question is why would you throw this stuff out there without checking it out first? Clearly with you it is anyone-but-Macdonald, but if this is the best you can do, why bother?
-
I thought the following might be of interest to the more open-minded on here in considering the basic subject of this thread.
In an article in the November 8. 1901 British Golf Illustrated, Walter Travis spoke of his impressions on British golf. In it he contrasted what is found in Britain and is lacking in the US.
"Where for instance, have we any bunkers that suggest the faintest resemblance to the "Himalayas" or the "Redan" at Prestwick, or the "Maiden," "Sahara" or "Hades" at Sandwich? Where have we any holes comparable with the 7th, 11th and 13th at St. Andrews, the 7th and 10th at Troon, the 5th and 17th at Prestwick, the 7th, 8th, 11th and 12th at Formby, the 2nd and 15th at Carnoustie, the 3rd, 7th and 14th at Prestwick St. Nicholas, the 7th, 14th and 15th at North Berwick, the proposed new 12th and 13th at Blundellsands, the 5th 11th, 12th and 18th at Muirfield, the 11th, 13th and 14th at Hoylake, the 3rd, 6th, 8th and 17th at Sandwich, the 3rd and 8th at Mid-Surrey, the 7th and 14th at Deal, or the 3rd, 4th and 10th at Huntercombe? -- to say nothing of many others. Golf, with us, is mostly of a Kindergarten order. The holes are too easy, and there is too much of a family resemblance all through, generally speaking. There are undoubtedly some notable exceptions which will at once suggest themselves to those familiar with the leading courses on both sides. But, speaking broadly, our courses seem to be mainly laid out, not with reference to first-class play, but rather to suit the game of the average player. And what is the result? On the ordinary courses a premium is placed on mediocrity. But let the average good player on such courses "stack up against" golf as it should be played -- on links such as Prestwick, Sandwich or Formby, or Garden City or Wheaton -- and where is he? Really good links develop really good players, a few remarkably so, while the general standard of play is at the same time very sensibly improved. This fact is meeting with increasing recognition, as is evidenced by the growing improvement of our courses in the direction of making them more difficult."
The above comes from the on-going architectural research of Merion architectural historian Wayne Morrison.
TEP
Have you read Travis's entire article? If so, what gave you the impression he was referring to templates?
-
By the way the Best Holes Discussion series in Golf Illustrated began 2.15.1901.
-
Tom MacWood:
"TEP
Have you read Travis's entire article?"
No I haven't; only the part I quoted.
"If so, what gave you the impression he was referring to templates?"
I get that impression from what I quoted from Travis from that Nov, 1901 British Golf Illustrated article.
"By the way the Best Holes Discussion series in Golf Illustrated began 2.15.1901."
Thanks for that info. Obviously that would probably mean Travis didn't start that GBI "Best Hole Discussion" by what he said in the article in BGI in Nov, 1901. I wonder if he was the first who had the idea of doing copies of the holes in America that he mentioned in that article. Do you have any idea when or where Macdonald first wrote he wanted to do GB template holes in America, OR, do you have any idea who first mentioned doing template holes in America before Travis appeared to suggest it in that article in BGI in Oct-Nov 1901? Do you know if anyone suggested doing famous hole copies in GB or abroad around that time (1901)?
-
TEP
The problem with looking at a small excerpt from a longer article is the danger of taking that excerpt out of context. I would suggest you ask Wayne to send you the entire article. Travis is not referring to templates.
-
"Travis is not referring to templates."
Tom MacWood:
What do you think he's referring to in that excerpt from that British Golf Illustrated Nov. 1901 article? Do you think he is referring to the necessity to copy here in America important architectural "principles" ;) such as greater bunkering from those numerous significant holes abroad he mentioned in that Nov, 1901 British Golf Illustrated article, because he stated most of our courses were weak (not difficult enough to inspire improved skill and play) and akin to kindergarten golf designed for mediocrity?
-
I think TEP (and Wayne) simply cannot resist the chance to "ring the bell" of devoted fans of Macdonald. Suggesting that Travis inspired CBM is fairly brilliant in that regard. Ridiculous, but effective if the goal is to tweak those of us who know Macdonald's true importance..
Macdonald himself states that it was the 1901 Golf Illustrated "Best Hole" competition that inspired him. It made him realize not only that golf courses in the US were sorely lacking, but that even the best courses in the UK had many weak holes. The idea of building NGLA was born, and he then set about a 4 year project of studying the courses in the UK, Macdonald suggest that this was "the first effort at establishing golfing architecture, at least there is no record I can find preceeding it."
Macdonald did not try to hide the fact that he copied features that appealed to him; "the flowers oftransplanted plants in time shed a perfume comparable to that of their indigenous home." Why would he hide Travis' influence if it ever existed?
Macdonald speaks favorable of Myopia, but did not study it and copy any of its features. That so many others would travel to NGLA and study the course is a HUGE factor when we try to answer the question of whether or not CBM was the "father" of GA in America. I'm not crazy about the term "father" but if we have to name one, there is no one close to CBM.
-
"Why would he hide Travis' influence if it ever existed?"
BillB:
That question actually has a very long and complex series of answers that is most definitely not without a huge stash of documentation, that is if one considers it carefully. If one wanted to put a general label on the nub of what created their differences and some virtual adverserialness and estrangement (particularly on Travis' part) that label would probably be "The Schnectedy Putter Issue" and over a number of years (it became HUGE! ;)
-
What surprises me is that after 10 years of gestation, apparently including "a 4 year project of studying the courses in the UK," CBM ended up with a course (excellent as it probably was nd still is) which included only a small number of "templates" from all the great holes he must have seen across the pond, as well as a lack of any holes from some of the most highly respected courses of that time. Other than his own testimony in "Scotland's Gift," and the reports of people to whom Macdonald related this story, is there any corroboration of what courses exactly he did "study" and how and when and for how long? Are there any newspaper accounts of his trips to the UK? If even the idiot savant Hugh Wilson could be mentioned in the local press when he visited GBI in 1912, surely such a revered figure as CBM would have received gallons of ink from the British hacks during his sojourns. I don't remember seeing copies of any such reports on this site. Could somebody enlighten me as to whether I am myopic or such reports have not yet been found or published?
Thanks in advance.
-
I think Rich hits on a point that has been developing in my mind for a while now:
Macdonald was a naturalist who repeated certain template-features because he knew they would make for a great golfing experience.. Two of his protogees, Raynor and Banks, took these template-features to the extreme, made many of the features bolder, (some say they left an "engineered look" )and now some people lump Macdonald in with what Raynor and Banks built.
I think that is wrong. Raynor and Banks are just one wing of the Macdonald influence. I strongly believe that every other architect of the time was greatly influenced by NGLA, but is impossible to quantify or describe. You can't point to a Tillinghast or Ross hole and say they took this from Macdonald. Rather, they used the land as Macdonald did, but were driven to produce golf holes of the highest quality, ones that would measure up the NGLA. The "game" had changed, and they either built courses that could be mentioned in the same breath as NGLA or they would not be hired. That's my belief and I'm sticking to it!
-
"Travis is not referring to templates."
Tom MacWood:
What do you think he's referring to in that excerpt from that British Golf Illustrated Nov. 1901 article? Do you think he is referring to the necessity to copy here in America important architectural "principles" ;) such as greater bunkering from those numerous significant holes abroad he mentioned in that Nov, 1901 British Golf Illustrated article, because he stated most of our courses were weak (not difficult enough to inspire improved skill and play) and akin to kindergarten golf designed for mediocrity?
TEP
He was explaining and contrasting the differences between the two countries relative to golf course development. He emphasizes the natural advantages Britain has over America - the sandy undulating ground - which results in better turf, more interesting undulating ground and courses that are generally better bunkered. He does not mention anything about copying famous holes. Another point Travis makes in the article: better courses result in better play and better golfers.
-
Rich Goodale,
That's a good point except for one thing.
As an architect, CBM was a nobody in the latter part of the 19th century and early years of the 20th century, so, I don't know if he'd get that much press.
But, I would like to know which courses he studied and which courses he didn't study.
-
~
-
"TEP
He was explaining and contrasting the differences between the two countries relative to golf course development. He emphasizes the natural advantages Britain has over America - the sandy undulating ground - which results in better turf, more interesting undulating ground and courses that are generally better bunkered. He does not mention anything about copying famous holes. Another point Travis makes in the article: better courses result in better play and better golfers."
Tom MacWood:
Of course he was contrasting the differences of golf courses between the two countries but is that all you think his point was in that Nov. 1901 British Golf Illustrated article? My God, Man, do you think he meant to suggest that golf architecture on this side should remain of the kindergarten order and be created in the future with only mediocrity in mind? ::) ???
I think he is definitely suggesting we could do better and should do bette3r and he even mentioned a few examples of doing it better over here at that date. He is definitely suggesting not only that we could do better but that we should, hence, the following in the same article----
"It is high time we awoke to a proper and appreciative realization of what real golf is, and constructed our courses accordingly."
-
"If so, what gave you the impression he was referring to templates?"
I get that impression from what I quoted from Travis from that Nov, 1901 British Golf Illustrated article.
"By the way the Best Holes Discussion series in Golf Illustrated began 2.15.1901."
Thanks for that info. Obviously that would probably mean Travis didn't start that GBI "Best Hole Discussion" by what he said in the article in BGI in Nov, 1901. I wonder if he was the first who had the idea of doing copies of the holes in America that he mentioned in that article. Do you have any idea when or where Macdonald first wrote he wanted to do GB template holes in America, OR, do you have any idea who first mentioned doing template holes in America before Travis appeared to suggest it in that article in BGI in Oct-Nov 1901? Do you know if anyone suggested doing famous hole copies in GB or abroad around that time (1901)?
TEP
Where do you see Travis advocating the copying of famous holes?
-
"TEP
Where do you see Travis advocating the copying of famous holes?"
Tom MacWood:
I see it in his 1901 article in British Golf Illustrated where he names numerous holes he admires abroad------
"Where have we any holes comparable with the 7th, 11th and 13th at St. Andrews, the 7th and 10th at Troon, the 5th and 17th at Prestwick, the 7th, 8th, 11th and 12th at Formby, the 2nd and 15th at Carnoustie, the 3rd, 7th and 14th at Prestwick St. Nicholas, the 7th, 14th and 15th at North Berwick, the proposed new 12th and 13th at Blundellsands, the 5th 11th, 12th and 18th at Muirfield, the 11th, 13th and 14th at Hoylake, the 3rd, 6th, 8th and 17th at Sandwich, the 3rd and 8th at Mid-Surrey, the 7th and 14th at Deal, or the 3rd, 4th and 10th at Huntercombe? -- to say nothing of many others."
-----and then goes on to say the following in the same article----
"It is high time we awoke to a proper and appreciative realization of what real golf is, and constructed our courses accordingly."
-
TEP
So when you read Travis say we don't have any holes like X, Y, and Z, you take that to mean he is advocating the reproduction of copies of X, Y and Z in the States?
-
Tom MacWood:
When I read Travis ask in that article IN 1901 where over here we have holes like some over there (and then he goes on to list about forty of them from abroad he obviously admires as really good holes)-----
-----and then goes on to say the following in the same 1901 article in British Golf Illustrated----
"It is high time we awoke to a proper and appreciative realization of what real golf is, and constructed our courses accordingly"
Yes, I think Travis was advocating IN 1901 for the emulation of the architectural concepts and principles of those holes abroad (and as he mentioned, 'and many others' from GB) in America, just as Macdonald did about half a decade later at NGLA. That is probably why GCGC gave Travis the liberty beginning around 1901 to begin rebunkering GCGC and creating more interesting green surfaces.
That probably wasn’t lost on Macdonald as Macdonald’s golf club was GCGC apparently after he moved from Chicago to New York in 1900.
You would agree, wouldn't you, that the first of Macdonald's three extended architectural study trips abroad took place in 1902? The other two according to Macdonald took place in 1904 and 1906.
-
TEP
First you tried to make the case that Travis inspired the Best Hole Discussion, then you tried to make the case he was the first to advocate templates, now you seem to be claiming Travis was the first to advocate the adoption of British architectural principals...a decade prior to CBM no less.
It appears you are just trying to throw anything you can against the wall in the hopes something sticks. That is very poor way to approach history IMO.
-
"TEP
First you tried to make the case that Travis inspired the Best Hole Discussion,"
Tom MacWood:
No sir, I did not try to make that case at all. I only asked a question if perhaps he did because I did not know before asking the question when that "Best Hole Discussion" began. You informed me that it began 2/15/01, and if that is the case I responded to that it is then not likely Travis inspired the "Best Hole Discussion" in the British Golf Illustrated magazine as Travis' article in GBI magazine appeared about nine months later.
"then you tried to make the case he was the first to advocate templates,"
I suppose that depends on how one defines the meaning of templates. If it means using the concepts and featuring and the architectural principles of famous holes abroad (bunkering and greens contours and configuration and such) Travis seems to be advocating their use in America when he mentioned in that Nov, 1901 article in GBI all those holes he admired and then said later in that same article-----"It is high time we awoke to a proper and appreciative realization of what real golf is, and constructed our courses accordingly." Obviously by 'we' he was referring to Americans and America and American golf course architecture! ;)
"now you seem to be claiming Travis was the first to advocate the adoption of British architectural principals...a decade prior to CBM no less."
Yes, that looks like a distinct possiblity unless one can find Macdonald, or someone else, mentioning the use of British architectural hole principles in America (or anywhere else for that matter) before Travis did in 1901. BTW, I did not say Travis advocated the adopition of British architectural principles a decade prior to CBM either----you just did. The next thing I know you will probably be quoting me saying a decade earlier which I never said.
I said Travis said this in 1901 and as we all know Macdonald essentially began his NGLA in 1906----that's 5 years which amounts to HALF a decade, and not a whole decade, wouldn't you agree? ;)
But the more interesting point seems to be that it does not appear Macdonald ever mentioned using GB hole concepts and features and principles prior to Nov, 1901. If he did I would very much like to know where and when. Can you find something that shows us where and when prior to Nov. 1901? Was that because he hadn't thought of that idea yet for his ideal course in America? The other interesting point is he began the first of his three dedicated architectural study trips abroad in 1902 (again, the other two were in 1904 and 1906). Why would he spend so much time abroad AFTER 1901 studying courses and holes and principles if he'd already been well aware of all that and ready to go with his ideal golf course idea using GB templates and other GB hole concepts and principles?
"It appears you are just trying to throw anything you can against the wall in the hopes something sticks. That is very poor way to approach history IMO."
I don't think so. This is a real article from Travis and the question should be asked if he had that idea about using admired holes abroad over here before Macdonald did. I think that's pretty important, particularly in the context of American architectural evolution and history and in the context of this thread's subject. Wouldn't you agree, and if not, why not?
Can you show me or quote me when and where Macdonald first talked about actually using admired golf holes from abroad here in America, and if not why not? Show me where he said that specifically before Travis did. If you can I will be more than happy to concede the point and drop the question.
After-all, this is just a discussion group where any or all of us can learn all kinds of things about the history of golf course architecture, and this may be one of them.
-
TEP
Is there some reason you have chosen to ignore what CBM wrote in Scotland's Gift? Might I suggest you ask Wayne to allow you to borrow the book.
"Living in Chicago, I wrote an article. published in December, 1897, saying, in part:
'The ideal first-class golf links has yet to be selected and the course laid out in America. No course can be called first-class with less than eighteen holes. A sandy soil sufficiently rich to make turf is the best. Long Island is a natural links. A first-class course can only be made in time. It must develop. The proper distance between the holes, the shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfecting of putting greens, all must be evolved by a process of growth and it requires study and patience.'"
Macdonald goes on to explain how the Best Holes discussion inspired him to build the NGLA.
-
Tom MacWood,
One of the things that has always fascinated me about NGLA is the bunker placement scheme.
It's amazing how some of those bunkers, seemingly out of play, come into play when you hit an errant shot and find yourself in the dilema of having to avoid them on your next shot.
# 18 is one of my all time favorites.
A view from Google Earth is quite interesting even though it loses much of the elevation changes.
-
"TEP
Is there some reason you have chosen to ignore what CBM wrote in Scotland's Gift? Might I suggest you ask Wayne to allow you to borrow the book.
"Living in Chicago, I wrote an article. published in December, 1897, saying, in part:
'The ideal first-class golf links has yet to be selected and the course laid out in America. No course can be called first-class with less than eighteen holes. A sandy soil sufficiently rich to make turf is the best. Long Island is a natural links. A first-class course can only be made in time. It must develop. The proper distance between the holes, the shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfecting of putting greens, all must be evolved by a process of growth and it requires study and patience.'"
Macdonald goes on to explain how the Best Holes discussion inspired him to build the NGLA."
Tom MacWood:
Thanks for the suggestion about reading "Scotland's Gift Golf" but apparently you missed the fact that I mentioned on here a number of times over the years that Pat gave me that book about seven years ago and I have read it conservatively 30 times---AND not just the parts of it about golf course architecture but the rest of it including the convoluted sections about USGA administration back then!! Why did I read those sections so diligently??
Because I have spent perhaps 25 years myself in golf administration as Macdonald did. My interest in GCA post dates that. So don't you dare talk to me about not knowing "Scotland's Gift Golf" and what-all is in it you overarching intellectual SNOB!! I know more about Macdonald's ENTIRE life and times with architecture and OTHERWISE than you do arguably by a factor of about TWENTY OR MORE!
So tell me you Putz since you just refused to answer it on THIS THREAD in the last day or two-----WHEN and WHERE did Macdonald mention the use of GB template holes or GB architectural concepts or features or principle BEFORE 1901? You avoided that question I asked you on here a number of times, didn't you?
Why is that? ;)
Do you want to have an intelligent conversation on Macdonald and the history of golf course architecture or don't you? I'm willing but you are just as evasive as you've always been.
DO you want to do better on here and have an intelligent conversation and discussion on Macdonald and the history and evolution of American golf course architecture-----if so, just answer this really simple question-----YES OR NO?
-
Because I have spent perhaps 25 years myself in golf administration as Macdonald did. My interest in GCA post dates that. So don't you dare talk to me about not knowing "Scotland's Gift Golf" and what-all is in it you overarching intellectual SNOB!! I know more about Macdonald's ENTIRE life and times with architecture and OTHERWISE than you do arguably by a factor of about TWENTY OR MORE!
TEP
Yes, I often associate you with CBM.
The first mention I know of anyone proposing to build a course made up of famous holes was CBM June 1905 in British Golf Illustrated, although apparently he proposed to his friends and associates the idea the year before (according to Scotland's Gift).
-
Tom MacWood,
One of the things that has always fascinated me about NGLA is the bunker placement scheme.
It's amazing how some of those bunkers, seemingly out of play, come into play when you hit an errant shot and find yourself in the dilema of having to avoid them on your next shot.
# 18 is one of my all time favorites.
A view from Google Earth is quite interesting even though it loses much of the elevation changes.
That is pretty amazing when consider when the course was built and how the game has changed since then. TOC withstood a number technical advancements too, John Low referred to TOC's ability to remain great in the face of equipment advancements 'Indestructibility'.
-
"The first mention I know of anyone proposing to build a course made up of famous holes was CBM June 1905 in British Golf Illustrated, although apparently he proposed to his friends and associates the idea the year before (according to Scotland's Gift)."
Tom MacWood:
Thank you very much for that straight-forward answer. I would say, then, that you apparently agree that puts some potentially interesting historical meaning and significance into Travis' Nov 1901 GBI article in which he suggests or implies using admirable GB holes and their concepts, features, principles, bunkers etc to make American golf course arhitecture more than on a kindergarten order or mediocrity going into the future. ;)
-
CBM criticism predated Travis's by four years, and Travis never proposed template holes. I think you and Wayne may be the only two who read Travis advocating template holes. By the way does Wayne also associate you with CBM? If so, I'd suggest you stay on your toes.
-
Sorry to disappoint you, Tom MacW, but I also read Travis' 1901 paragraph reproduced above to advocate "template" holes, both the first time it was posted, and after several re-reads just to make sure. "Templates" are simply exemplars of "best practice" that can be imitated, and that is what Travis is saying about those holes and features developed by their British brethren that he believed US architects should focus on. That Macdonald developed a similar idea (and more importantly, acted on it) a few years later does not detract from the incontrovertible fact of Travis' statement.
-
"CBM criticism predated Travis's by four years, and Travis never proposed template holes."
Tom MacWood:
Who was the first to offer criticism of American architecture has never been the question or point on this thread----but who was the father of golf architecture in America is. In that area, the first to offer the idea to use architectural concepts, features, principles etc of admirable holes abroad to make American architecture better certainly is important in determing some of the answers to that question! Thanks for admitting that you now believe Macdonald's ideas on that came after Travis', as you did on Post # 185. I rest my case with the significance of Travis's Nov. 1901 British Golf Illustrated magazine.
Thank you.
-
Rich
You don't disappoint me. You must have an expectation in order to be disappointed. Do you read the Best Holes Discussion from earlier in 1901 as also advocating template holes too?
-
"CBM criticism predated Travis's by four years, and Travis never proposed template holes."
Tom MacWood:
Who was the first to offer criticism of American architecture has never been the question or point on this thread----but who was the father of golf architecture in America is. In that area, the first to offer the idea to use architectural concepts, features, principles etc of admirable holes abroad to make American architecture better certainly is important in determing some of the answers to that question! Thanks for admitting that you now believe Travis' ideas on that came before Macdonald's, as you did on Post # 185.
I don't believe that is what I said but you're welcome anyway -- I try to be objective. I follow the facts wherever they take me, I don't manipulate or distort the facts in order to prove a theory (or multiple theories in your case).
-
Tom MacWood:
Thank you for that last post (or the majority of #192 or before you changed it to avoid admitting the obvious ;) ). It seems we finally agree on something significant about the history and evolution of golf course architecture. I always felt that Walter Travis was a whole lot more central in this than most realized, and now you seem to understand that too.
-
I'm a big fan of Travis as well, and his associate HH Barker.
-
"I big fan of Travis as well, and his associate HH Barker."
I BIG FAN of Travis too! ;) ::)
-
Tom MacWood:
This question is neither here nor there but do you think Travis thought he was a better architect than who you say was his associate, HH Barker? if you think so that is pretty heady stuff since you proclaimed or supported the super revisionist Moriarty's statement in his remarkably ridiculous essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion," that HH Barker was the second best architecture in America, right behind C.B. Macdonald? Would you like me to quote him mentioning you thought that in his ridiculously revisionist essay? Would you say, then, that it's fair to say that back then Macdonald was the #1 architect in American and Travis 2a and Barker 2b? ;)
-
Rich Goodale,
That's a good point except for one thing.
As an architect, CBM was a nobody in the latter part of the 19th century and early years of the 20th century, so, I don't know if he'd get that much press.
But, I would like to know which courses he studied and which courses he didn't study.
Interesting, Pat. Even his arch enemy Travis acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago (Wheaton). Was he the only one?
If CBM was really a "nobody" in 1902-1906, how did he get access to the great courses and the great thinkers in his study-trips abroad? Or are you implying that maybe he didn't?
-
Richard the Clairvoyant:
Do not forget that in 1901 and perhaps up to 1908 or so Travis and Macdonald were asshole buddies of the highest order but after that they were seemingly asshole enemies of the highest order. Do you remember why that seemed to be the case?
Ricardo, my good buddy, are you just getting up or are you just going to bed? If you're just going to bed what do the sheep say about that? ;)
I'm going to bed, good buddy, because frankly I'm elated after finally getting MacWood to agree after about a day's dialetic that Travis probably thought of the idea of emulating the concepts, features and principles of GB holes before Macdonald. Well, he agreed for a few minutes at least until he apparently reread what he wrote and realized it looked like it agreed with me and so he altered it! ;)
-
As for the Travis article, it is wishful thinking to find any sort of reference to using British holes as templates in America or copying the strategic concepts, or anything else remotely similar to what CBM had begun working on in 1901.
1. Travis contrasted GB's abundance of quality golf holes with the dearth of quality golf holes in the US.
2. Why list the holes to make this point? How better to demonstrate the contrast? Plus, consider the context. Travis was writing for a British audience shortly after the well-publicized discussions about the best and most difficult golf holes, and was writing for the same magazine that had served as the epicenter of that discussion/debate. So it should come as no surprise that Travis listed out many of the same golf holes that Golf Illustrated had been discussing. The best and most difficult golf holes were a hot topic, and he weighed in or glommed on (depending on whether he had actually played all these holes.) To read any more into it than this is a leap beyond logic, and not supported by the articles.
3. His description of the problems with American holes and courses has nothing to do with fundamental strategic principles, or usable hole concepts, or anything resembling CBM’s critique. Rather , he complained that American holes were too easy; (“of the Kindergarten order” . . . “too easy” . . . laid out along the same lines “to suit the game of the average player” where “a premium is placed on mediocrity.”) He also said British soil was better, and the undulations were better. Nothing about the arrangement of the features. Nothing about the transferability or the universality of the fundamental strategic principles of the great holes. No coherent plan or concept whatsoever, beyond improving American courses by making them harder.
4. Ironically, there isn’t even anything original in the article that I can see. If discussing the fact that the golf courses were better abroad was all it took to preempt CBM, then many others preempted CBM (including CBM himself!) Same goes for noting that the soil was worse in America, and the undulations weren’t as ideal.
5. In fact, most of the ideas in the Travis article could have been cribbed from Whigham’s writings from 1897. The difference is that, unlike Travis, Whigham actually does contemplate that American Clubs should model thier courses after the best courses abroad, and not just is soil or undulations, but it detail. So if you are looking for someone that was talking about these things first, then here is your man (or one of them.) But then crediting Whigham won’t quite serve your purposes in this discussion, will it?
6. And crediting Whigham isn’t quite accurate either, because while he was leaps and bounds closer than Travis, his ideas were a far cry from what CBM was starting to work on. Not only that, but CBM’s weren’t just ideas. He did it.
___________________________________________________
Rich Goodale,
That's a good point except for one thing.
As an architect, CBM was a nobody in the latter part of the 19th century and early years of the 20th century, so, I don't know if he'd get that much press.
But, I would like to know which courses he studied and which courses he didn't study.
Interesting, Pat. Even his arch enemy Travis acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago (Wheaton). Was he the only one?
If CBM was really a "nobody" in 1902-1906, how did he get access to the great courses and the great thinkers in his study-trips abroad? Or are you implying that maybe he didn't?
Patrick,
I am not sure I agree. CBM was very well known in golf circles during that time period, and I don't think they made any sort of "as an architect" distinction, but had they he still would have been very well known, as Chicago was widely considered the best course pre-1900.
Along with H.J. Whigham and probably a few others, CMB seems to have been considered one of the foremost experts in America on all things golf, including golf courses. In 1897 Caspar Whitney described him as "so expert a golfer and so accurate an observer as Charles B. Macdonald" and "Mr. Macdonald should know whereof lie speaks, since he is as familiar with the courses of Scotland and England as he is with those of America."
Rich,
As you can see above, CBM was considered an expert on golf courses in America and Abroad long before his trips in preparation abroad. That doesn't specifically answer your question, though. I don't have a list of courses seen by CBM, although that would be interesting. I imagine that he could have seen quite a few courses on his three trips abroad to study courses, and that is on top of his time in St. Andrews and whatever other trips he may have taken between the two periods.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry to disappoint you, Tom MacW, but I also read Travis' 1901 paragraph reproduced above to advocate "template" holes, both the first time it was posted, and after several re-reads just to make sure. "Templates" are simply exemplars of "best practice" that can be imitated, and that is what Travis is saying about those holes and features developed by their British brethren that he believed US architects should focus on. That Macdonald developed a similar idea (and more importantly, acted on it) a few years later does not detract from the incontrovertible fact of Travis' statement.
Rich, it seems you have stripped much of the substance out of the concept of a "template" at least when it comes to golf holes, and even still the Travis article cannot fit. You say he "advocate[d] template holes." Which template holes did he advocate, and what was it particularly that he advocated using from these holes? Where exactly does he say anything about "imitating" these exemplars, and how, and to what degree? What exactly is it that the "US architects should focus on?"
It is not enough to say they were "exemplars" or "best practice." (Not sure this term applies because of the way those holes came about.) Sure they were exemplars, but exemplars of what, specifically? If these were indeed exemplars or templates, then please tell us just what exactly was exemplified, and to what degree, and how?
Generally, I think they were "examplars" of an abundance of quality golf holes. That's it. Nothing more specific than that, but lets try to break it down: At best Travis thought these holes were . . .
1. Built on better soil and have better turf.
2. Had better natural undulations.
3. Built to be difficult, so that the could challenge the top quality golfer.
That's it, isn't it? If not, then what more is there? And the Travis plan to apply the "best practice" here? Make courses more difficult. Nothing else that I see. Hell, if all it takes to be a template advocate was that you wanted good soil, undulations, and difficulty, then about everyone was an advocate for templates.
By the way, CBM did not come up with this idea a few years later. He was contemplating an "ideal" golf course on the east coast since 1897 or before. He just did not know that that he would be the person to build it. Was the plan fully formed then? Surely not, but it was more formed than anything Travis writes in this article. He began working on the actual project about in 1901, not a few years after the Travis article which was published in November of that same year.
One more thing Rich, given your curiosity above about whether or not CBM actually knew a wide range of British holes, then you must really be curious about Travis. Do you have a record of what holes he played, because he doesn't even say he'd played those holes, did he? What holes had he seen at this point?
-
One more thing Rich, given your curiosity above about whether or not CBM actually knew a wide range of British holes, then you must really be curious about Travis. Do you have a record of what holes he played, because he doesn't even say he'd played those holes, did he? What holes had he seen at this point?
Based on the evidence I've seen, David, my guess is that in 1901 Travis had a more contemporaneous view of the great holes, based on his trips to the UK in 1895-6 (no post-St. Andrews/pre 1902 trips for Macdonald that I know of). I suspect, however, that both of them at that time were relying mostly on Hutchinson's magnum opus of 1897(?) which laid out those "template" holes for any and all to see and study.
-
Based on the evidence I've seen, David, my guess is that in 1901 Travis had a more contemporaneous view of the great holes, based on his trips to the UK in 1895-6 (no post-St. Andrews/pre 1902 trips for Macdonald that I know of). I suspect, however, that both of them at that time were relying mostly on Hutchinson's magnum opus of 1897(?) which laid out those "template" holes for any and all to see and study.
Rich
Travis did not play golf in 1896, literally, he did not learn the game until he retuned to the US. His visit in 1901 was his first experience golfing in the UK.
If you have any interest in CBM Scotland's Gift is a great resource; George Bahto's book is very good too. In those books you would learn Macdonald's father was a Scot and that CBM was educated at St. Andrews (I thought that was pretty much common knowledge). Beyond the years commuting to the U. of St. Andrews in the early 1870s I have found he made trips to the UK in 1879, 1881, 1884, 1886, 1888, 1890 (twice)...at that point I stopped looking.
Half the holes Travis listed were not in Hutchinson's book.
-
Tom MacWood:
This question is neither here nor there but do you think Travis thought he was a better architect than who you say was his associate, HH Barker? if you think so that is pretty heady stuff since you proclaimed or supported the super revisionist Moriarty's statement in his remarkably ridiculous essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion," that HH Barker was the second best architecture in America, right behind C.B. Macdonald? Would you like me to quote him mentioning you thought that in his ridiculously revisionist essay? Would you say, then, that it's fair to say that back then Macdonald was the #1 architect in American and Travis 2a and Barker 2b? ;)
TEP
I don't understand your question. Are you familiar the Travis's architectural career? If you study their respective careers you will find Barker and Travis's career's did not overlap, with one exception, the GCGC redesign (a collaboration)....which you incorrectly dated on this thread to around 1901. Its very difficult to have a debate or an intelligent conversation with someone who does not have a basic understanding of golf architecture history.
-
TEP
Regarding the last part of your question. I said Travis and Macdonald were by far the most respected architectural authorities at the time (circa 1910) - based largely upon the redesign of GCGC and the creation of the NGLA, the two cutting edge designs in America. Travis was not actively designing golf courses at the time, so if you wanted Travis's ideas you got Barker instead, his associate at GCGC. That is my assumption based on the relatively unknown Barker getting a good number of premier commissions from coast to coast; it is also based on the fact that Travis himself later took some credit for Barker becoming a golf architect.
As far as Barker being on the two top practicing architects at the time, I don't know an architect practicing in America between 1908 and 1910 who had more impressive resume than Barker's....do you? My contention has been out there for a while now and no one has made the case for others, feel free to present the case for another golf architect or golf architects.
By the way, please do not turn this thread into another Merion thread (even though we all know Wayne and your participation in this thread and your odd interpretations have everything to do with Merion)
-
Based on the evidence I've seen, David, my guess is that in 1901 Travis had a more contemporaneous view of the great holes, based on his trips to the UK in 1895-6 (no post-St. Andrews/pre 1902 trips for Macdonald that I know of). I suspect, however, that both of them at that time were relying mostly on Hutchinson's magnum opus of 1897(?) which laid out those "template" holes for any and all to see and study.
Rich
Travis did not play golf in 1896, literally, he did not learn the game until he retuned to the US. His visit in 1901 was his first experience golfing in the UK.
Thanks for that, Tom. I knew about Travis' early golfing history, but not about the 1901 trip. Can we assume that this was where he learned about (and then probably saw and even played) the holes he wrote about? Did Macdonald ever write about playing golf on any of those trips that you discovered he took to the UK?
PS--I have read Scotland's Gift, and was not impressed, as I have said many times on this forum. I don't remember a lot of interesting factual information in that book. If and when I get more interested in Macdonald, I'll read the Bahto/Papazian book.
-
Rich Goodale,
That's a good point except for one thing.
As an architect, CBM was a nobody in the latter part of the 19th century and early years of the 20th century, so, I don't know if he'd get that much press.
But, I would like to know which courses he studied and which courses he didn't study.
Interesting, Pat. Even his arch enemy Travis acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago (Wheaton). Was he the only one?
Rich, WHEN did Travis acknowledge the architectural quality of Chicago ?
Was it pre or post 1902 and/or 1904 ?
In 1895 what other 18 hole courses existed in America that Travis could compare Chicago to ?
Travis didn't take up golf until 1897 and didn't design his first golf course until 1907, so I'm curious to know when he acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago, especially in terms of how it relates to CBM's trips to the UK in 1902 and 1904, and, in terms of his ability to discern quality golf course architecture.
Was 1904 the first year that he played golf in the UK ?
If CBM was really a "nobody" in 1902-1906, how did he get access to the great courses and the great thinkers in his study-trips abroad?
Or are you implying that maybe he didn't?
CBM wasn't a "nobody" in terms of golf, but, he wasn't a "rock star" in terms of architecture in 1902-1906.
However, he was well connected in the social and business world in Chicago, New York and beyond.
TEPaul is not an "architect" of note, or even an architect of ill repute, but, I'll wager you that he could gain access to the great courses and the great thinkers in the UK. CBM was probably better positioned to gain access than any practicing architect of his time.
Does that make TEPaul the equal of CBM ?
-
")....which you incorrectly dated on this thread to around 1901. Its very difficult to have a debate or an intelligent conversation with someone who does not have a basic understanding of golf architecture history."
Tom MacWood:
Following his use of the Haskell ball (that he referred to as "The Bounding Billy") in the 1901 US Amateur Travis returned to GCGC and was involved in the lengthening of the course from 6070 to 6400 yards thereby apparently making it the longest course in America at the time. He suggested the rebunkering of the course at that time. It is certainly understandable that Travis would be given the liberty of doing architectural work on GCGC in 1901-02 since he had already designed Ekwanok golf course in Vermont with John Duncan Dunn in the fall of 1899 and of course he had been the US Amateur champion in 1900. So much for having a conversation with someone who does not have a basic understanding of the subject. ;)
-
Interesting, Pat. Even his arch enemy Travis acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago (Wheaton). Was he the only one?
Rich, WHEN did Travis acknowledge the architectural quality of Chicago ?
Was it pre or post 1902 and/or 1904 ?
In 1895 what other 18 hole courses existed in America that Travis could compare Chicago to ?
Travis didn't take up golf until 1897 and didn't design his first golf course until 1907, so I'm curious to know when he acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago, especially in terms of how it relates to CBM's trips to the UK in 1902 and 1904, and, in terms of his ability to discern quality golf course architecture.
Was 1904 the first year that he played golf in the UK ?
Pat
That was from his 1901 article (see above)
According to Tom MacW, he 1st played golf in the UK in 1901.
Rich
-
Rich:
In answer to your question about Macdonald and his time and experience with architecture abroad----according to Macdonald he actually only PLAYED golf three times between his departure from St. Andrews in 1874 and the beginning of Chicago Golf Club in 1893! When he said those were his "Dark Years" he wasn't kidding, huh?
He played twice at Hoylake, once in 1878 and again in 1884. The only other time he actually played golf in those nineteen years was in some field at Camp Douglass in Chicago in 1875 with some friend of his after they pushed a few cans they found on the property into the ground as cups. But he claimed that wasn't a very gratifying experience as some hooligans harrassed the hell outta them apparently because they thought they were a couple of crazy people swinging clubs at a ball in some field! ;)
Macdonald did mention he was called abroad on business in those early years quite frequently but nevertheless he said he only played golf twice abroad in those nineteen years and both times apparently at Hoylake. I don't know if he went abroad again for golf after the beginning of Chicago Golf Club (1893) and before his first dedicated architectural study trip abroad in 1902 but if not then I guess we can assume that TOC and Hoylake were the only courses he knew abroad before that time (1902).
Travis, on the other hand, made a "golfing pilgramage" (Macdonald's phrase) abroad in July 1901 with the current USGA president, R.H. Roberston (a man Macdonald was definitely not fond of as a USGA president). So obviously all the courses and holes (about forty holes) that Travis mentioned in that British Golf Illustrated article in Nov, 1901 that he admired, he had played and was familiar with.
-
"By the way, please do not turn this thread into another Merion thread (even though we all know Wayne and your participation in this thread and your odd interpretations have everything to do with Merion)."
Tom MacWood:
This thread and the question of Walter Travis' knowledge and architectural ideas in 1901 with golf courses and golf holes abroad and how to emulate their architectural concepts and ideas in America to make golf, golfers and golf architecture better over here has nothing whatsoever to do with Merion, so I fail to see why you even bothered to mention it unless YOU are trying to use it to deflect discussing THIS subject. That (Merion) was a far different time and place (about a decade later).
But if you don't want to deal with or discuss the facts of Walter Travis' golf architectural knowledge and ideas in 1901 (including the significance of that Nov 1901 British Golf Illustrated article in that particular vein) because you might think it is too controversial or something then that is your prerogative! ;)
-
Getting back to the original question about the father of American golf architecture, could someone please explain to me why 1901 is such a significant date? They had been playing golf in the States for almost a decade at that point, with courses like Chicago, Onwentsia, Myopia, GCGC, Essex County, Brookline and Ekwanok in full flight.
In comparing Travis to Macdonald as the 'father' one should consider the fact CBM had laid out three golf courses in the States before Travis even began playing the game. CBM may or may not be the father of American golf architecture, but trying to claim Travis is the father is preposterous.
-
Tom MacW
Who has claimed (on this thread or elsewhere) that Travis was the father of American GCA? Why does American GCA have to have just one father anyway? What's wrong in giving credit to anybody who added significantly to its development?
-
"Getting back to the original question about the father of American golf architecture, could someone please explain to me why 1901 is such a significant date? They had been playing golf in the States for almost a decade at that point, with courses like Chicago, Onwentsia, Myopia, GCGC, Essex County, Brookline and Ekwanok in full flight.
In comparing Travis to Macdonald as the 'father' one should consider the fact CBM had laid out three golf courses in the States before Travis even began playing the game. CBM may or may not be the father of American golf architecture, but trying to claim Travis is the father is preposterous."
Tom MacWood:
Of course I can explain to you why 1901 and that article by Travis in the British Golf Illustrated magazine is potentially significant. Frankly, I already explained it to you a couple of times but as usual with you it seems you failed to understand it or perhaps you didn't even read it.
The significance of it, at least potentially, is that Travis may have come up with the idea of utilizing hole concepts and hole ideas from admired and famous holes abroad to improve golf and golfers and golf architecture in America BEFORE Macdonald did and BEFORE Macdonald even made his very first architectural study trip abroad which I think we all understand took place in 1902 and AFTER Travis' study trip abroad in the middle of 1901 that was comprehensively explained in that British Golf Illustrated Nov, 1901 which was BEFORE Macdonald went abroad to essentially analyze and familiarlize himself with GB courses and holes and architecture to be utilized with American architecture as Travis had done and had said before him!
If you can't understand that or the potential architectural historical signficance then one should fairly ask what kind of golf architectural historian you think you are?
I don't think anyone is saying Travis should be considered the Father of American architecture, that's not the point, but if it is true that Travis came up with an novel idea that Macdonald utilized later and that became the virtual advertized model for NLGA then THAT should be considered pretty significant------not to even mention the fact that Macdonald also picked Travis as one of two to serve on his first architectural committee to design and create NLGA itself!!
-
Rich
If you don't like the premise of the question no one is forcing you to weigh in. IMO it is legitimate question based on the fact that historically Macdonald has been dubbed the father. It seems to me TEP is trying to make that case for Travis or maybe he is just rying to make the case against CBM...its difficult to tell.
In the last eight posts made by you and TEP (prior to your last post) you emphasized 1901. Why is 1901 a significant date when trying to identify the father of golf architecture in America?
TEP
Travis wrote a boat load of articles on golf course development from the early 1900s and beyond...can you point to a single article where he promoted the idea of copying famous golf holes? You are just grasping at straws.
CBM is not considered the father of GCA in America because he was the first to advocate the copying of holes. CBM is considered the father of American gca because he was the first to introduce the game to Chicago (and one of the first to introduce the game to America), and because he was first in America to plan, design and build a world-class course in America that garnered wide attention on both sides of the Atlantic.
-
Tom MacWood:
I'm not trying to make any case AGAINST Macdonald as you keep saying and I'm not trying to make some case FOR Travis to be considered the father of American GCA. I'm only interested in a most important fact of who first came up with a pretty novel and significant idea that was utilized at NGLA.
Throwing up this smokescreen that me or Wayne or whatever are trying to say something AGAINST Macdonald is one you constantly use on these kinds of discussions that may involve Macdonald or his architecture because frankly you don't seem to know how to discuss this intelligently or you are apparently trying to avoid anything that might effect the legend and your iconization of Macdonald.
So despense with that same old transparent smokescreen of yours that me or Wayne are trying to say something AGAINST Macdonald and just let facts and history speak for itself!
-
Tom MacWood:
Following his use of the Haskell ball (that he referred to as "The Bounding Billy") in the 1901 US Amateur Travis returned to GCGC and was involved in the lengthening of the course from 6070 to 6400 yards thereby apparently making it the longest course in America at the time. He suggested the rebunkering of the course at that time. It is certainly understandable that Travis would be given the liberty of doing architectural work on GCGC in 1901-02 since he had already designed Ekwanok golf course in Vermont with John Duncan Dunn in the fall of 1899 and of course he had been the US Amateur champion in 1900. So much for having a conversation with someone who does not have a basic understanding of the subject. ;)
TEP
Either you memory is shot or you are deliberately trying to mislead. You know very well (or at least you used to know) that Travis wrote his famous article "The Merits and Demerits of Garden City" in 1906 and it was the following year that he began redesigning the course, a process that carried on for several years.
-
Rich:
In answer to your question about Macdonald and his time and experience with architecture abroad----according to Macdonald he actually only PLAYED golf three times between his departure from St. Andrews in 1874 and the beginning of Chicago Golf Club in 1893! When he said those were his "Dark Years" he wasn't kidding, huh?
He played twice at Hoylake, once in 1878 and again in 1884. The only other time he actually played golf in those nineteen years was in some field at Camp Douglass in Chicago in 1875 with some friend of his after they pushed a few cans they found on the property into the ground as cups. But he claimed that wasn't a very gratifying experience as some hooligans harrassed the hell outta them apparently because they thought they were a couple of crazy people swinging clubs at a ball in some field! ;)
Macdonald did mention he was called abroad on business in those early years quite frequently but nevertheless he said he only played golf twice abroad in those nineteen years and both times apparently at Hoylake. I don't know if he went abroad again for golf after the beginning of Chicago Golf Club (1893) and before his first dedicated architectural study trip abroad in 1902 but if not then I guess we can assume that TOC and Hoylake were the only courses he knew abroad before that time (1902).
TEP
If you are going to know only two courses abroad TOC & Hoylake would be two pretty good ones don't you think? Are you trying to make the case that after one visit Travis was more familar with British golf than Macdonald, who had been exposed to British golf for thirty years? Wasn't CBM's son-in-law from Prestwick?
-
"Travis' interest in revising the Garden City layout was a direct result of the 1901 US Amateur at Atlantic City Country Club, which he won while using the new rubber-cored balls for the first time. Believing that those balls, "bounding billies" as they were called, would soon make most existing courses obsolete, travelling, as they did, some twenty yards further than the old gutties, Travis returned to Garden City insisting that the course had to be lengthened if it were to remain a championship venue. As a result, the course was stretched from 6070 yards in 1900 to nearly 6400 yards for the 1902 Open, making it the longest course in the country at the time. The principal changes were a significant lengthening of both the sixth and seventh holes, and the doglegs at the 16th and 17th which added yardage to both holes.
Travis' revised course required "thinking golf," including delicate slices and hooks on occasion. Just a couple of drives and approach shots required long carries over rough and sand. Travis' work spanned several years, with his final product unveiled for the 1908 US Amateur."
The Garden City Golf Club----A History"
I suppose you will now tell us that that history book is all wrong too as you have with Merion's, Myopia's, Pine Valley's and a number of others and that Tom MacWood knows their history better than they do.
-
TEP,
Are you saying that Travis was the father of Golf Architecture in America?
-
"TEP
If you are going to know only two courses abroad TOC & Hoylake would be two pretty good ones don't you think?"
Tom MacWood:
Yes I do think those two are very good ones to be exposed to if Macdonald had only been exposed to them before he began his dedicated study of GB architecture in 1902.
"Are you trying to make the case that after one visit Travis was more familar with British golf than Macdonald, who had been exposed to British golf for thirty years? Wasn't CBM's son-in-law from Prestwick?"
What I am trying to do is determine what GB golf courses Macdonald had been exposed to before he went abroad to study golf architecture in preparation to create NGLA. His own biography, in which he goes through his life in golf, should give us a pretty good idea about that at any particular point in time, unless you are now going to try to tell us that Tom MacWood actually knows more about Macdonald knew when he wrote his biography in 1927-28.
As for some of what Travis had studied in 1901 thankfully he tells us some of that in that British Golf Illustrated article of Nov. 1901 which you seem to be resisting so strenuously for some reason or failing to see the point of it. Travis listed in that article a number of courses he had obviously played during that "golfing pilgramage" (Macdonalds' phrase) he made abroad in July 1910 with current USGA president R.H Robertson.
-
"TEP,
Are you saying that Travis was the father of Golf Architecture in America?"
BillB:
You should try reading some of these posts. Tom MacWood has only asked me that question a couple of times on here and I've told him a number of times that I'm NOT saying anything of the kind about Travis and I have not ever said such a thing even if I fully expect him to ask me the same question a number of times more. Do you BillB have any idea why he keeps asking me the same questions over and over again after I give him the answers? Is it possible that man can't read or comprehend what he reads or interpret what he reads very well for some reason? Maybe he's sick or something, but I have wondered for years why he does that on here-----eg just asking the same questions over and over and over again after he gets the answers each time. Maybe he sees it as some kind of debating ploy but if so it sure is transparent that he does it because he knows he has nothing to use to deal with it. And it certainly is incredibly boring and a waste of everyone's time!
What I am interested in is finding out if Travis had the idea to actually emulating GB holes and their features and concepts and ideas in America before Macdonald did.
At the moment it is beginning to look like that since it appears Travis may have made that golfing pilgrimage (architectural study trip) abroad before Macdonald ever did.
At this point the question seems to have become what golf courses abroad had Macdonald actually seen before he went on his first architectural study trip abroad in 1902. At the moment I'm certain he definitely knew at least two-----TOC and Hoylake because he said so in his own book. But I'll be glad to go through it again to see if he ever mentioned knowing any others before 1902.
Do YOU have any problem with that BillB?
-
I've read the posts. (This is the closest I will ever get to participating in a Merion-type thread :) )
My question to you stands as it relates to the title of the thread.
If Travis was not, who is?
Biologically, there can only be one "father" of anything, so you gotta pick one name...
-
BillB:
I think there is no question that Macdonald should be considered the Father of American golf architecture, as he basically always has been considered anyway and I have said that on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com for many years now.
But that does not mean to me that numerous others did not have some hugely important ideas and influences on American architecture both before and after NGLA and Macdonald (and I'm sure that's precisely why some on here mentioned they think this whole subject is sort of a "melting pot" anyway, and I agree with them on that).
And if it turns out Travis developed the basic idea to utilize GB famous holes and their concepts and ideas over here in America to create better golf and golfers and golf architecture in America before Macdonald specifically did, I think that is a pretty important item and issue since that idea is essentally what Macdonald based his model for NGLA (and American architecture?) on when he began NGLA which would not even begin until five years AFTER that interesting British Golf Illustrated Nov. 1901 article by Walter Travis about that very thing----the ideas from admired and really good GB holes used to improve American architecture.
-
".......than Macdonald, who had been exposed to British golf for thirty years?"
Tom MacWood:
Which British golf courses had Macdonald actually seen or played in those thirty years (1872-1902). I think we can be completely certain he knew TOC really well and apparently Hoylake too but which others do you think he knew well over there before 1902? Can you document any others?
-
Don't believe a word of it Bill, TomPaul has been throwing around the BS on this thread to further his one goal, tear Macdonald down so he and Wayne can sell some books that are based on their erroneous assumptions. Here he goes again, another faint praise of Macdonald (acquiescing to the Father title) while stating, as if it were a fact, that Travis had CB's idea first. Unbelieveable, and sad in a way.
Listen to the total baloney he wrote in his lead in paragraphs when he was trying to tell us the of the signifcance of the Travis article. The bold-face is mine:
What is interesting or perhaps significant about Walter Travis' remarks on his impressions of British and American golf architecture in his 1901 statement posted above and posted again below that is from The British (London?) Golf Illustrated magazine (November, 1901)?
Well, first of all, that might be a very good question, or, on the other hand, perhaps it's not. To determine the answer of whether it's an interesting question or not, I would say a few details surrounding his remarks need to be determined first.
I don't know the details surrounding his remarks but others on here might.
Even if they don't at the moment, the details surrounding that magazine article with Travis' remarks probably can be determined.
Have you ever read such non-sense? It smells from a mile away. This is like the guy who's talking aloud to himself, AND answering!
Anyone feeling the need to preface their remarks with such a ton of manure has nothing much to say, and the little they are saying should be seen for what it is.
The saddest part is the denial. Even when it was shown to him that the Travis article post-dated the 'Best Hole Discussion' by many months he's STILL trying to say it should be Travis who thought of the idea first.
What drives a man to continue along a path when he knows that it's a dead end? There are only three possibilities: he's bonkers, which wouldn't be a description of TEP; he's pig-headed, which might be applied here to some degree; or he has an agenda. This is where we find TEP (and by extension, WM), and neither one of them will ever be able to come to grips with the truth.
-
Tom MacWood:
For instance, it does not appear Macdonald had ever seen North Berwick until 1906! As we can see Travis mentioned NB's redan (as well as two others at NB) in that British Golf Illustrated Nov. 1901 article as obviously he'd seen it and played it when on that golfing pilgrimage in 1901. I wonder if he explained what it was like architecturally to Macdonald at some point between 1901 and 1906 when Macdonald mentioned he first saw it himself?
-
Jim Kennedy:
With that last post of yours it would probably be a good idea for you to simply deregister yourself from GOLFCLUBATLAS.com!
That post speaks for itself----I don't think anyone needs to interpret it. It's about as anti-intellectual and lacking in GCA historical curiosity as is imaginable.
I did ask some questions about the significance of that Travis 1901 article and asked if anyone had any answers. Not too many offered them so I did some of the research myself and so far it turns out Macdonald may've only seen two courses abroad before 1902!!!
What do you make of that if it turns out to be true? Nothing? And why not if so many on here seem to have assumed in the past he was such an expert for so long on GB golf architecture?
I'm going to go back through his book and some other material I have here and see if he mentions any others before 1902 or why don't you try doing something like that yourself instead of writing incredibly dumb posts like the one you just did? ;)
Tom MacWood who is a great researcher (albeit disasterous analyst, in my opinion) doesn't seem to have come up with any other courses CBM knew abroad before 1902 but maybe he's researching that as we speak. I'm going to do the same thing. How about you? ???
-
Tom,
I'll stand by my remarks, you have an agenda when it comes to Macdonald and you always have, and it's been apparent for quite a while.
I've been on this site for about 8 years and in that time I have seen you pontificate in a number of issues, but without fail you have been most vociferous about CBM ever since he was associated with you-know-where.
This last post of yours is just another illustration of what you'd truly like to see happen to Macdonald. You aren't going to BS me Tom, I'm a week or so away from starting my 59th year and I've been smoked by the best of them. You're fair at it, but you're too obvious.
-
"......or he has an agenda. This is where we find TEP (and by extension, WM), and neither one of them will ever be able to come to grips with the truth."
Jim Kennedy:
Of course you stand by your remarks. You and at least two others on here always do no matter how ridiculous your remarks may be at any time.
Agenda?
What kind of agenda do you think I have if I'm simply trying to find out what golf courses and architecture abroad Macdonald had ever seen or played abroad prior to 1902 (which is after Travis made his pilgimage over there in the middle of 1901)?
My GOD, as a long as I've been interested in architecture and interested in C.B. Macdonald I have ALWAYS assumed he personally knew most all the best courses and architecture over there for many, many decades before that and that he certainly must have known more about it personally than Travis did in 1901. Apparently not so far, but I'm still trying to do the research on whether that is a fact or not.
What if that turns out to not be true? Don't you see any historical architectural significance in that at all? And if not, why not? Are you trying to hide the facts and truth about Macdonald and his actual life too?
I mean even though I've read C.B.'s biography so many times and so much else about him I never actually noticed and I certainly never THOUGHT he apparently never even saw one of the most famous holes extant and one he made additionally famous-----North Berwick's REDA---- BEFORE 1906!!
THAT just never occured to me. I thought he must have known it well and admired it and all the rest of those famous hole over there for decades before that. What if it's true that the only courses over there he actually knew himself were TOC and Hoylake prior to 1902? Don't you think that's odd when he tried to promote himself and his course as the expert on "classical" holes and architecture abroad?
And you and a couple of other of these Bowdlerizers don't even want to acknowledge this?
INCREDIBLE!! That is about as lacking in intellectual curiosity as is imaginable, unless of course you few guys have your own agenda which Wayne and I and a ton of others on here and all over the place have long suspected. We have been accused by MacWood and Moriarty for years of trying to defend at all costs the "LEGENDS" of the likes of Wilson or Crump or other Philly architects, and now THIS? ::)
Whose trying to defend a legend at all costs now and defend him against some documentable historical FACTS to boot?? ???
-
".......than Macdonald, who had been exposed to British golf for thirty years?"
Tom MacWood:
Which British golf courses had Macdonald actually seen or played in those thirty years (1872-1902). I think we can be completely certain he knew TOC really well and apparently Hoylake too but which others do you think he knew well over there before 1902? Can you document any others?
TEP
Its difficult to say. CBM tells he played over TOC between 1872 and 1874 before returning to the States where there were no golf courses. He goes on to say, "Happily, for that time until 1892 there were a few oases in this desert. There were the occasions when I was called to Europe on business, which fortunately for me, were quite frequent." He mentions several trips to Hoylake, one to Cambridge (Coldham Common), another time or two around London, and on several occasions he just says he was in England. I believe at one point he said he spent a year in England on business. In 1879 he stayed at Royal Hotel at Liverpool and played every evening after business. He became a member of Royal Liverpool that same year.
Being introduced to the game at St. Andrews in 1872, having close ties to Hoylake, knowing numerous important golfing figures and the impressive quotes he kept from the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s its obvious he was completely immersed in the game and no doubt familiar with best courses abroad. I think you would be hard pressed to find an American who was more knowledgable about British golf than CBM in the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s. Can you think of anyone?
-
INCREDIBLE!! That is about as lacking in intellectual curiosity as is imaginable, unless of course you few guys have your own agenda which Wayne and I and a ton of others on here and all over the place have long suspected -Tom Paul
This is just another example of the boatload of BS you try to unload at every port you appear. You are an amateur, as a true professional BS'er wouldn't expose himself this way. I have never heard from anyone on this site that what you just said is true.
If you can find my agenda, please print it on these pages. Yours is already known.
-
"TEP
Its difficult to say."
Tom MacWood:
Well, for Christ's Sake, Tom, thanks for that at least! That seems like a start on your part anyway. At least you seem willing to consider this. I suspect the likes of Moriarty and Kennedy will just avoid this interesting issue altogether or just continue their constant screeching on here that some of us have some kind of an "Agenda" AGAINST C.B. Macdonald despite the fact we have sincerely said on here numerous times that is simply not the case at all---quite the opposite in fact.
Are you at least interested in this question and this issue or would you prefer to avoid it or say for about the tenth time you don't understand it or perhaps just accuse others of having some kind of agenda here as Jim Kennedy just transparently did?
I don't know about you but I always thought Macdonald as an American with a great love of GB golf architecture knew just about everything there was to know about GB architecture and for years----for decades actually and now we may be finding out all he knew before 1902 was possibly just TOC and Hoylake? He admits he never even saw North Berwick before 1906. I obviously read that because I've read his book so many times but I guess I just wasn't paying attention to the historical significance at that point.
But now that I start thinking about it this is all beginning to make sense to me because it appears Macdonald never actually said he was imitating great holes and concepts and principles from abroad that he actually ADMIRED HIMSELF (as Travis did in that 1901 article), and no wonder---eg he man not have even known some of them at that point (1901)-----it appears he just took his template selections right off basically a popularity poll that had been generated in 1901 abroad by that "Best Hole Discussion," perhaps a number of which he had never seen himself until even a few years after that London "Best Hole Discussion" selections came in. Pretty clever way to cover himself, actually, from any criticism about what he used, but anyway, I guess that could be another subject for another time! ;)
Frankly, just thinking about that makes me realize C.B. was probably and even more clever promoter than I've always suspected he was!
-
"Travis' interest in revising the Garden City layout was a direct result of the 1901 US Amateur at Atlantic City Country Club, which he won while using the new rubber-cored balls for the first time. Believing that those balls, "bounding billies" as they were called, would soon make most existing courses obsolete, travelling, as they did, some twenty yards further than the old gutties, Travis returned to Garden City insisting that the course had to be lengthened if it were to remain a championship venue. As a result, the course was stretched from 6070 yards in 1900 to nearly 6400 yards for the 1902 Open, making it the longest course in the country at the time. The principal changes were a significant lengthening of both the sixth and seventh holes, and the doglegs at the 16th and 17th which added yardage to both holes.
Travis' revised course required "thinking golf," including delicate slices and hooks on occasion. Just a couple of drives and approach shots required long carries over rough and sand. Travis' work spanned several years, with his final product unveiled for the 1908 US Amateur."
The Garden City Golf Club----A History"
I suppose you will now tell us that that history book is all wrong too as you have with Merion's, Myopia's, Pine Valley's and a number of others and that Tom MacWood knows their history better than they do.
TEP
I'm certain there were a number of courses being lebgthened in the face of the Haskell. I knew Emmet lengthened the course by 600 yards just prior to 1900 Amateur but I wasn't aware Travis suggested any changes before his famous article in 1906 when he laid out what he would do to improve GCGC. Have you read that article?
What page will find your quote in the GCGC history?
-
Well, for Christ's Sake, Tom, thanks for that at least! That seems like a start on your part anyway. At least you seem willing to consider this. I suspect the likes of Moriarty and Kennedy will just avoid this interesting issue altogether or just continue their constant screeching on here that some of us have some kind of an "Agenda" AGAINST C.B. Macdonald despite the fact we have sincerely said on here numerous times that is simply not the case at all---quite the opposite in fact.
Another boatload of BS on your part TEP, you have never been sincere about Macdonald and you never will be. Same goes for your buddy. If you were you wouldn't have started your last post with the above, only to end it with this:
Pretty clever way to cover himself from any criticism about what he used
Have you fooled yourself that completely?
-
"Travis' interest in revising the Garden City layout was a direct result of the 1901 US Amateur at Atlantic City Country Club, which he won while using the new rubber-cored balls for the first time. Believing that those balls, "bounding billies" as they were called, would soon make most existing courses obsolete, travelling, as they did, some twenty yards further than the old gutties, Travis returned to Garden City insisting that the course had to be lengthened if it were to remain a championship venue. As a result, the course was stretched from 6070 yards in 1900 to nearly 6400 yards for the 1902 Open, making it the longest course in the country at the time. The principal changes were a significant lengthening of both the sixth and seventh holes, and the doglegs at the 16th and 17th which added yardage to both holes.
Travis' revised course required "thinking golf," including delicate slices and hooks on occasion. Just a couple of drives and approach shots required long carries over rough and sand. Travis' work spanned several years, with his final product unveiled for the 1908 US Amateur."
The Garden City Golf Club----A History"
I suppose you will now tell us that that history book is all wrong too as you have with Merion's, Myopia's, Pine Valley's and a number of others and that Tom MacWood knows their history better than they do.
From my visit to GCGC last year, I recall that the club is very devoted to their architectural history. They have extensive collections on both Emmet and Travis.
This excerpt displays that Travis' Garden City was built with the primary purpose of accounting for modern technology. Emmet's Garden City, Myopia Hunt Club, and the original layout at Chicago Golf Club were likely not built with rubber-core golf balls in mind. Is Travis' version of Garden City the first example of architecture (in America or even in the world) that was built to account for the 20th Century game?
Furthermore, this history rejects my earlier proposal that Travis might have revised Garden City after seeing CBM's work at National Golf Links. The "final product" phrase is critical here. This statement implies that the 1908 version of the golf course provided some sort of closure to Travis' gradual revisions. I would assume that the 1908 version is very similar to some of the features that exist on the course to today. I am thinking particularly of the dual fairway at the first and, more importantly, the Eden replica at the 18th. If 1908 found Garden City in its finished state, then these holes would have been on the ground in 1908. Thus, not only did Travis talk about copying some of the British Isles' best golf holes in 1901, HE ACTUALLY COPIED THEM in the following years.
If Travis was replicating holes between 1901 and 1908, then he was replicating holes like the Eden BEFORE CBM did so at NGLA in 1910. While other architects were likely influenced by the great courses of the British Isles, Travis was most likely the first architect to bring those principles into full existence in the United States.
Did Travis introduce the best of the British Isles to American golf before CBM? The Garden City narrative says yes. Was he the father of Golf Architecture in America? That remains to be seen.
-
TEP
You seem to be desperately grasping for straws and North Berwick is your latest straw. Why does it matter if CBM visited North Berwick in 1892 or 1906? Does that somehow alter his impact on golf architecture in America?
Since we're speaking of agendas, IMO your agenda goes far beyond CBM, your agenda is to preserve golf architecture history as you know it from your reading of C&W. And you will go to extraordinary means to protect that history including altering documents, hiding documents and personally attacking those honestly interested in uncovering new information.
-
"but I wasn't aware Travis suggested any changes before his famous article in 1906 when he laid out what he would do to improve GCGC. Have you read that article?"
Tom MacWood:
Yes I have. As the history book will tell you Travis worked on redesigning GCGC over a number of years perhaps logically those ten years he served on its green committee. Can't tell you the page numbers because the GCGC history book does not have page numbers but it is in the beginning of the chapter entitled "Dedicated to a Life of Golf."
-
JNC
Did Emmet or Travis create the 18th hole at GCGC?
This is what Travis wrote about the NGLA and copies:
"The original idea was to construct eighteen holes fashioned after the various holes in Great Britain which were generally recognized as being pre-eminent either as single-shot, two-shot or three-shot holes. There was nothing experimental...nothing creative--merely slavish imitations of these famous holes abroad in so far as physical limitations permitted. Physical limitations! There was the snag. For while certain holes might colorably lend themselves to such an undertaking in this, that or the other respect, it was a source of mortification to find that, after all certain essential features were totally lacking which were incapable of reproduction unless the whole topographical map was rearranged...which of course, was out of the question on account of expense."
TEP
What does Travis say about lengthening the holes in his 1906 article?
-
BillB:
I think there is no question that Macdonald should be considered the Father of American golf architecture, as he basically always has been considered anyway and I have said that on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com for many years now.
TEP,
Thanks, that clears it up. As long as you give Macdonald the credit he is due, I am perfectly willing to consider what influenced him, whether they be small or large influences. What Macdonald put on the ground at NGLA is the single biggest event in the history of GCA in the US. Period.
Jim,
Although we seem agree on this issue, one rule I try to live by is to firmly argue an issue but never attempt to ascribe motives behind the other's person's argument.
I learned that lesson serving on a local school board and a golf club board, and I've seen it ruin friendships when not followed. That would be a great rule to follow on GCA.com. I would say that you guys can go at it as hard as you want, just pull back when you get to the "motive" part.
-
Unless there is some disagreement in how "father" is defined, I don't see how anyone else could serious compete with the title.
Were courses laid out earlier then CB's attempts? Yes
Did these people influence the direction of architecture in the America's? Doubtful
Just my opinion based on limited research.
-
"TEP
You seem to be desperately grasping for straws and North Berwick is your latest straw. Why does it matter if CBM visited North Berwick in 1892 or 1906? Does that somehow alter his impact on golf architecture in America?"
Tom MacWood:
Not at all. Have I ever said on this website or these threads that this question of perhaps Travis coming up with the idea of imitating the ideas, concepts, principles, whatever etc of famous and admired GB holes somehow alters Macdonald's impact on golf architecture in America with NGLA or anything else he ever did over here??
How many times are you going to have to ask me that despite the fact I've given you the same answer for a few days and a few pages?
But don't you find it significant historically if it turns out to be Travis who may've put into Macdonald's mind the whole idea of using the features, ideas, principles or even copies of famous admired holes abroad over here in America to improve the quality of American architecture? After-all, THAT is essentially the revolutionary "model" that Macdonald used for his NGLA and later architecture and that is what he prevalently wrote about as a key to creating quality golf architecture in America. So wouldn't it be so interesting and historically significant with American architecture if it was Travis who essentially gave him that specific idea that became the basic model of a lot of the National School including Raynor and Banks and other of Macdonald's courses---eg the template hole or architectural "principles" emulating of famous GB holes in America?
Again, where can we find Macdonald mentioning such a thing specifically before Travis' article in the British Golf Illustrated magazine article of Nov. 1901 or before Travis returned from abroad which was in late August 1901?
Actually that article ran considerably after Travis had been abroad in 1901 on his "golfing pilgrmage" (as Macdonald termed it). Travis was over there essentially playing 36 holes a day for about a month between mid July and mid August and then he returned to the USA on August 20th to get readyto play in the US Amateur at Atlantic City GC and to defend his US Amateur championship which of course he did at ACGC.
Perhaps it was Travis in 1901 who inspired Macdonald to use the architectural template or feature or prinicple concept or model from abroad with his ideal course idea that would not even begin until five years later as we now know when Travis was over there and where and what he played and admired over there which was the year proceeding Macdonald's first foray over there to do the same thing (an architectural study trip) in 1902. This may help explain why Macdonald originally chose Travis to make up the three man committee that would create and design NGLA (that original three man NGLA design committee originally consisted of Travis, Whigam and of course Macdonald according to Macdonald's autobiography).
-
Bill,
Thanks for the reminder. I don't think you'll find me doing this anywhere else on this site and I just want you to know why I do it here. The complete post of TEP's that you are quoting said this:
I think there is no question that Macdonald should be considered the Father of American golf architecture, as he basically always has been considered anyway and I have said that on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com for many years now.
But that does not mean to me that numerous others did not have some hugely important ideas and influences on American architecture both before and after NGLA and Macdonald (and I'm sure that's precisely why some on here mentioned they think this whole subject is sort of a "melting pot" anyway, and I agree with them on that).
And if it turns out Travis developed the basic idea to utilize GB famous holes and their concepts and ideas over here in America to create better golf and golfers and golf architecture in America before Macdonald specifically did, I think that is a pretty important item and issue since that idea is essentally what Macdonald based his model for NGLA (and American architecture?) on when he began NGLA which would not even begin until five years AFTER that interesting British Golf Illustrated Nov. 1901 article by Walter Travis about that very thing----the ideas from admired and really good GB holes used to improve American architecture
Now maybe you look at that and see something different than I see, so be it. I see a man saying one thing and backing away from it before the proverbial ink dries. I don't think this is an isolated instance and I don't think this man's being genuine in his remarks or his feelings about Macdonald, if he was he would have stopped at the comma in his first sentence, which I posted above.
Thanks again.
-
"TEP,
Thanks, that clears it up. As long as you give Macdonald the credit he is due, I am perfectly willing to consider what influenced him, whether they be small or large influences. What Macdonald put on the ground at NGLA is the single biggest event in the history of GCA in the US. Period."
BillB:
Thank you sir, for that remark that indicates your understanding. Now you certainly do understand the questions I am asking and talking about on here as well as one I am not----eg should Walter Travis be considered the Father of American golf architecture? Hopefully Jim Kennedy may learn something from you in that vein instead of always screeching that I am somehow trying to say something AGAINST Macdonald due to some nefarious "AGENDA" that involves the likes of me and Merion's Wayne Morrison!
-
TEP
You are grasping for straws. This is what Travis wrote about the NGLA and copies:
"The original idea was to construct eighteen holes fashioned after the various holes in Great Britain which were generally recognized as being pre-eminent either as single-shot, two-shot or three-shot holes. There was nothing experimental...nothing creative--merely slavish imitations of these famous holes abroad in so far as physical limitations permitted. Physical limitations! There was the snag. For while certain holes might colorably lend themselves to such an undertaking in this, that or the other respect, it was a source of mortification to find that, after all certain essential features were totally lacking which were incapable of reproduction unless the whole topographical map was rearranged...which of course, was out of the question on account of expense."
-
"Now maybe you look at that and see something different than I see, so be it. I see a man saying one thing and backing away from it before the proverbial ink dries. I don't think this is an isolated instance and I don't think this man's being genuine in his remarks or his feelings about Macdonald, if he was he would have stopped at the comma in his first sentence, which I posted above."
BillB:
Well, there you go! Obviously, Jim Kennedy either does not know how to take your good advice of arguing an issue but not ascribing motives to others or else he simply refuses to because he doesn't want to take anyone's advice. Frankly, I think Kennedy seems to be on some real "Agenda" here, and it seems pretty obvious because it has been going on for months now on anything at least the likes of Wayne Morrison and I say on any subject in which C.B. Macdonald comes up.
But I say so what if he keeps these kinds of screeching accusations and posts up on the subject of Macdonald because I know damn well what I think of Macdonald and his architecture and always have or for just about fifty years now. As I mentioned on here some months ago I arguably grew up with it and on Macdonald and Macdonald/Raynor architecture to a degree or factor of probably about three compared to anyone else on this website! ;)
Nevertheless, I am certainly ready to recognize and admit that there are a few people on this website who constantly tell others they know what others really think and even better than the people in question. Frankly, when that goes on long enough as it has with a few on here I view it as actually humorous.
-
Tom MacWood:
I am completely overjoyed with your post #243. THAT is the very thing that Wayne was trying to say and the very point he was trying to make on here some years ago about how others (who may've previously done it to some extent) eventually chose not to continue to endorse or ascribe to the architectural idea and concept or model of using and reusing endlessly template holes from abroad (or otherwise)! This was his very point about both how and why and even when American architecture and its architects' developing styles and types would go their own separate ways in the future with their own unique and developing architectural ideas and philosophies.
Wayne's point was for anyone to assume or conclude that American architecture continued to follow the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks model and type and style (generally referred to as the "National School of Architecture") in any really significant way into the future of American architecture is basically nonsense, and that anyone on here or elsewhere who contends such a thing really doesn't have much idea how to go about an intelligent analysis of "contrasting" types and styles and principles and models and such, but who only falls into the trap of looking at these things SO GENERALLY that in the end what they come up with is nothing much more that some kind of "comparison" or similarity!
To be honest that remark of Travis' is so on point and frankly brilliant, perhaps we should start another thread on here entitled "Re: Was Walter S. Travis really the father of Golf Arhitecture in America?" I am not at all implying where I may end up standing on a discussion on that question but given that brilliant remark you just posted of Travis' it should promise to be a great discussion and education on the history and evolution of American Golf Course Architecture! ;)
-
Ralph,
That's really the crux of this whole thread, and you summed it up very nicely. It's really about the influence that Macdonald had on the architecture of the time and the continuing influence his work has on our modern day architecture.
Without question, Macdonald should be considered the Father of American Golf Architecture.
-
Getting back to the original question about the father of American golf architecture, could someone please explain to me why 1901 is such a significant date? They had been playing golf in the States for almost a decade at that point, with courses like Chicago, Onwentsia, Myopia, GCGC, Essex County, Brookline and Ekwanok in full flight.
In comparing Travis to Macdonald as the 'father' one should consider the fact CBM had laid out three golf courses in the States before Travis even began playing the game. CBM may or may not be the father of American golf architecture, but trying to claim Travis is the father is preposterous.
Tom MacWood,
With Travis having played his first round in 1897 and designing his first golf course in 1907, I don't see how anyone could logically claim that Travis was entitled to such accolades.
Wouldn't Emmett be in line ahead of him, having designed three (3) courses by 1901 ?
-
One more thing Rich, given your curiosity above about whether or not CBM actually knew a wide range of British holes, then you must really be curious about Travis. Do you have a record of what holes he played, because he doesn't even say he'd played those holes, did he? What holes had he seen at this point?
Based on the evidence I've seen, David, my guess is that in 1901 Travis had a more contemporaneous view of the great holes, based on his trips to the UK in 1895-6 (no post-St. Andrews/pre 1902 trips for Macdonald that I know of). I suspect, however, that both of them at that time were relying mostly on Hutchinson's magnum opus of 1897(?) which laid out those "template" holes for any and all to see and study.
Rich,
In the process of sidestepping my questions you quoted above, you managed to completely avoid answering any of my other questions. But let's start here.
As TomM points out, his earliest exposure was 1901. On that trip he reportedly played St. Andrews, Troon, and North Berwick before the Championship at Sandwich. He could have played elswhere afterword, I don't know. Do you? If not then why are you acting like he knew all these courses intimately?
What does a more comtemporaneous view of these courses mean anyway? Does it mean he saw them more recently? Or that he had a more contemporaneous understanding of them? What difference would the former make? What reason to do you have to believe the latter?
Aside from being wrong, your assumption that CBM made no post St. Andrews pre-1902 trips abroad where he golfed is analytically and procedurally preposterous. The basis for your assumption is that YOU DO NOT KNOW OF ANY TRIPS?? Are you some sort of Oracle on who traveled abroad and golfed during this long period? Have you at least researched the issue? Obviously not, or you'd know that you were wrong. I don't know whether or not have played golf this entire year, so by your logic is it safe to conclude you haven't.
That is a very good example of the type of wishful thinking going on in this thread. It's facts be damned, you guys will believe what you want.
Rich, you found that in the 1901 Article, Travis was advocating that American designers use templates from the great holes in their designs. I presume the "templates" or "exemplars" were the holes listed. Is that correct?
--If these were indeed exemplars or templates, then please tell us just what, According to Travis, each hole exemplified, and to what degree, and how?
--How exactly how were American designers supposed to apply these templates?
--According to Travis, was there anything more to this "template" or "templates" than difficult holes on good soil and undulating land?
______________________________________________________
Anyone:
-- Where in that article does Travis advocatecopying those golf holes in America or using them as templates in any manner? Where in any of his early writings does he advocate this?
-- What if anything did he advocate is except for making golf courses DIFFICULT, and preferably on good, undulating soil. As far as I know, Travis was not considered to be a inventive architect, but rather a member of the penal school who did his best work tightening up existing courses.
-- How were the views Travis' expressed in the article any different than the number of other writers who had noted that golf in GB was better and on better ground? How was he different that the others who wanted to make courses in the US more difficult?
-- Did Travis ever take credit for the template concept? If so where? If I recall he trashed it pretty hard, and I dont ever remember him advocating for it.
-- Where is the plan to change in direction of golf design in America?
I don't see it. I see an advocate of more difficult golf courses, and this was not at all groundbreaking. In fact, as understand it, Travis largely viewed their greatest attribute and distinguishing feature to be their difficulty. So how can we view him as groundbreaking at this point and time?
________________________________
JNC Lyon, You place the date of the Eden hole at NGLA as 1910, but this is very misleading. Off the top of my head, I believe the hole was found in 1906, built in 1907, and they were golfing on it in 1909. More importantly, CBM had been writing about and talking about copying the great golf holes at NGLA for at least a half of a decade before 1910, had been working on the project for almost an entire decade, and had been writing about copying this particular hole for many years. So it is not as if, out of the blue, Travis decided to build an Eden hole, and then CBM said, "Wow, what a great idea. I think I'll try that."
Also, I don't recall the exact history of Garden City, but isn't more accurate to say that the hole was already there, and that Travis modeled the bunkers (particularly their depth) after the Eden?
_______________________________________________
I think if you go back to the earlier comments on this thread (at least mine) Travis is credited with being on the right track. Even Whigham so credited him in 1909. But his changes at Garden City were a far cry from what happened at NGLA. That is what is so bizarre about this thread.
What is the point, really?
-
Tom MacWood:
I am completely overjoyed with your post #243. THAT is the very thing that Wayne was trying to say and the very point he was trying to make on here some years ago about how others (who may've previously done it to some extent) eventually chose not to continue to endorse or ascribe to the architectural idea and concept or model of using and reusing endlessly template holes from abroad (or otherwise)! This was his very point about both how and why and even when American architecture and its architects' developing styles and types would go their own separate ways in the future with their own unique and developing architectural ideas and philosophies.
Wayne's point was for anyone to assume or conclude that American architecture continued to follow the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks model and type and style (generally referred to as the "National School of Architecture") in any really significant way into the future of American architecture is basically nonsense, and that anyone on here or elsewhere who contends such a thing really doesn't have much idea how to go about an intelligent analysis of "contrasting" types and styles and principles and models and such, but who only falls into the trap of looking at these things SO GENERALLY that in the end what they come up with is nothing much more that some kind of "comparison" or similarity!
To be honest that remark of Travis' is so on point and frankly brilliant, perhaps we should start another thread on here entitled "Re: Was Walter S. Travis really the father of Golf Arhitecture in America?" I am not at all implying where I may end up standing on a discussion on that question but given that brilliant remark you just posted of Travis' it should promise to be a great discussion and education on the history and evolution of American Golf Course Architecture! ;)
I agree, this was exactly what you and Wayne have been trying to say for years.
And when Travis wrote this he had a petty and personal agenda that had little to do with the reality of what CBM had done at NGLA.
-
Now I know how my mother felt when my brothers and I beat the hell out of each other day after day...She might try to resolve one issue, but we'd be back at it the next day over something else. I guess we just needed to fight...
I don't think it matters one bit if NGLA was 100% Macdonald's brainchild, something he came up with after a comment made by Travis, or Old Tom Morris taking CBM by the hand and saying: "This is how a golf hole should be built." What matters is that CBM researched the greatest courses of his day, planned National, raised the funds for it, built it, promoted it, came up with great turf for it, and later perfected it.
Macdonald not only spawned Raynor and Banks and the MacRaynor school...NGLA was a cattle prod to Tilly, Ross, and other architects of the day. Their task became completely different than it would have been without NGLA. They couldn't just build golf courses anymore, they had to attempt to build GREAT golf courses with 18 really good holes. It worked, the others did a great job many times, and father would approve.
On to the next fight?
-
Patrick:
I don't believe anyone said Travis should have gotten the accolades CBM did in his career; I sure know I never said anything like that on here. But just as a point of fact on Travis----he didn't design his first course in 1907, he designed his first course in 1899 with John Duncan Dunn. It is called Ekwanok, it's in Vermont and it is very good and seemingly always was!
-
David Moriarty,
CBM went to Scotland in 1872 where he attended the University of St Andrews.
This is where he supposedly learned the game of golf.
He remained in Scotland for three (3) years.
Hence, his 1902 and 1904 trips weren't his first architectural bite of the apple.
One would imagine that playing TOC, along with observing the play of other great golfers of their day, imbued him with a sufficient understanding of architecture as it relates to play.
He later wrote, "The courses of Great Britain abound in classic and notable holes, and one only has to STUDY them and adopt their best and boldest features. Yet in most of their best holes there is always room for improvement."
It would seem that CBM's three years, from 1872 to 1875, coupled with his trips in 1902 and 1904 armed him sufficiently, in the ways understanding bad, fair, good and great architecture, along with a keen sense of the game of golf.
-
"It worked, the others did a great job many times, and father would approve."
BillB:
I agree with you in what you said that NGLA was a cattle-prod to most all other significant American architects around that day and some years later to do their very best but part of the fascination here, at least to me, is that, for various reasons and truly interesting ones, a really good number of them essentially shunned that sort of template hole model that Macdonald seemed to trumpet so successfully in the beginning. Sure Raynor and Banks and a few others perhaps may've stuck with that basic idea or what they viewed as that basic idea but with others it became unpopular and the essential reasons they gave for why it became unpopular with others could basically not be better articulated than by Travis himself in his remarks that Tom MacWood posted on Reply #243!
And I also think it is not true to say that "Father" (being CBM) approved of what he saw in the years to come following NLGA. I'm afraid he became massively disallusioned about a lot of things he saw out there in all kinds of areas to do with golf. But that is another story completely and in my opinion, another totally fascinating story about CBM and his incredible complexities, which is frankly the very reason I always have been so fascinated by the man.
But alas, if we or particularly I got into that subject there are those three or so on here who will start screeching again that it just shows my true "agenda" which is to say things on here AGAINST the man. ;)
Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth about him is just the truth about him with his warts and complexities and all and it's totally fascinating to me even if there are a few on here who can't deal with it because they obviously want to protect and preserve his legend at all costs or even iconize it into even more than it ever truly was, as great as it may've been, at least for a significant time and place in the history and evolution of GCA.
-
David Moriarty,
CBM went to Scotland in 1872 where he attended the University of St Andrews.
This is where he supposedly learned the game of golf.
He remained in Scotland for three (3) years.
Hence, his 1902 and 1904 trips weren't his first architectural bite of the apple.
One would imagine that playing TOC, along with observing the play of other great golfers of their day, imbued him with a sufficient understanding of architecture as it relates to play.
He later wrote, "The courses of Great Britain abound in classic and notable holes, and one only has to STUDY them and adopt their best and boldest features. Yet in most of their best holes there is always room for improvement."
It would seem that CBM's three years, from 1872 to 1875, coupled with his trips in 1902 and 1904 armed him sufficiently, in the ways understanding bad, fair, good and great architecture, along with a keen sense of the game of golf.
Patrick,
I realize all this. I was just commenting on Rich's preposterous assumption that CBM didn't play golf abroad between 1875 and 1902. My comments also apply to TEPaul's assumption that he only played twice during the between leaving St. Andrews and 1894. Both claim to have read Scotland's Gift, but apparently neither read it very carefully. Nor do the realize, that in addition to the numerous trips in the late 1870's and the 1880's, Macdonald continued to travel abroad regularly in the 1890s.
-
Patrick:
I don't believe anyone said Travis should have gotten the accolades CBM did in his career; I sure know I never said anything like that on here. But just as a point of fact on Travis----he didn't design his first course in 1907, he designed his first course in 1899 with John Duncan Dunn. It is called Ekwanok, it's in Vermont and it is very good and seemingly always was!
TEPaul,
I have a hard time believing that an individual who took up golf in 1897 was designing golf courses within two years.
I've read the attribution by C&W and don't buy it.
In addition, Travis himself, in 1921, when listing courses that he specifically designed DOESN'T list Ekwanok.
Why would he omit a "signature" golf course ?
It's more likely that Travis worked for Dunn.
Elevating him to co-designer seems ...... gratuitous or legend building.
Bob Labbance in his book about Travis, "The Old Man" mentions that Travis traveled to Ekwanok with Dunn, spent at least two weeks each summer He describes WT's involvement as follows. "Travis and Dunn (notice how Travis, a non-architect, is given top billing by the author) worked the site for tees and greens - designing in the field as they went- until the routing was set"
It seems logical to me, that Dunn had Travis hit shots, in order to determine where the features should be placed, much the same as Jones at ANGC.
If Travis was indeed a co-designer, why did he not take credit for same, and why did he wait 8 additional years before venturing back into designing golf courses ?
-
But alas, if we or particularly I got into that subject there are those three or so on here who will start screeching again that it just shows my true "agenda" which is to say things on here AGAINST the man. Tom Paul
That's the type of remark one expects from a spoiled brat, but you're not a child anymore Tom, so put away the kneepants and the blazer and start acting like an adult. Vindictive and petty behavior doesn't cut it in the real world, and it makes you look so small.
-
Tom MacWood,
With Travis having played his first round in 1897 and designing his first golf course in 1907, I don't see how anyone could logically claim that Travis was entitled to such accolades.
Wouldn't Emmett be in line ahead of him, having designed three (3) courses by 1901 ?
Pat
I totally agree with you. There are quite a few who would make the list before Travis, including CBM, Emmet, Willie Campbell, JD Dunn, Herbert Leeds and HJ Tweedie. Unfortunately since TEP and Wayne got involved this thread has nothing to with historical accuracy, the thread has devolved into one more opportunity for them to urinate on CBM, in the figurative sense of course.
-
As a side note, Dunn's ability as a course architect should not be overlooked. He designed quite a few courses here in California, some of which are quite noteworthy, such as Lake Elsinore that was featured in Thomas' book.
-
Here's what Ben Sayers, the Professional from North Berwick, wrote in 1914:
My son George is in America, to whom I paid a visit at the Merion Golf Club. He likes his position very much, and is quite at home there. I was very much impressed with the two courses which they have made at Merion. They are very well constructed and the golf is very good indeed. I had three days golf over the National course, and I was very highly impressed indeed. I came to the conclusion that the National course is the best course I have ever seen, in fact, I was sorry that I went to see it, because I always thought that St. Andrews was the very best test of golf in the world. But after seeing the National my opinion was altered: I cannot now say that Scotland possesses the best course. Not only is every hole on the National course perfect, but every shot is perfect, and has to be played with great judgment. The architecture of the course is so good and the formation of the greens so natural that the whole place looks as if it was a hundred years old. The course is full of what I call Scotch golf: thinking golf is required for every shot, even more so than at St. Andrews, and I have not played a course where I had to use so many different kinds of clubs, which of course only goes to show what a grand test of golf it must be. I was very much surprised to see such good turf. The Redan hole of the National is a wonderful copy of the North Berwick Redan. It gives one the same feeling when standing on the tee to play the tee-shot. I think also the Eden hole at St. Andrews is reproduced to a nicety, Straths bunker being very well placed. The last hole is a very good one, and puts me in mind of the first hole at North Berwick, called Point Garry, only the last hole at the National is a little longer. The National course is the last word in golf courses.
-
Macdonald seems pretty comprehensive chronicling his golf abroad during that period he referred to as his "Dark Age." He tells us he played a good deal of golf at Hoylake (where he actually joined one year) and he tells us he played a few rounds at Wimbleton with his friend his friend Alfred Lubbuck, and he tells us he played occasionally at Cambridge on Coldham Commons which he described 'as the poorest excuse for a golf course I ever saw in my life.'
He also explained how he worked so hard there wasn't all that much time for golf other than apparently those times he played quite a bit for extended periods but always at Royal Liverpool GC at Hoylake when he generally stayed in the Royal Liverpool Hotel.
So there again it looks like TOC and Hoylake were the only courses he was familiar with that were any good (or so he said in his autobiography) during those years before he finally decided to dedicate three separate trips abroad to the study of architecture beginning in 1902.
I must say I never looked at it this way---it's a surprise to me but Macdonald also said he worked very very hard during most of those years. I don't even know what he did. I know he became a floor broker when he got to New York in 1900 but I don't know what he did before that. And I certainly know he never took a cent for anything he ever did in golf or architecture.
-
"Unfortunately since TEP and Wayne got involved this thread has nothing to with historical accuracy, the thread has devolved into one more opportunity for them to urinate on CBM, in the figurative sense of course."
Tom MacWood:
You better just stop God-damn saying THAT on this website! You already got thrown off this website for a number of months for saying that. Do you want to get thrown off the site again?
And furthermore, that is a God Damned lie to say that about Wayne and certainly me. Nothing could be further from the truth with my opinion about Macdonald and I've said so on here constantly. It's a lie, you know it's a lie and you should also know that the man who tells lies on here when he knows perfectly well he is lying----is called a LIAR----and that is you Tom MacWood and you just proved it again today with that remark quoted above.
-
TEPaul,
CBM worked at the Chicago Board of Trade when he lived in Illinois.
-
Pat:
Actually Bob Labbance said quite a bit more than that about Travis and his role and time and what he did at Ekwanok in the fall of 1899 and even who he did it for and why.
I knew him pretty damn well, and I will tell you right now that Bob Labbance was a damn sight better golf architectural researcher and analyst and historian and writer than anybody on this website ever was or has been. We got to know him the real way in that business through his research on Spring Haven and his research and writing of the Philmont history book. That guy did it the right way and the real way---no sitting at home in Vermont JUST on his computer looking at indirect newspaper article information without creating a real relationship with the club or architect he was researching and writing about like those two screeching constant critics of everybody and everything on this website! ::)
-
"CBM worked at the Chicago Board of Trade when he lived in Illinois."
Pat:
Thank you, yeah now I remember that. I guess he must have been a commidities broker in his years in Chicago. When he got to New York he switched to being a stock broker----a floor broker actually, I believe. I think he worked for Barney & Co which must have been a forerunner of Smith Barney.
-
Tom MacWood:
I am completely overjoyed with your post #243. THAT is the very thing that Wayne was trying to say and the very point he was trying to make on here some years ago about how others (who may've previously done it to some extent) eventually chose not to continue to endorse or ascribe to the architectural idea and concept or model of using and reusing endlessly template holes from abroad (or otherwise)! This was his very point about both how and why and even when American architecture and its architects' developing styles and types would go their own separate ways in the future with their own unique and developing architectural ideas and philosophies.
Wayne's point was for anyone to assume or conclude that American architecture continued to follow the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks model and type and style (generally referred to as the "National School of Architecture") in any really significant way into the future of American architecture is basically nonsense, and that anyone on here or elsewhere who contends such a thing really doesn't have much idea how to go about an intelligent analysis of "contrasting" types and styles and principles and models and such, but who only falls into the trap of looking at these things SO GENERALLY that in the end what they come up with is nothing much more that some kind of "comparison" or similarity!
To be honest that remark of Travis' is so on point and frankly brilliant, perhaps we should start another thread on here entitled "Re: Was Walter S. Travis really the father of Golf Arhitecture in America?" I am not at all implying where I may end up standing on a discussion on that question but given that brilliant remark you just posted of Travis' it should promise to be a great discussion and education on the history and evolution of American Golf Course Architecture! ;)
TEP
I'm surprised you and Wayne were not aware of the feud between Travis & Macdonald, and the feud between Travis & Emmet, and the exchange I just quoted. If there anything this thread has shown it is how little you and Wayne know about golf architecture history. First you tried to make the case that Travis inspired the Best Hole Discussion (WRONG), then you tried to make the case Travis was the first to advocate templates (WRONG), and then finally you claimed CBM didn't have much playing experience in Britain (WRONG). I have to give you both credit, you will go to extraordinary lengths to push your agenda (in this case discrediting CBM) including throwing each other under the bus.
-
"Unfortunately since TEP and Wayne got involved this thread has nothing to with historical accuracy, the thread has devolved into one more opportunity for them to urinate on CBM, in the figurative sense of course."
Tom MacWood:
You better just stop God-damn saying THAT on this website! You already got thrown off this website for a number of months for saying that. Do you want to get thrown off the site again?
And furthermore, that is a God Damned lie to say that about Wayne and certainly me. Nothing could be further from the truth with my opinion about Macdonald and I've said so on here constantly. It's a lie, you know it's a lie and you should also know that the man who tells lies on here when he knows perfectly well he is lying----is called a LIAR----and that is you Tom MacWood and you just proved it again today with that remark quoted above.
Why are you so pissed? I don't get it.
-
Pat:
Actually Bob Labbance said quite a bit more than that about Travis and his role and time and what he did at Ekwanok in the fall of 1899 and even who he did it for and why.
TEPaul,
What did Labbance say about Travis, his role, time and what he did at Ekwanok in the fall of 1899 and who he did it for and why ?
Was it for George Orvis and/or H.C. Chatfield Taylor ?
Are we to believe that after the routing was layed out that Dunn returned to New York leaving Travis to do all the finish/feature work ?
Would you abandon a project shortly after the routing was complete and leave a novice apprentice to do all the shaping and finish/feature work ?
Sometimes historians write history as they'd like to see it.
Even CBM contradicted himself in his writings.
-
Pat
All the evidence I've seen points to JD Dunn designing Ekwanok.
-
Tom MacWood:
You don't GET IT? ???
Why not! Did you even bother to read you wrote above that Wayne and I were urinating on CBM again? How many times have you said that on this website and after we have told you numerous times that's the furthest thing from the truth? Do you think that's funny in some way?
I realize you conveniently say you can't understand something when it disagrees with you or that it confuses you but now you're telling me you don't get it when you say once again that Wayne and I are urinating on CBM on this thread that you don't get it when that bothers me and Wayne Morrison off? What kind of person are you anyway? You really are nuts, aren't you? Isn't that the very remark you got thrown off this website for saying to Wayne over a year ago and you still don't get it? That's unbelievable. Some people who say they sometimes deal with you say they think you have something wrong with you---you know---like in the head. I think I'm getting to the point where I'm wondering if they may not have a pretty good point about that. I asked you to remove that remark from this website and I suggest you do just that.
"TEPaul,
What did Labbance say about Travis, his role, time and what he did at Ekwanok in the fall of 1899 and who he did it for and why?"
Pat:
You're interested in GCGC and its history, a club you belong to which prevalently contains Walter Travis and you've never read Bob Labbance's book about Travis---"The Old Man." That's pretty amazing too. Well, you kindly gave me both the GCGC history book many years ago and C.B. Macdonald's book "Scotlands Gift Golf" over seven years ago and I've read that one numerous times as well as the GCGC history book so allow me to get Bob Labbance's book on Travis for you and you can read all about what he said about Travis and Ekwanok for yourself.
But in the meantime you seem to be taking after MacWood and Moriarty----eg when something doesn't agree with some petty point you're arguing about on here you say you don't agree with it and IT must be wrong and not YOU. Apparently you're now trying to tell me even CBM is wrong about something to do with NGLA when you can't understand it or it doesn't agree with some petty argument you are having with someone on here. Pretty incredible really. Perhaps you should just try out-researching Bob Labbance. Have you ever done any research on your own Pat? If so I can't seem to remember what it is at the moment. Your deal on here seems to be the very same thing as MacWood and Moriarty on here---just to argue and argue and argue with anyone and everyone on here. That appears to be about the only reason you're on this website.
-
Pat:
At Ekwanok, Travis did the course not for HC Chatfield Taylor (who was an old friend of CBM's from back in Chicago in the good old days of geometric architecture) but for James Taylor, a member of Dyker Meadows, with JD Dunn. According to Labbance, Taylor bought the property in August and a crew of 42 was secured and after Dunn and Travis routed it around Labor Day, Dunn returned to New York while Travis spent a good part of September and October perfecting the routing, bunkering the course, working on the greens, hitting test shots and such while enjoying a mild fall in New England while staying at the Equinox Hotel.
Who was James Taylor or Dyker Meadows and Ekwanok? My sources tell me he was either the great uncle of a really great history teacher I had back in the early '60s while at St Mark's School in Massachussets by the name of H.C. Chatfield Taylor or the grandfather of Cary Simons' (the granddaughter of famous publisher Simon and Schuster & Co) former husband, guitar strumming crooner James Taylor.
-
"TEP
I'm surprised you and Wayne were not aware of the feud between Travis & Macdonald,"
Tom MacWood:
Are you? Well then just add that to the very long laundry list of things you're completely mistaken about---MY God, that list is getting long. Having spent about twenty years in golf administration, those portions of Macdonald's book have interested me greatly for many years and particularly since 2002 since I read those parts of "Scotland's Gift Golf" with great interested entitled "The Activities of the USGA." I doubt anyone on this website has even bothered to look at those chapters of his book including you because they have nothing to do with golf course architecture.
Consequently, I'm quite sure I have long been a whole lot more familiar with the issues between Travis and Macdonald than you have which included a few issues that have nothing to do with GCA such as the Schnectedy Putter issue that actually lasted for years and included Travis' dissatisfaction that Macdonald served on R&A Rules Committee while on the USGA Rules Committee which Travis considered to be fairly "UnAmerican" ;) , amateur status issues, which included Travis through the years etc. One of the seminal amateur status resolutions of the mid-teens which is massively complicated or I should say confusing, I firmly believe was actually written by C.B. Macdonald. These are all things about Macdonald I have no doubt at all, MacWood, you have no understanding of and less interest in, but I certainly have for years.
He was a truly complex man that Macdonald and that fascinates me about him. I've often wondered what golf would be like in America today if the USGA and American golf had followed his lead and his suggestions in some of those other areas and I am fairly convinced that since they did not, for numerous reasons that I also find fascinating, it lead to Macdonald's growing dissatisfaction with most things to do with golf in his later years including golf course architecture.
And then of course there appear from a few contemporaneous letters of the 1920s to have been another issue or two which the couple of legend promoting defenders of Macdonald on this website would find to be unspeakably rude to him and his memory if mentioned on this website so I won't mention them to those people who actually curiously call themselves interested and competent historians!
-
I don't get it. TEPaul has been bragging about Wayne pissing on CBM's grave for years, yet anyone else mentions it and it is grounds for expulsion from the website? That would be a pitty, if true. Of course now TEPaul claims it was all a joke, but only well after the fact. Didn't sound like a joke to me then, and looking back on it it still doesn't. In fact, I think I could even date the incident down to a few weeks. I wonder who has seen the photograph? Thankfully not me.
But whether joke or not, the point remains the same. For those who haven't been around long, consider this sampling from TEPaul when he tells us that he and Wayne have no hostility toward CBM. The bolds are mine, but the words are TEPaul's . . .
. . .
So big damn deal if Wayne doesn't really like the look of the National School architecture. He's not the first one and he won't be the last. He does like how that architecture plays he just thinks it doesn't have very natural lines and he really likes natural lines in architecture!. . . But I do admit that Wayne does have a sort of interesting way of expressing his opinions sometimes. I mean we were over at Shinnecock one time and then we went next door to Southampton GC and hung out for a few hours with Gene Greco.
. . . Macdonald and Raynor and Whigam are actually all buried in the same cemetary near one another very close to Southampton G.C. on Rte #27.
So we all decided to go over there and pay tribute to these great men. We were amongst their graves staring down at them solemnly and very respectfully, and, THEN, to our collective horror Wayne started pissing on C.B. and then one of the other's grave was close enough that he pissed on him too. I forget which one was about thirty yards away and Wayne just didn't have enough left to get that far to piss on him too and I don't think he wanted to walk that far and risk pissing on his own trousers either. We actually have some photographs of this entire momentary horror! . . .
You know, if it works well for a club and course just use the front section as greenspace. Does someone think either Macdonald or Raynor will turn over in their graves because of it? Don't worry about that--both Macdonald and Raynor have had enough excercise turning over in their graves recently just trying to get out of the way of Wayne Morrison pissing on them.
I don't know what to say about Wayno's pissing being responsible for that reincarnation.
When he pissed on the graves of Macdonald and Raynor in that Southampton cemetary there were audible gasps from the rest of us that could probably be heard for a hundred yards.
I've seen him piss on a lot of golf courses and it's never any different than when other people piss on golf courses. But I've seen him piss on Macdonald and Raynor golf courses and you can tell it's with a far more dedicated purpose than to just relieve himself like on other courses of other architects. When he pisses on Macd/Raynor courses the grass immediately curls up and dies and the ground turns black and cracks into ugly looking fissures.
Wayno;
Do you believe that new picture on the front page of GOLFCLUBALTAS.com???
I think Ranster Morrissett has gone off the deep end and this site has degenerated into an engineering aesthetic mindset and lovefest. That's about the most flagrant example of the worst of Macdonald/Raynor architecture imaginable.
That green looks like a big green custard on a plate of milk. It doesn't do a damn thing for me except make me hungry.
I think you should piss on that green at Sleepy Hollow, on Macdonald and Raynor's grave again and on that photo on the front page of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com, if possible, and I'm driving this time to make that happen.
I think we should leave this website as a protest against the look of artificiality in architecture that uses a desert tray as a template and go somewhere else to ply our campaign for the look of far greater naturalism in architecture.
"I have visions of the Philly contingent hanging the effigies of Macdonald, Whigham and Colt from the Boardwalk, stoning them with Finegan's latest tome before lighting them ablaze, urinating on them, all while singing 'Philadelphia Freedom'."
Listen here, MacWoodenhead, you hallucinating putz, we true-blue ultra manly Philadelphians would never think of singing "Philadelphia Freedom"!! It was written and recorded by a 4' 11" British homosexual who dresses like a Christmas tree. Plus his definition of "Freedom" ain't the same as our definition of Freedom. As for urinating on those New York National School architects, Wayne already did that last month on their graves in Southampton.
But great shot of MikeY: With friends like you will he ever need enemies? ;) That stunning photo of yours is sure to go down in golf architecture history. If you or MikeY want to donate it to the USGA's new architecture archive I'm sure a pretty fancy-smancy value can be put on it and pass IRS muster too. ;)
That photo of MikeY does look a whole lot like the photo of Wayno pissing on Macdonald's grave, I must say.
Come on GeneG, post the photo. If anyone gets pissed, all it means is their sense of humor sucks! :)
I don't know, I think there has to be a lot more explained about how Macdonald and Raynor worked together in those early years and how Raynor worked apart from Macdonald in the second half of his careerr that ended in 1926.
We went to their graves last weekend in Southampton with the help of Gene Greco. There in a space about 30 yards by 20 yards are buried Raynor, Macdonald and Whigam.
Nowhere in the world can you find three architectural minds that close together in death. The question remains, in my mind, though, exactly how they worked together when they were alive.
It was a pretty poignant moment standing there in that graveyard with those three guys that close. We probably would've lingered a while longer but Wayne tried to piss on Macdonald's grave and we had to leave.
-
TEP
Lecturing Pat on research? That's pretty funny.
Pat
I've done quite a bit of research on Ekwanok, and all the information points to Dunn laying out the course with a number of amateurs and pros giving their two cents. Among the likely candidates: JL Taylor, CBM, Travis, WH Davis and George Low. Low was the pro at Dyker Meadow and future pro at Ekwanok. Travis began tinkering with course around 1902. Here are some articles from the club's formative years (in chronological order).
-
Pat:
At Ekwanok, Travis did the course not for HC Chatfield Taylor (who was an old friend of CBM's from back in Chicago in the good old days of geometric architecture) but for James Taylor, a member of Dyker Meadows, with JD Dunn. According to Labbance, Taylor bought the property in August and a crew of 42 was secured and after Dunn and Travis routed it around Labor Day, Dunn returned to New York while Travis spent a good part of September and October perfecting the routing, bunkering the course, working on the greens, hitting test shots and such while enjoying a mild fall in New England while staying at the Equinox Hotel.
Who was James Taylor or Dyker Meadows and Ekwanok? My sources tell me he was either the great uncle of a really great history teacher I had back in the early '60s while at St Mark's School in Massachussets by the name of H.C. Chatfield Taylor or the grandfather of Cary Simons' (the granddaughter of famous publisher Simon and Schuster & Co) former husband, guitar strumming crooner James Taylor.
TEPaul,
If Travis designed Ekwanok, why didn't he list it in his 1921 publication of courses that he designed ?
Especially if it was his first course and a good course ?
Why would Travis not credit himself ?
And, if Travis didn't credit himself, how do you come to credit him ?
-
".....piss on that green at Sleepy Hollow, on Macdonald and Raynor's grave again and on that photo on the front page of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com, if possible, and I'm driving this time to make that happen".-- tom e paul
Wow, good job. You've offended the memories of Macdonald and Raynor, their families, this website, the member who brought you to NGLA, the membership of Sleepy Hollow, the membership of the club you belong to, and the membership/clubs that you say you are familiar with. How gentlemanly of you.
.....and as if that wasn't enough:
..."we true-blue ultra manly Philadelphians would never think of singing "Philadelphia Freedom"!! It was written and recorded by a 4' 11" British homosexual who dresses like a Christmas tree. Plus his definition of "Freedom" ain't the same as our definition of Freedom."- tom e paul
.....makes one wonder if an ancestor of wayne's wasn't messing around your gene pool.
-
Pat:
I don't know the answers to any of those questions but I do know various architects who designed courses and then took their names off them including my favorite RTJ---The London Hunt Club in London, Ontario.
As you may or may not know, Walter Travis could be a fairly irrascible man, at least in my opinion with-all I've read by him.
-
Tom MacWood:
Thanks for your material and your 'I've done quite a bit of research on Ekwanok' thing but I think I will go with the research of Bob Labbance on Travis over you and Pat any time.
-
Tom MacWood:
Thanks for your material and your 'I've done quite a bit of research on Ekwanok' thing but I think I will go with the research of Bob Labbance on Travis over you and Pat any time.
I'll take that as a complement.
-
I can't say I blame you. Or did you mean compliment? ;)
-
Actually I was off by a couple years when I said Travis began tweaking it in 1902. He began making changes in 1905.
-
Pat:
You wanted to know who the Taylor was who apparently created Ekwanok. His name was James Taylor and he was from Brooklyn and Dyker Meadow GC. I don't believe he was related to H.C. Chatfield Taylor (that you mentioned) who was a good friend of C.B. from way back in Chicago in the 1890s and was one of the first who promoted golf with C.B. in Chicago sort of inspired by the 1893 Columbia Exposition in Chicago that was essentially a World's Fair and generated 27 million tourists-----and also sort of put the USA on the map culturally in the minds of many abroad.
On the other hand, you will notice from that membership roll in that old account above the name F.W. Taylor of Philadelphia. That happens to be Frederick Winslow Taylor who was one of the most remarkable men I've ever come across in golf and architecture research. F.W. Taylor was something of a pure inventor and among other things he created the Taylor Method of putting green construction in the early teens as well as doing some of the best early research on golf course agronomy at his own personal estate. The Taylor Method of green construction was a form of slanted strata that is considered the precursor of the USGA spec green construction method.
But F.W. Taylor became famous for another reason completely unrelated---eg he created the "Scientific Management Method" which essentially created the basic platform of modern employee/employer management practices that very much carry on today.
F.W. Taylor's best friend was the Clarence M. Clark of Philadelphia you see as the treasurer of Ekwanok. Taylor married Clark's sister and Joe Clark was the executor of Taylor's estate who Hugh Wilson went to immediately after Taylor died in 1915 to get the Taylor Estate to give the US Dept of Agriculture all Taylor's agronomic research which they essentially used to create the USGA's Green Section.
It was a small world thoroughout a alot of those early clubs up and down the Northeast coast!
BTW, Pat, just a little more background history. Clarence M. Clark's father, Edward W. Clark ran the powerful Philadelphia finance firm that financed a lot of the American railroad system among other things and one of E.W. Clark & Co's star protoges happened to be Jay Cooke out of Sandusky Ohio who would go on to become one of the greatest and most powerful financiers in American history (along with J.P. Morgan) originating the concept of the government bond that would shortly be used to essentially finance the Civil War for the US Government.
-
Pat:
As for Walter Travis' part and participation in the design of Ekwanok, I will give KevinM (Bob Labbance's associate) a call and ask him what material they used in their research on their biography of Travis and the part in that book on Ekwanok. They were pretty specific in what they said Travis did up there that fall (1899) and knowing Bob as I did it would be sort of unimaginable that he would just completely make up what they said about Travis and Ekwanok during that September/October period of 1899 including him staying in the Equinox hotel. Bob just didn't do stuff like that and if he found a problem or difference between what some club thought of their history or architect or whatever he was the first to tell him about it and explain why they were misinterpreting it. We saw this first hand with his history book for Philmont in Philadelphia.
-
Travis' tournament schedule was pretty full in the mos. of Sept/.Oct.. It appears that he was only free sometime after Sept 19th and before Oct 7th.
He had much larger blocks of free time earlier in the season.
-
The old club history book is fixated on Travis's involvement,and gives little or no credit to Dunn; I suspect that is the source for the current confusion. I shared my findings with the Travis Society and was informed they did not have any positive proof of Travis's involvement in the oriinal design. They told me they would be changing their records to show Dunn as the original architect. A great deal of the Societies documentation came from Bob L. Although I did not know Bob very long he was a friend and had a big impact on the way I conduct my reseach and especially sharing what I find.
-
Tom MacWood,
In 1921, Travis, in an advertisement for his Golf Course Architectural business, appearing in "The American Golfer"
lists 15 courses he designed.
He stated, "Following are some of the courses which I have designed:"
Ekwanok is absent from that list.
Why ?
If Ekwanok was the first course HE designed, why wouldn't he list it in his advertisement ?
Especially when it was such a well regarded golf course.
A reasonable explanation is: because he didn't design Ekwanok.
Travis certainly wasn't humble nor was he one not to claim what was rightfully his.
I'm comfortable with my original statement that Travis's first design took place in 1907.
Unless of course, someone has irrefutable information to the contrary.
-
In his 2000 interview Bob Labbance said:
"In 1899, even before Travis had won his first U.S. Amateur, he was asked by his friend James Taylor to design Ekwanok Country Club.
Travis felt he needed to legitimatize his involvement in a field where he had no experience. He asked Dunn-whose father had designed dozens of courses in Scotland-to accompany him to Vermont and help with the project. Dunn provided his input, then returned to New York, but Travis remained for a month directing the construction of the course and planning in the field without drawings or plans. Travis respected the Dunn family for their roots that went back generations in Scottish golf and maintained a friendship with John Duncan.
After the Travis win in 1900, and successful defense of the Amateur title the following year, Travis didn’t need anyone to partner with to sanction his qualifications-his services were in demand regardless of his affiliations. Travis included Dunn in another project 20 years later when he invited him to consult on the design of Cape Arundel in Kennebunkport, Maine, and the two remained cordial throughout their careers, though I don’t believe they chummed around together."
-
Knowing Bob Labbance I just don't see him making up what he put in his biography of Travis which is essentially the same thing as quoted in his interview or whatever in the post above. I did contact KevinM though to ask what they used as resource material to say what they did about Travis and Ekwanok in Sept/Oct 1899 in the Travis biography "The Old Man."
-
The 'whatever' is his interview from this site, ca. 2000.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
It's a little hard to figure who did what from BL's book. He says that WT and JDD "worked the site for tees and greens, designing in the field as they went, until they had the routing set", and that "Natural contours were to be enhanced by dozens of carefully constructed bunkers. Greens of all shapes and sizes were added" . He then says that "Dunn returned to New York shortly after the initial routing. Travis, though, spent a good portion of Sept and Oct. supervising the crew, adding hazards, seeding greens, playing test shots, (and) making adjustments to the way the holes were situated".
So it seems like a lot got done before Dunn headed back to NYC. They had it routed, teed, and they had the green pads in and contoured, plus they knew where many of the bunkers would be going, or they already had many of them in. It sounds more like an architect, Dunn, taking the fledgling player/designer, Travis, under his wing and creating a course for him to flesh out.
By the way, Travis was in Lenox, Ma. on Sept. 10/11/12. In mid Sept., around the 20th, he was playing a 4 day event at Westbrook CC. On Oct 7th he was in Morristown to play against the Canadians. On Oct. 11/12/13, and possibly for the whole week, he was at Nassau CC. On Oct. 29th or so he was at Westchester CC and on Nov 11th he was at Oakland defending his club title.
They should have called him "The Indefatigable Old Man".
-
"The old club history book is fixated on Travis's involvement,and gives little or no credit to Dunn; I suspect that is the source for the current confusion. I shared my findings with the Travis Society and was informed they did not have any positive proof of Travis's involvement in the oriinal design. They told me they would be changing their records to show Dunn as the original architect. A great deal of the Societies documentation came from Bob L. Although I did not know Bob very long he was a friend and had a big impact on the way I conduct my reseach and especially sharing what I find."
Tom MacWood:
When did the Travis Society inform you they would be changing their records to show Dunn was the original designer of Ekwanok and Travis had nothing to do with it or not enough to be mentioned with Dunn?
Did you also tell them to change the dates of Travis' architectural involvement with GCGC, and can we expect them to change that too?
-
Tom MacWood,
In 1921, Travis, in an advertisement for his Golf Course Architectural business, appearing in "The American Golfer"
lists 15 courses he designed.
He stated, "Following are some of the courses which I have designed:"
Ekwanok is absent from that list.
Why ?
If Ekwanok was the first course HE designed, why wouldn't he list it in his advertisement ?
Especially when it was such a well regarded golf course.
A reasonable explanation is: because he didn't design Ekwanok.
Travis certainly wasn't humble nor was he one not to claim what was rightfully his.
I'm comfortable with my original statement that Travis's first design took place in 1907.
Unless of course, someone has irrefutable information to the contrary.
Pat
I think the answer is pretty obvious. He didn't design the golf course. Dunn was a very accomplished golf architect in his right (at the time Travis was not accomplished at all), and apparently a friend and mentor of Travis's. There is no way Travis would take credit for a golf course his friend and mentor designed. In 1899 Travis was considered one of the better amateurs in the east, but he was not a national champion, and he had absolutely no architectural experience. Dunn was an experienced golf architect. As you can see the name on all the articles is Dunn, not Travis or the professionals and amateurs involved.
Travis loved Ekwanok and over the years was probably the course's greatest champion, i.e. promoter. He also spent the majority of his golfing years summering at Manchester. He loved the place and was eventually buried there. Its probably understandable why he became associated with the design, and why Dunn fell off the radar. Travis remodeled the course over the years, even though the basic routing remained more or less just as Dunn laid it out, and Dunn left for Europe shortly after designing it, and when he returned about a decade later, relocated in California.
Funny you should mention Travis's advert; here is Dunn's from 1926:
-
"The old club history book is fixated on Travis's involvement,and gives little or no credit to Dunn; I suspect that is the source for the current confusion. I shared my findings with the Travis Society and was informed they did not have any positive proof of Travis's involvement in the oriinal design. They told me they would be changing their records to show Dunn as the original architect. A great deal of the Societies documentation came from Bob L. Although I did not know Bob very long he was a friend and had a big impact on the way I conduct my reseach and especially sharing what I find."
Tom MacWood:
When did the Travis Society inform you they would be changing their records to show Dunn was the original designer of Ekwanok and Travis had nothing to do with it or not enough to be mentioned with Dunn?
Did you also tell them to change the dates of Travis' architectural involvement with GCGC, and can we expect them to change that too?
TEP
They did not say when, although they did tell me updating their website was not something they did often, in fact I don't believe they've ever done it. I don't recall discussing GCGC, but we did discuss Youngstown and that is another change: HH Barker design.
Did you get the last part of my post? Bob had no use for people who concealed and hoarded information, and that is putting it lightly.
-
By the way, Travis was in Lenox, Ma. on Sept. 10/11/12. In mid Sept., around the 20th, he was playing a 4 day event at Westbrook CC. On Oct 7th he was in Morristown to play against the Canadians. On Oct. 11/12/13, and possibly for the whole week, he was at Nassau CC. On Oct. 29th or so he was at Westchester CC and on Nov 11th he was at Oakland defending his club title.
They should have called him "The Indefatigable Old Man".
I think Lenox might have ended on September 12th, because he had the US Open in Baltimore beginning on the 14th.
-
Jim Kennedy,
Bob Labbance notwithstanding, Travis's own advertisement in "The American Golfer" in 1921, omits Ekwanok as a golf course he designed.
If he designed it, why didn't he list it, especially since it was his first effort and reputed to be a good golf course ?
Did Labbance elevate Travis's role in order to enhance Travis's image/book ?
Tom MacWood's contemporaneous accounts seem to credit Dunn.
-
"TEP
They did not say when, although they did tell me updating their website was not something they did often, in fact I don't believe they've ever done it. I don't recall discussing GCGC, but we did discuss Youngstown and that is another change: HH Barker design.
Did you get the last part of my post? Bob had no use for people who concealed and hoarded information, and that is putting it lightly."
Tom MacWood:
Very interesting! That is very much the dual personality post---those two paragraphs!
In the first paragraph, which is otherwise reasonable, you didn't answer my question on WHEN you asked them to change their information on Travis and Ekwanok. On that same issue of Ekwanok, I can actually see where BobL and KevnM may've relied on an earlier Ekwanok history book that fixated on Travis (at least so you say) and not done all that much independent or additional research on the subject of Travis and Ekwanok----eg after-all he (they) were writing a biography of Travis and not just a history of a single golf club but writing a book on the entire career of Travis which certainly had a lot more to do with things than just golf architectural history (a particular myopia of yours, in my opinon, I might add).
In your second paragraph, I have no idea at all what the hell you're trying to suggest. Wayne and I had a great relationship with Bob Labance and KevinM on a number of courses and projects of his around here, which we researched together on, including some of the ones Flynn worked on.
Bob Labbance was a REAL historian and a total professional researcher with the expected ethics of a genuine researcher/analyst/reporter completely unlike you and some of the shennigans you've pulled off such as that phone call and con-job you did on that township manager of the township George Crump lived in who said he would sue you if you came anywhere near Merchantville NH! :o Not to mention you never even had the taste or decency to inform Pine Valley about what you were doing BEFORE you produced it. In my world, that tactic and approach of yours will always stink! REALLY STINK!
In my book, it would have been completely unimaginable for Bob Labbance to ever touch a subject like the history of a golf club and golf course without FIRST establishing a really close personal relationship with them as he always did and you never have. So don't talk to me about information and me and Wayne and you in the same sentence for GOD's SAKES! Your inability and/or unwillingness to establish a relationship with a club or subject you are seriously interested in and researching and writing about would have been completely repugnant to Bob Labbance, as it should be to any serious historian and as it certainly is to me.
I don't know of a single competent researcher/historian who approaches a subject WITHOUT going directly to the source (among other avenues) as you do. I am never going to condone it support it or endorse it and if any of the contributors and viewers of this website considered this essential issue serioiusly, I doubt any of them ever would either.
-
A few other Dunn courses of note were Lake Norconian, Lake Elsinore and Western Ave. Western Ave today is known as Chester L Washington GC and has the remnants of a Biarritz.
-
TEP
It was in the last six months.
You know what I'm talking about. Bob had no use for people who concealed and hoarded information, and I can only imagine what he would think about those who alter documents to make their case.
-
"You know what I'm talking about. Bob had no use for people who concealed and hoarded information, and I can only imagine what he would think about those who alter documents to make their case."
Tom MacWood:
Do I?
I have never altered a document to do with GCA history in my life! Concealing and hoarding information?? That is a figment or your imagination and if you for some reason (which to me is obvious) don't enjoy access to historical GCA information that Wayne and I and others have and do that is not any problem of ours or our responsibility but one of the responsibilities of the administrations of various golf clubs who frankly don't want to deal with what they consider to be totally revisionistic assholes like you and Moriarty who don't have the commonsense or decency to come and establish contacts with them first before they can consider the things you have to offer and say and have said about them and their histories and members and friends on GOLFCLUBALTAS.com! ;)
-
Whatever you say.
-
Gotta hand it to TEPaul for being consistent in his approach.
1. Deny whatever new information is out there.
2. Ridicule and lecture the the researcher for not relying on whoever researched the issue before.
3. When proven wrong (which he always is,) change the topic to ridicule the researcher for some old, tired, and wholly imagined slight that wouldn't be any of his business anyway, even if it were true (and it never is.)
4. Circle around and start over again.
And again, TEPaul, while it is still none of your business, I did go to "Merion" before I allowed my essay to be posted. According to you, Wayne was one of the Merion historians. And shortly before my essay was posted you and he were singing his praises for all of his work on the archives, weren't you? And when I had something to give Merion's Archive, Wayne handled it on behalf of Merion. And when I had questions about certain information that Merion might consider confidential, it was again Wayne who dealt with it. I informed Wayne and a number of other people what I was planning to do when I returned to the website. I even provided Wayne, you, and others with a list of items I would cover. My Essay was no secret, and you, Wayne, and everyone else encouraged me to post it as soon as possible. You guys even accused me of sandbagging because I wouldn't post it on your schedule! So if there was a breach in decorum it is solely on you and Wayne. He never asked to see it. Never suggested I provide it to Capers. Nothing. So get off your high horse. It is not my fault you guys dropped the ball once again.
My obvious mistake was assuming that Wayne had Merion's best interest in mind. I should should have known he'd screw both me and his own club. Poor judgment on my part.
-
"And again, TEPaul, while it is still none of your business, I did go to "Merion" before I allowed my essay to be posted."
Is that right Moriarty?
Well, first of all, let's establish the fact that YOU brought up the subject of Merion on this thread and not me. OK?
Next, you say you went to "Merion" before you allowed your essay to get posted?? By the way, why the hell did you put Merion in quotation marks in that statement above? Is that one of the dumb tricks that semi-failed lawyers engage in to obfuscate meaning? ;)
You didn't establish even a modicum of a research relationship with Merion---you know that damn well---and so do I; so does Wayne, and we both know the administrators of Merion who know that as well! You both tried to get access to material after the fact and both of you, true to form as complete failures in commonsense, were total failures again in that attempt. MacWood, true to his self-centered form, actually tried to sell you and your revisionist essay down the river in his attempt to make research contact with Merion. With friends like that guy, what are enemies for? The both of you should have gone directly to Merion first before taking on some of us around here first who know that club and course and its architectural history well and who are members like Wayne. There wasn't a single thing either of you did right as numerous other independent researchers/writers of club histories have done right before you such as Labbance, Klein, Young, Quirin, Shackelford, Wexler, and others too numerous to mention have before you.
We, and that club, were actually looking forward to a great essay of theretofore unrealized information and analysis but your "The Missing Faces of Merion" was not only an abysmmal failure in that regard, it became and instant joke as you, and MacWood, have too since then!
-
1. Every post of yours is about Merion these days. Whether you say the word or not.
2. I knew what the Merion "researchers" had. Much less than I had; just a couple of insecure assholes guarding the gate. I made the right decision.
3. It wasn't until after my essay - when I virtually had to draw Wayne a map to MCC - that he finally bothered to check there for documents.
4. Wayne was representing Merion, and he screwed me over and the club. And because of that Merion's history remains inaccurate and incomplete.
5. Even now you guys are so insecure in your own abilities that you have to hide your sources for fear of being made fools of yet again. How that is good for Merion I'll never know but I guess blue blood must run deep.
TomM tried to sell me out? Did he tell Merion that I was pretty good researcher but was pretty damn dimwitted when it came to analysis? Oh wait, I'm confused . . . That is what you told me about Wayne after my essay came out. Remember, when you were trying to convince me to let you glom on to my work? Frankly, with the way your mind is going I think Wayne has defaulted into being the brains of the operation.
But enough about Merion. Let's get back to you making a mockery of Travis and CBM.
-
"Let's get back to you making a mockery of Travis and CBM."
I don't view discussing a most interesting article in the British Golf Illustrated magazine in Nov 1901 by Walter Travis in which he explains the holes abroad he admires and then explains most all the courses in America at the time were on the order of kindergarten and designed towards mediocrity and then going on in the same article to say; "It is high time we awoke to a proper and appreciative realization of what real golf is, and constructed our courses accordingly" as mockery towards either Travis or Macdonald.
I think it is particularly significant because at that time Macdonald had not gone abroad yet to study architecture and that at that time seems to have only been familiar with TOC, Hoylake, Wimbleton and a course by the name of Coldburn Commons he would later call ‘the worst excuse for a golf course I have ever seen in my life.’
Maybe you think that information and discussing the significance of it on here is making a mockery of Travis and Macdonald but I don’t. Frankly, I think it is most interesting information which I would wager very few, if any, on this website ever knew before (I know I never knew that before), not to even mention the fact that Macdonald would call on Travis five years later to be one of two to serve on the committee with him to design NGLA.
-
What you do know TEP, and what has been explained very well in regards to this article, is that CBM already held the opinion expressed by Travis at that time. The real importance of the article is that it shows great minds thinking alike.......and what you also know is that you are the only one who thinks the article "is making a mockery of Travis and Macdonald". You might like everyone else to hold that view, but it's strictly yours.
Pat,
I'd say that my earlier post pretty much sums up my opinion so far, that the Dunn/Travis arrangement was somewhat like our modern version of architect/player combo. I would add that I feel Travis was handed a mostly complete package by Dunn, and that he put finishing touches on it.
I don't see where it would have been necessary for Bob Labbance to elevate him, Travis' story was already large.
-
I think it is particularly significant because at that time Macdonald had not gone abroad yet to study architecture and that at that time seems to have only been familiar with TOC, Hoylake, Wimbleton and a course by the name of Coldburn Commons he would later call ‘the worst excuse for a golf course I have ever seen in my life.’
Maybe you think that information and discussing the significance of it on here is making a mockery of Travis and Macdonald but I don’t. Frankly, I think it is most interesting information which I would wager very few, if any, on this website ever knew before (I know I never knew that before), not to even mention the fact that Macdonald would call on Travis five years later to be one of two to serve on the committee with him to design NGLA.
TEP
First you tried to make the case that Travis inspired the Best Hole Discussion (WRONG), then you tried to make the case Travis was the first to advocate templates (WRONG), and then finally you claimed CBM didn't have much playing experience in Britain (WRONG). Give it a rest, you are not doing your reputation and Wayne's reputation any good. What objectivity you had appears to be completely gone.
-
"What you do know TEP, and what has been explained very well in regards to this article, is that CBM already held the opinion expressed by Travis at that time."
Jim Kennedy:
Did he? If he held that opinion ON or BEFORE the middle of 1901(when Travis went abroad on what Macdonald called a "golfing pilgrimage") I would love to see where he said what Travis did about all those holes abroad. I don't see him saying what Travis did in that December 1897 article he wrote while living in Chicago and that he refers to and quotes a portion of in his book "Scotland's Gift Golf." However, he obviously just quotes a portion of that article in his autobiography that he wrote in 1928 so maybe he said a lot more in that 1897 article that I'm not aware of.
On the other hand, it seems to be true that before his first of three study trips abroad in 1902 Macdonald (the other two coming in 1904 and 1906)was only familiar with a few courses abroad, which according to his own book, his autobiography (written in 1928), only included TOC, Hoylake, Wimbelton and some course called Coldburn Commons which he said was the worst excuse for a golf course he'd ever seen in his life.
But if you can show me where he said what Travis did in that British Golf Illustrated magazine in Nov. 1901 ON or BEFORE Travis did I would love to see it and that is precisely why I asked a few days ago on this thread if anyone could produce that article from 1897 or some other like it in which Macdonald talked about numerous holes and courses abroad and using their ideas over here BEFORE Travis did in 1901.
I have a pretty long run of The Golfer magazine from 1895 on for some years on my computer and I have Outing magazine too. I'll go through them all today or tomorrow to see if that is where that 1897 article he refers to in his book was published in which Macdonald may've mentioned more about architecture abroad than he did in his autobiography.
It also might be because Macdonald did write in The Golfer magazine in 1895 that that magazine wrote about him and the fact that he had only played golf abroad in 1879 and 1884. Maybe they were wrong about that but one wonders where they could possibly have gotten that information except from Macdonald himself who wrote an article in the very same issue about the format of the US Amateur.
But again if you or anyone else can show me where Macdonald wrote about the numerous courses and holes abroad ON or BEFORE Travis did in 1901 I would be very happy to see it and will change my opinion about this particular subject accordingly. But in the meantime, it sort of appears to me that you and some others on here are attempting to quash this subject and the discussion of it before even attempting to produce any information that would significantly reflect upon it.
Why is that? Are you afraid of some potential truth that might change what we have heretofore known or believed about Macdonald and his knowledge of GB architecture at a particular point in time? ;)
-
But if you can show me where he said what Travis did in that British Golf Illustrated magazine in Nov. 1901 I would love to see it and that is precisely why I asked a few days ago on this thread if anyone could produce that article from 1897 or some other like it in which Macdonald talked about numerous holes and courses abroad and using their ideas over here BEFORE Travis did in 1901.
I more reasonable place for you to start would be by identifying where Travis wrote about using the ideas of these particular holes over here. He does not in the 1901 article that Wayne found for you, but as usual you let facts get in the way of your mission to distort.
I have the CBM article he referenced in Scotland's gift, but find it fascinating that you would cite it in your Walker Cup article without bothering to even look at it first, and without bothering to identify that you were relying on a mere mention of it and not the real thing. It seems you tried to create the impression that you had actually done research, but those who know you know better.
-
"....and then finally you claimed CBM didn't have much playing experience in Britain (WRONG)."
Tom MacWood:
No problem at all. But for starters, can you document for me WHERE Macdonald played golf abroad before 1902 other than the courses he seems to comprehensively chronicle and mention in his autobiography which appear to be TOC, Hoylake, Wimbleton and a course called Coldburn Commons that he mentioned was the worst excuse for a golf course he had ever seen in his life?
Apparently this very lack of play of many courses during those years is precisely why he called those years his "Dark Age." ;) I guess I just never really thought to consider how dark it really was for his familiarity with GB or European golf couses and architecture before his first study trip ABROAD in 1902, which again was after Travis' "golfing pilgrimage" in which he mentioned in that British Golf Illustrated Nov 1901 article the numerous GB courses and about forty holes he admired.
Other than TOC and Hoylake had Macdonald ever even seen any of the rest of those courses and holes Travis mentioned in that 1901 article? We do know from Macdonald himself that he never saw North Berwick before 1906! I think that's pretty interesting considering Travis saw it and played it in 1901. Not a small point since NB contains the famous redan hole!
-
"I have the CBM article he referenced in Scotland's gift, but find it fascinating that you would cite it in your Walker Cup article without bothering to even look at it first, and without bothering to identify that you were relying on a mere mention of it and not the real thing. It seems you tried to create the impression that you had actually done research, but those who know you know better."
In that Walker Cup program article I quoted Macdonald's own quotation from that 1897 article from his own autobiography. Do you think there is something inaccurate or wrong about quoting Macdonald's quotation in his own autobiography of his own article in an 1897 publication? ::) ???
Some of the foolishness you spew on some of these threads, Moriarty, is just getting funnier as time goes on and as you apparently get more desperate to defend some point that has never been particularly clear anyway! It seems to be argumentation just for the sake of arguing and very little else of any worth. ;)
-
"....and then finally you claimed CBM didn't have much playing experience in Britain (WRONG)."
Tom MacWood:
No problem at all. But for starters, can you document for me WHERE Macdonald played golf abroad before 1902 other than the courses he seems to comprehensively chronicle and mention in his autobiography which appear to be TOC, Hoylake, Wimbleton and a course called Coldburn Commons that he mentioned was the worst excuse for a golf course he had ever seen in his life?
Apparently this very lack of play of many courses during those years is precisely why he called those years his "Dark Age." ;) I guess I just never really thought to consider how dark it really was for his familiarity with GB or European golf couses and architecture before his first study trip ABROAD in 1902, which again was after Travis' "golfing pilgrimage" in which he mentioned in that British Golf Illustrated Nov 1901 article the numerous GB courses and about forty holes he admired.
Other than TOC and Hoylake had Macdonald ever even seen any of the rest of those courses and holes Travis mentioned in that 1901 article? We do know from Macdonald himself that he never saw North Berwick before 1906! I think that's pretty interesting considering Travis saw it and played it in 1901. Not a small point since NB contains the famous redan hole!
TEP
If there was one golf course in the world you would have a student of golf architecture visit during late 19th and early 20th C. which one would it be? Not only did CBM have extensive experience on TOC, he spent a great deal of time at Hoylake, also in the top three or four links in the world at the time.
Can give you give me the name of an American who had more experience on the British links in 1870s, 1880s and 1890s than CBM? I asked you this question before and you did not answer it.
How is the history of golf architecture altered if CBM first played North Berwick in 1892 or 1906? I asked this question before and you did not answer it.
-
1. The period covered in the passage you keep referring to ends in 1892, not 1902. He maid multiple trips abroad between 1892 and 1902.
2. As for his trips pre 1892, he noted that he stayed multiple times (and for extended periods) at at the Hotel near Hoylake and golfed every day. But he does NOT write that he only golfed at Hoylake.
3. While he discussed going to North Berwick in 1906 and asking many questions of the oldest caddy, I am not sure why you keep saying that was his first trip there. Can you please identify exactly where CBM wrote his first trip there was in 1906?
4. Where does travis write that he had actually seen the courses he mentioned? I've only found record of him playing 4 courses on this trip. Please enlighten us on how you KNOW he played the courses he listed. Obviously listing out famous holes in not enough to establish he played them.
5. What is your point, if you have one? I know it has changed with almost every post, but in a sentence or two (not a rambling and repetitious paragraph or two) what is your point?
In that Walker Cup program article I quoted Macdonald's own quotation from that 1897 article from his own autobiography. Do you think there is something inaccurate or wrong about quoting Macdonald's quotation in his own autobiography of his own article in an 1897 publication? ::) ???
Of course I do! Because that is NOT THE WAY YOU PRESENTED THE QUOTE IN THE ARTICLE. You didn't tell us that all you bothered to do was look at his book, and you cannot pretend to be quoting an actual article when all you are quoting is someone else quoting an article. This is the same problem you always have and a very basic and fundamental problem. You cannot rely on secondary sources as if they are primary sources! You cannot pretend you have seen the original (which using it without proper citation implies) when really you have only seen someone else telling you what the original said. Yet you rely in this snippet for your conclusions without bothering to look at the rest of the article.
And by the way, you quote the 1897 passage as if it were a guideline to what CBM was to do at NGLA; yet know you pretend that the 1897 article had nothing to do with what CBM ultimately did at NGLA. Your usual duplicitiousness.
-
Matter of fact, while doing some research for that Walker Cup program article I believe I made a fascinating discovery that I think sheds a good deal of heretofore unrealized light on Macdonald's life and times I sure didn't know before about Macdonald. The article was entitled "Merion's Hugh I. Wilson and the Age of the Amateur/Sportsman Architect" and it mentioned and covered about 6-7 architects including C.B. Macdonald. In it I used his famous remark, "...It makes the very soul of golf shriek" but until this year I had not realized what I now believe he was referring to and when.
-
Matter of fact, while doing some research for that Walker Cup program article I believe a made a fascinating discovery that I think sheds a good deal of heretofore unrealized light on Macdonald's life and times I sure didn't know before about Macdonald. The article was entitled "Merion's Hugh I. Wilson and the Age of the Amateur/Sportsman Architect" and it mentioned and covered about 6-7 architects including C.B. Macdonald. In it I used his famous remark, "...It makes the very soul of golf shriek" but until this year I had not realized what I now believe he was referring to and when.
Yes, and the fact that you did not realize this until then goes to show how little you understand about CBM and what he was writing. All one need do is read the description of the greens he is describing to see that he is not talking about geometric architecture. As usual, your discoveries come about 7 years after the rest of us have already moved on.
-
".......yet know you pretend that the 1897 article had nothing to do with what CBM ultimately did at NGLA."
I have never said on here or anywhere else that 1897 article had NOTHING to do with what CBM ultimately did at NGLA. Of course that article had something to do with what he did at NGLA and that quotation from that 1897 article at least explains some of what it did have to do with NGLA.
Where did you come up with that idea that I said that 1897 article had NOTHING to do what Macdonald did later at NGLA other than your own outright misinterpretation? Show me where I said that 1897 article had NOTHING to do with what CBM ultimately did at NGLA?
What I did say on here is it seems very possible that Travis came up with or became familiar with a good deal more of good GB architecture that could be emulated for its features or architectural principles or for its ideas to improve architecture in America BEFORE Macdonald did. The reason was in 1901 Macdonald just wasn't personally familiar with any of it other than his knowledge of TOC and Hoylake (or at least that seems to be the case from his autobiography when he listed the courses and holes he actually had played before he went abroad for his first study trip in 1902).
Sure, he could probably see in that "Best Hole Discussion" in 1901 that the redan of North Berwick was voted as one of the best par 3s in GB but the point is Macdonald would not actually see the redan for the first time and become familiar with it until 1906!
-
When did the hole at Biarritz change that supposedly inspired CBM for his template?
-
TEPaul,
Look what you have done with this thread. You have taken an interesting discussion and turned it into a wild goose chase that obviously has no merit whatsoever to anyone with even the most basic understanding of golf course design. Travis said nothing at all novel in that article. Others had been saying the same thing. Four years before, Whigham had advocated modeling courses in america after courses abroad. There is no point to your inferences as far as I can tell, and even if they were supportable, they change nothing!
You are like a toddler in an upper division university symposium only worse, because you insist on dominating the conversation. So it has become pointless for the rest of us.
________________________________________________
David Stamm,
Not sure I understand your question, but the evolution of that concept is probably worth its own thread.
So where is the answer to my MacKenzie questions? Maybe that would get the conversation moving in a better direction . . .
-
The Biarritz question was posed because I thought it would be worth establishing the template concepts used at NGLA and when he might have seen them. Even though Brancaster, North Berwick, Prestwick, etc aren't mentioned in his book, we know he went to these places.
Now, as far MacKenzie and Macdonald comparisons, while both claim to have thought St Andrews to be the very best, I don't think AM went out of his way to try and duplicate anything from the UK, while CBM would look for the best areas of the property to implement a template, and if substantial earth had to be moved, he would. There are certain features on AM's courses that I think he had perhaps some features from overseas in mind, such as the 14th fw "trench" feature at Pasatiempo, but it was much more subtle. I don't think AM tried to compete with courses such as SA, whereas CBM tried to emulate or even tried to improve upon the original concept.
-
"Four years before, Whigham had advocated modeling courses in america after courses abroad."
Did he indeed? In that case I would very much like to see exactly what Whigam said about that? Can you produce it? If you can and we can look at it to see if Whigam actually said that four years before (four years before WHAT or WHEN?) as Travis did in that British Golf Illustrated magazine in Nov 1901 then I believe Whigam should probably be given a whole lot more credit for truly INFLUENCING Macdonald's later ideas for NGLA in the context of emulating GB architecture, perhaps even a great deal more credit than should go to Travis for influencing Macdonald in that vein because I think it is looking more and more likely that CBM had very limited personal knowledge of architecture abroad before 1902 other than TOC and Hoylake (If CBM emulated anything at NGLA from Wimbleton GC I'm not aware of it and I doubt he emulated any of the architecture at NGLA of that other course he mentioned he had played, Colburn Commons, since he did say it was the worst excuse for a golf course he had ever seen in his life! ;) ).
It would certainly make sense too if Whigam actually said that four years before since Whigam was a natural born Scotsman and probably had a great deal more opportunity and experience and familiarity to see far more GB courses and holes and architecture in those early years CBM called his "Dark Age" and also considering Whigam was 32 years old in 1901.
So let's take a look at exactly what Whigam did say four years earlier about emulating GB architecture in America to improve architecture over here.
I do recall, at some point, Whigam advocated for making American course more difficult for the very same reasons Travis did in that British Golf Illustrated magazine article in Nov, 1901.
-
"What I did say on here is it seems very possible that Travis came up with or became familiar with a good deal more of good GB architecture that could be emulated for its features or architectural principles or for its ideas to improve architecture in America BEFORE Macdonald did" -TEPaul
Meaningless, untrue and illogical. Where else was any thinking man of the time going to look to see what was good in architecture, Florida?
"Why is that? Are you afraid of some potential truth that might change what we have heretofore known or believed about Macdonald and his knowledge of GB architecture at a particular point in time"-TEPaul
I don't have a dog in the hunt other than curiosity. I'm not writing any books about architects, nor do I have the urge to dampen the memory of any one of them. Don't you ever feel a little remorse about your ongoing and feckless attacks against Macdonald? I think I once compared you to Inspector Javert, but after a few more years of the same inane persecution I think you've graduated into the title of 'Pompous Pile-It'. ;D ;)
-
"Don't you ever feel a little remorse about your ongoing and feckless attacks against Macdonald?"
Jim Kennedy:
For the life of me I just cannot understand why you keep saying that on here. I am not ATTACKING Macdonald at all. All I'm trying to do is get to the real truth and facts of Charles Blair Macdonald's life and times at any particular time in his life and career.
I truly cannot understand why you have a problem with that the way you seem to which leads to all those screeching red text comments of yours; it's nothing more than an ongoing search for the truth which obviously includes facts. Do you have some problem with the truth or the facts of Macdonald's life and times becoming better known, particularly since many of us are labeling him the father of American golf course architecture? If we are going to do that it seems pretty reasonable to investigate who had some important influences on him, particularly to do with golf course architecture, at any point in time.
I think even you should be able to admit that before someone can advocate the emulation and/or imitation of something somewhere else they should at least have a pretty good familiarity with what they are going to emulate or imitate. It seems to me, at the moment, that other than TOC and Hoylake Macdonald did not have that familiarity before 1902 and later. Can you document that he did have that familiarlity with GB architecture other than TOC and Hoylake before 1902, 1904 and 1906 which are the dates of his three dedicated architectural study trips abroad?
-
TEPaul,
Do not send me anymore of your insulting personal messages.
If you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
-
Tom Paul
Memories can and are special, memories of a time when you first started to experience freedom and understand of life remains with you for your lifetime particularly if in a foreign land.
Charles Blair MacDonald was back I believe in his father’s native country, he was introduced into the elite circle of golfers from the R&A to Old & Young Tom, David Strath, Charlie & James Hunter. He was in St Andrews at the time of great things happening in Golf. His friends were the Open Champions, he was at the centre of the golfing world, at the course that set the standards and fundamentals we today take for granted. He lived and was part of that period at St Andrews, so I firmly believe he remembered his days and the experience of St Andrews including Old Tom. From that, he was able to perhaps understand and actually noticed and remembered details which I presume set his standards and goals in his golfing life recalled later around the turn of the century. Being part of the St Andrews set, I expect he would have travelled to some of the other courses while he was at St Andrews in 1872-4.
Lets not forget that being known to Old Tom, he would have been told all about design and Green Keeping and would have had TOC explained to him., So I for one see no problem in an older man remembering the happy days of his youth bearing in mind the company he kept. MacDonald was a very lucky and fortunate young man, yet he was not alone, think of all the many Scotsmen that travelled to the USA in the 1890’s who had experience of Old Tom and his design ways. The Foulis Brothers, D Ross, Willie Campbell are just a few names that spring to mind. So MacDonald may not have known them but he knew the message they brought from over the sea. Dismiss his memories at your peril. If it was a special period in his life, he would have remembered. In addition, the fact that Scottish golfers were making the trip to America to play, teach and design courses around that time would that not awaken some of his early memories of golf in Scotland. After all, where else would he have obtained his experience? Regrettable the written word or records don’t always reflect the true story or what was really the reason behind the idea in the first place.
Who really knows, perhaps only the dead.
Melvyn
-
The Biarritz question was posed because I thought it would be worth establishing the template concepts used at NGLA and when he might have seen them. Even though Brancaster, North Berwick, Prestwick, etc aren't mentioned in his book, we know he went to these places.
David, He did mention going to NB, but I agree that we obviously cannot rely on his book to figure out everything he saw, because he does not give us a full account of his golf and travels in Europe. Somewhere CBM wrote about playing in France with HJW while studying golf holes for NGLA. So he most likely would have seen the famous hole at Biarritz then. But there are also a few holes at N.B. that could have influenced the design. I think there are two different concepts related to the Biarritz, both found in CBM holes but not always what we would think of as the Biarritz.
Now, as far MacKenzie and Macdonald comparisons, while both claim to have thought St Andrews to be the very best, I don't think AM went out of his way to try and duplicate anything from the UK, while CBM would look for the best areas of the property to implement a template, and if substantial earth had to be moved, he would.
David, I think you may be confusing Macdonald with Raynor, or at least confusing what CBM accomplished at NGLA with later work where Raynor was more heavily involved. So far as I know, CBM did not move substantial dirt to implement any templates at NGLA. Depending on how one counts, there were only between two and four holes at NGLA that even approximated holes from abroad. Of these, they all contained substantive differences (improvements in CBM's eyes) from the originals, and more importantly, they ALL FIT THE LAND. As for the rest (and even for the supposed copies) CBM applied an amalgamation of different strategic concepts as they fit the land. It is true that when it came to building the Lido, CBM did try to be "a Creator," trying to build a landscape of nothing, but even he ultimately admitted that he could not match nature in this regard.
You've got to remember the timing and the oft stated goal of NGLA. He wanted to change the focus back onto the fundamental principles found in links golf, and so it made sense for him to explicitly identify the strategies of his holes with holes abroad. His holes were examples intended to teach us what a good golf hole was, and examples intended to teach us where to look for good golf design. At the time it may not have been enough to merely build the course. Linking the principles to holes that were already considered to be the best in the world gave the holes at NGLA legitimacy as exemplars that could be studied and followed, whether the names of the holes were used or not.
And in a very real sense all of the same concepts from NGLA are present throughout AM's work (at least the work I have seen;) not that AM was explicitly copying golf holes from CBM or the holes abroad. Rather he was just applying basic strategic concepts as they fit the land, and that is exactly what CBM was advocating. Both were incredibly advanced at using the existing landscape to bring out fairly fundamental yet sophisticated strategic problems in the golf course. Note that AM was an admirer of CBM's work at NGLA and thought it better than Pine Valley, and that CBM obviously liked AM's winning hole since he used it at the Lido (and since it was similar to a hole CBM had always wanted to build, but hadn't got the chance because he had never had the right land for it.) Obviously, AM had a very different aesthetic style and he was very creative and original, and he mastered the use of slopes as a strategic concepts, but using slope strategically was one of CBM's great strengths as well. Both at their bones represented strategic golf course design at its best. CBM just put names old to his holes, while AM did not. But the same bones are there.
As CBM wrote in SG:
The National has fulfilled its mission, having caused the reconstruction of al the best known golf courses existing in the first decade of this cnetury in the United States, and, further, has caused the study of golf architecture resulting in the building of numerous meritorious courses of great interest throughout the country.
If one takes a look at the discussion while Augusta National was under way, it was often presented as if it would be an "ideal" course made up of copies of great holes from St, Andrews and elsewhere. AM ultimately clarified that while the holes were largely inspired by the strategic principles found in holes abroad, it did not contain actual copies. This was a perfect realization of what CBM was advocating and hoping for when it came to American golf. In fact in CBM's obituary, H.J. Whigham praised AM's Cypress Point, not as a CBM course, but as the type of course made possible by NGLA, and the type of course CBM wanted in America.
[One thing I find fascinating about the construction photos of CP is H.J. Whigham's presence in the construction photographs. Not saying or even implying that he or CBM were at all involved in the design, but the course was certainly meant to be in the same school of design as what CBM advocated, thus the later praise by HJW. Also, Raynor as the first as the first choice of designer hints at the same thing (although I wonder if whenever Raynor got a job if he really wasnt the second choice.)
-
David Moriarty,
I think most of the dirt moving occured at the green ends.
This becomes apparent when you examine each green from the sides and rear.
-
Melvyn:
There seems to be no question at all that C.B. Macdonald was incredibly familiar with TOC during his years at the University of St Andrews (1872-75) and why wouldn't he have been as he obviously played it so much? He writes about those years and all the important people and great players he got to know and played with while at TOC including Old and Young Tom. He even mentioned in 1927 that he had always felt that Young Tom was the greatest player he had ever known (who he mentioned in his book died as he was just returning to Chicago in 1875) until Bobby Jones won the Open in 1927 which he says he became aware of as he was in the midst of writing his book.
Macdonald was also clearly very familiar with Royal Liverpool GC at Hoylake having played it many many times over the years. He was a member of that club as he was of the R&A at St. Andrews.
Macdonald writes in his autobiography in real detail when and where he played while abroad between the years of 1875 and 1892 (which he referred to as his "Dark Age" because he was able to play so little golf between those years) and I believe I have listed above all the courses he listed he played during those years. It appears he played a great deal at Hoylake but he actually never mentioned going back to TOC during those years he said he was in England quite frequently on business.
Have you read his autobiography, "Scotland's Gift Golf," Melvyn?
-
"He did mention going to NB, but I agree that we obviously cannot rely on his book to figure out everything he saw, because he does not give us a full account of his golf and travels in Europe."
That is true, Macdonald does not seem to give us a list in his autobiography of all the courses he saw when he made his three dedicated architectural study trips abroad in 1902, 1904 and 1906 (and apparently quite lengthy trips each, likes months per trip) in preparation for the creation of NGLA. But he does seem to give us a complete list in his autobiography of the places he played abroad between the years 1875 to 1892 that he referred to as his "Dark Age" and which might even extend with courses abroad to the year 1902. But I'm still looking to see if there is any mention of any others anywhere else abroad before 1902.
The Golfer magazine made mention of this in an 1895 addition that includes an article by Macdonald, so one would logically assume The Golfer magazine learned of this by asking Macdonald himself.
-
David Stamm:
We know from Macdonald himself that the first time he ever saw North Berwick was in 1906. He actually wrote about that particular first visit in some detail. He was scheduled to play the course with a friend of Whigam's who, to C.B.'s disappointment, could not make it at the last minute and so C.B. writes about going out alone just with an interesting caddie who taught him a thing or two.
-
"TEPaul,
Do not send me anymore of your insulting personal messages.
If you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen."
Jim Kennedy:
Then I suggest you stop making posts on here (the last example being #318) trying to criticize me constantly on this website for discussing the facts of Macdonald's time and places played abroad as some attempt on my part or Wayne's to be something that is AGAINST Macdonald. If you can manage to stop doing that I see no reason to send you any messages at all in the future. It is definitely saying nothing AGAINST Macdonald to try to determine how familiar he was with GB architecture (the courses he actually saw and was familiar with the architecture of) between the years 1875-1892 or perhaps 1875-1902.
-
"As usual, your discoveries come about 7 years after the rest of us have already moved on."
Moriarty:
I definitely did not know that. Can you show me a single example from anyone that explained what Macdonald was talking about when he made that remark?
You think of yourself as a pretty good researcher, don't you? if so, can you find me a single example by someone or anyone on here of what Macdonald was talking about before I mentioned it on here in the last few months? If you can I would be more than happy to admit I did not know that and was always unaware he was talking about something other than the architecture that we have generally described as "Geometric" or "Victorian" or "Dark Age" etc in America.
-
David,
TEPaul cannot ever quite get it right, even when almost copying verbatim from a book. His key point about NB is from his imagination, not Scotland's Gift. In Scotland's Gift, CBM wrote about finding himself alone at NB in 1906, and taking the oldest caddy and pestering him with questions, and how the caddy determined the club on the Redan tee by throwing grass in the air. The point of the story was how integral and knowledgeable caddies were in those days. It had nothing to do with whether CBM had ever seen the course before. (CBM had the opportunity to question him extensively because CBM was there alone.)
But CBM did NOT write that it was his first time in North Berwick. He lived over there for a number of years made multiple trips, and then made three study trips. Surely he played these courses more than once while studying them, including St. Andrews which he already knew well.
-
"Of course I asked him numerous questions about the fairway and different holes----Point Garry, Perfection, and particularly the Redan."
That from Macdonald's autobiography explaining when he went to North Berwick in 1906 (presumably for the first time since he did not mention knowing NB previous to that and he did seemingly mention in his autobiography the only courses he played during his so-called "Dark Age" and North Berwick was not one of them.).
But perhaps from Macdonald's remarks above about seeing North Berwick and its 'fairway' and the holes Point Garry, Perfection and particularly the Redan in 1906 that it was the oldest and best caddy at North Berwick in 1906 who we should now in fact label as the one who was Charles Blair Macdonald's primary mentor and architectural influence in explaining to him the characteristics of some of the famous holes and architecture of GB he apparently was not aware of as late as 1906 but that he would use at NGLA. ???
GOD ALMIGHTY, please spare me, please spare us all, from these preposterous rationalizations and diversions of some on this webiste such as the following ones in post # 329! ;)
"TEPaul cannot ever quite get it right, even when almost copying verbatim from a book. His key point about NB is from his imagination, not Scotland's Gift. In Scotland's Gift, CBM wrote about finding himself alone at NB in 1906, and taking the oldest caddy and pestering him with questions, and how the caddy determined the club on the Redan tee by throwing grass in the air. The point of the story was how integral and knowledgeable caddies were in those days. It had nothing to do with whether CBM had ever seen the course before. (CBM had the opportunity to question him extensively because CBM was there alone.)
But CBM did NOT write that it was his first time in North Berwick. He lived over there for a number of years made multiple trips, and then made three study trips. Surely he played these courses more than once while studying them, including St. Andrews which he already knew well."
-
Tom,
In lieu of your most recent personal message to me I would suggest that you don't send any more. Part of your message to me was telling me that you are trying to involve people and families in your insanity that really don't wish to be involved, and that borders on the truly scary.
I can't tell you how many callers have told me that they cannot believe your behavior. Grow up.
-
David Stamm,
As you can see, TEPaul doesn't quite comprehend the difference between fact and supposition. CBM did not say it was his first trip, he only said he had the opportunity to quiz the wise caddy because his playing partner did not show up. CBM believed that one should get to know a course under every condition, so who better to talk to than an old, wise caddy? This would be true whether it was his first play or his 20th.
Is it possible that it was his first trip there? Possible, but unlikely. CBM doesn't say one way or another.
-
DavidS:
As far as whether Macdonald's mention of visiting North Berwick in 1906 was the first time he saw or played the course I think we have two important points on that from Macdonald's autobiography:
#1. He never mentioned it in his previous trips abroad but he did mention the other courses he had played apparently prior to 1902 and they were remarkably few---actually apparently only two of architectural note---eg TOC and Hoylake. The others he mentioned were Wimbleton in Cambridge and a course he said was the worst excuse for a golf course he had ever seen in his life. It doesn't seem to be much reason for him to have mentioned the latter in his autobiography if there had been others of note during his self-proclaimed "Dark Age."
#2. Obviously the following is pretty indicative that he had never seen North Berwick before:
"Of course I asked him numerous questions about the fairway and different holes----Point Garry, Perfection, and particularly the Redan."
When Macdonald said 'he' Macdonald was talking about the caddie he went out on the course with alone and of who Macdonald obviously asked a lot of questions about North Berwicks architecture. No reason to have to ask a caddie to point out the course and its architecture if he had seen it before and was familiar with it. Moriarty says above he may never have seen it before 1906 but it's unlikely. Why does he say it's unlikely? What possible evidence has he produced to suggest it's unlikely? He has produced none at all and Macdonald's own statement above suggests it is very likely!
Apparently it's quite hard for some people on here to believe that Macdonald may not have had any familiarity with the vast majority of GB architecture before his extended architectural study trips abroad in 1902, 1904 and 1906 but logically that is probably precisely why he felt the need to make those three extended architectural study trips abroad between 1902 and the creation of NGLA. ;)
I must say it sort of surprised me too because I had never quite considered before the extent of what Macdonald meant by his so-called "Dark Age" until I carefully reread his autobiography with just that in mind.
-
Jim Kennedy:
I will send no more IMs to you but if you continue to constantly claim on here that what I've been trying to determine regarding the courses Macdonald played or was familiar with abroad previous to his architectural study trips abroad in 1902, 1904 and 1906 is some attempt on my part or Wayne's part to say something AGAINST Macdonald, which is completely untrue and which I have pointed out to you on here numerous times, then you will hear from me about that. Can you think of any good reason why I shouldn't? I'm only looking for some important facts to do with his architectural life and career and there is no reason at all why you shouldn't understand that and frankly be interested in it yourself if you have any real interest in Macdonald and his life and career in golf course architecture.
-
Jim Kennedy.
Did you get that? If you continue to honestly express your well-supported opinion on a public forum, then TEPaul will continue to harass you. In other words, if you cross TEPaul he will come after you, even in your private life.
Is this really what this website is about? Some pathetic creep threatening and harassing participants for honestly expressing their opinions, even if those opinions are well documented and shared by the vast majority of posters?
Pathetic.
-
Can either of you actually document what golf courses abroad CBM was familiar with before 1902 other than TOC, Hoylake, Wimbleton and Coldburn Commons that C.B. allowed was the worst excuse for a golf course he had ever seen in his life? That would be a bit more productive and educational on this website to the vast majority of posters than your constant posts about how pathetic you think TEPaul is. ;)
-
“The Biarritz question was posed because I thought it would be worth establishing the template concepts used at NGLA and when he might have seen them. Even though Brancaster, North Berwick, Prestwick, etc aren't mentioned in his book, we know he went to these places.
Now, as far MacKenzie and Macdonald comparisons, while both claim to have thought St Andrews to be the very best, I don't think AM went out of his way to try and duplicate anything from the UK, while CBM would look for the best areas of the property to implement a template, and if substantial earth had to be moved, he would. There are certain features on AM's courses that I think he had perhaps some features from overseas in mind, such as the 14th fw "trench" feature at Pasatiempo, but it was much more subtle. I don't think AM tried to compete with courses such as SA, whereas CBM tried to emulate or even tried to improve upon the original concept.”
David Stamm:
This is a very good point on your part and worth looking into (not that it hasn’t been before on here to some extent). I think there are number of things that have come forth perhaps even on this particular thread about the way CBM went about things to do with his architecture, when and even perhaps how and why that most have never considered before or at least not appreciated enough.
I would be glad to list what I think they are later. Would you care to?
-
David S:
The following remarks and quotation are from Tom MacWood and post #243 on this thread:
“TEP
You are grasping for straws. This is what Travis wrote about the NGLA and copies:
"The original idea was to construct eighteen holes fashioned after the various holes in Great Britain which were generally recognized as being pre-eminent either as single-shot, two-shot or three-shot holes. There was nothing experimental...nothing creative--merely slavish imitations of these famous holes abroad in so far as physical limitations permitted. Physical limitations! There was the snag. For while certain holes might colorably lend themselves to such an undertaking in this, that or the other respect, it was a source of mortification to find that, after all certain essential features were totally lacking which were incapable of reproduction unless the whole topographical map was rearranged...which of course, was out of the question on account of expense."
Travis' remarks I believe are pretty seminal and significant for a number of reasons. The first reason is it seems to be perhaps the best example extant of some growing dissatisfaction with the use of the copy or template concept of golf course architecture that CBM and his National School of architecture based its type and style and model on course after course and it seems a number of signficant American architects were beginning to resist it. One could certainly argue that Macdonald and his NGLA and National School really wasn't doing that but the more important question should be did other of the most significant architects of the teens and 1920s think it meant that?
We need to ask ourselves why that was and Travis' remarks appear to be the sharpest and most direct expression of it. Shall we simply chalk up Travis' remarks above to his seeming parting of ways with Macdonald apparently due to residual effects of the Schnectedy Putter issue or Travis' amateur status issues with which Macdonald at least had to do with in his position on the USGA Rules Committee for a number of years?
Personally, I don't think that explains the reasons for Travis' critical remarks above, at least not entirely. I think plenty of it had to do with a departure in architectural philosophy and frankly Travis said it in those remarks above pretty explanatorily.
It seems the fundamendal issue with Travis and other American architects of the teens and early 1920s perhaps including Tillinghast, Wilson, Flynn, Thomas and Behr, Hunter, Mackenzie et al was that Macdonald's (Raynor's) architectural philosophy or perceived architectural philosophy did not exactly promote the idea of experimentation, creativeness and innovation in golf course architecture. Macdonald actually wrote that the idea of innovation in golf architecture was a bad thing and to be avoided. I am not sure when or where he first wrote that or how often but I do know he most certainly wrote that in his autobiography published in 1928!
Was this the issue that some of the most signficant American architects had with his style or philosophy as golf architectural ideas and applications began to evolve and flower in different types and stylistic directions from the teens into the 1920s? Personally, I think so and we should discuss it. It is not to take away from Macdonald's label or attribution as the Father of American Architecture but only to try to show if and how American golf course architecture was moving on in various ways and why!
-
David,
Yes, I got that, and it's sad.
In his next-to-last message to me he makes it pretty clear that he's using TMac's revelation about George Crump to go on a witch-hunt in search of damaging personal information about Macdonald.
He says it should be done for historical purposes, but I cannot see how he conflates the two, it makes no sense to me.
So I guess if he did find some deep, dark, family secret he and Wayne would just go ahead and LEAK it out in their ongoing attacks on Macdonald.
.....and I thought they didn't do such things? ?
-
In search of damaging personal information on Macdonald?? ??? ::)
At the moment, trying to determine what courses abroad Macdonald actually saw and was familiar with in the 19th century doesn't seem to be damaging personal information, does it? And if you think so why is that exactly? ;)
Did Macdonald have a real problem with booze at any particular time that effected him in his dealings with a number of his contemporaries? Apparently, and the documentation seems to be there but so what? What's wrong with that and what's damaging about it if it's the truth? For God's Sakes, the same can probably be said and documented for a number of the most significant of the architects of that interesting era including Tillinghast, Flynn, Toomey, Mackenzie and Crump, young Dick Wilson, as well as Macdonald.
That kind of thing happened to be the sometimes part of the tapestry of their lives and times and I fail to see why any competent historian would view it as damaging or something that should never been mentioned, discussed or analyzed. But even if it is viewed as damaging by some and apparently there are a few on here who are saying they think it is damaging, still if it is the truth there is no reason I can see that it shouldn't be known and discussed and analyzed if it effected something to do with their lives and work unless of course the point of this website is to unrealistically and historical unfactualy just glorify and iconize and completely sanitize some of those interesting men and their lives who did such good and adventurous golf architectural work.
Come on people, tell me if you think anything should be out-of-bounds when we investigate and analyze and discuss these people if it effected their lives and work? If you think so I'd love to hear why you think so. And I would love to hear from others on here if they think these kinds of attempted limitations by a few on here on what we can and should discuss is out-of-bounds as well.
-
David, thank you for your thoughts on the AM/CBM comparison. And I pretty much agree with everything, although I'm not so sure that I agree w/ Whigham stating that NGLA made CPC possible. The reason being is that AM had done a sustantial amount of work in the UK before coming to the US. I don't think CBM doing NGLA or not would have prevented him from coming here to design addtional courses. There is not argument on my part that they shared similiar ideas on strategic course design. What I think CBM's biggest impact was to other architects already practicing overseas was "opening up the market" as it were to them and give them some ideas in strategic design along the way. Colt, Alison, Fowler, Park and AM had already done courses overseas, many of which were quite good, without seeing NGLA.
-
Can either of you actually document what golf courses abroad CBM was familiar with before 1902 other than TOC, Hoylake, Wimbleton and Coldburn Commons that C.B. allowed was the worst excuse for a golf course he had ever seen in his life? That would be a bit more productive and educational on this website to the vast majority of posters than your constant posts about how pathetic you think TEPaul is.
Can anyone tell you exactly what courses CBM played when he lived in Scotland and during the many trips (one for almost a year) he took, all before 1902? This was over a century ago Tom, so I wouldn't expect to be able to figure exactly the courses with which he was familiar. He discussed some of those courses but not all of those courses, and it is ridiculous for you to pretend that those he happened to mention are the only courses he played.
As for your constant mention of your many theories about how CBM was a drunk, an asshole, lower class than those around him, a jerk, etc., they are thus far UNSUPPORTED. If you want to try and make your case, then by all means do so. But thus far all you have done is toss around gossip like an old hen at the fence. Apparently your plan is for someone else to take up the cause and do your research for you, but I don't think anyone else is all that interested in your attempts to project your own pitiful personal failings onto a great man like CBM.
__________________________________________________________
David Stamm,
While AM did see NGLA, I am not saying he learned anything from it. I meant more that CBM not only opened up the Market, but also that he got the conversation going about what good design was, and that made a place for someone like AM, who came in and built holes very much along the CBM mold (even though not necessarily intentionally so.)
Remember, CBM didn't think he was inventing these underlying strategic principles but considered them timeless truths that he was just bringing to the fore, and the reason I think they were similar is not whether AM got his ideas from CBM, but rather that AM and CBM were applying the same basic ideas (or the same timeless truths.)
-
David Moriarty,
What's interesting about NGLA are the comments from those who were exposed to the golf course shortly after it opened.
The Invitational tournaments began being held at NGLA in 1911, along with others.
It's interesting to read what people like Bernard Darwin wrote and even more interesting to read what the competitors wrote, especially those from the UK.
Reading their commentary would seem to reinforce CBM's position as the Father of GCA in America
-
I didn't follow this thread for sanitary reasons, but it appears there is some idea that Walter Travis might challenge CBM's pioneer credentials. I would not agree with that assessment, as Travis at the turn of the century was still completely uneducated about golf architecture.
He wrote in his column "Practical Golf" (May 1901) that holes should be done in a way that one, two or three perfect strikes were needed to get onto the green. Less than perfect shots should end up in a bunker, thus making sure that the better player will be on the green first and could not lose the hole to someone who merely putts better. He advocated "scientific" design, whereby the holes should not be laid out following the natural terrain, but according to a "proven" scheme that would guarantee fairness and an equitable game.
It took Travis a few years to learn the errors of his ways and as such he cannot be considered a frontrunner.
Ulrich
-
"Can anyone tell you exactly what courses CBM played when he lived in Scotland and during the many trips (one for almost a year) he took, all before 1902? This was over a century ago Tom, so I wouldn't expect to be able to figure exactly the courses with which he was familiar. He discussed some of those courses but not all of those courses, and it is ridiculous for you to pretend that those he happened to mention are the only courses he played."
I have never been able to understand why anyone, even you, would say something like that. I'm not pretending anything---I am only taking Macdonald at and with his own words in his autobiography. What seems pretty ridiculous is for someone like you to assume there must have been more. Macdonald was talking about a time he called his "Dark Ages" where he hardly played golf between leaving St Andrews as a student and both generating interest in golf in Chicago in 1893 (there wasn't any golf there before that) and creating the first golf course in Chicago.
Macdonald seems to be very comprehensive in chronicling the golf he did play in that era he called his "Dark Ages" which seems to have been precious litte and consisting of 3-4 courses abroad and one attempt in a field in Chicago in 1875 (hence his own term for that long era (his "Dark Ages"). I take Macdonald at his word when he chronicled that particular time but apparently you don't. Why is that? Are you afraid to admit what seems obvious from his own life history and apparently the truth----eg he may've actually been familiar with very few courses abroad before he went over there on his three separate "study trips" on architecture beginning in 1902 in preparation for his ideal course which turned out to be NGLA. He apparently went over there and spend all that time in those three "study trips" simply because he never had been familiar with architecture abroad other than just a few which certainly included real familiarity with TOC and Hoylake, the latter course being the one he says he played most all his golf during this long period he referred to as his "Dark Ages."
You say he discussed some courses he played over there during those years but not all of them. How in the world do you know THAT? What courses did he discuss that he did not play during those years and when did he discuss them? ;)
-
He wrote that Hoylake was his "headquarters." He did not write it was the only place he played. And this was only from the time he left St. Andrews in the mid - 1870's until 1892. It doesn't include before or after.
1. Quit pretending that you know where else he played while living in St. Andrews, or BETWEEN 1892 AN 1902. He made multiple trips abroad during this period, but doesn't discuss them in the book. That doesn't mean he didn't play.
2. He does not ever write that the ONLY places he played were where he mentioned. One of his trips during the "dark ages" was for a year. Do you honestly expect him to give you an everyday accounting?
-
"1. Quit pretending that you know where else he played while living in St. Andrews, or BETWEEN 1892 AN 1902. He made multiple trips abroad during this period, but doesn't discuss them in the book. That doesn't mean he didn't play.
2. He does not ever write that the ONLY places he played were where he mentioned. One of his trips during the "dark ages" was for a year. Do you honestly expect him to give you an everyday accounting?"
I'm not pretending I know where else he played while living in St. Andrews or between the years 1875 and 1892 or abroad between the years 1892 and 1902. It is you who is pretending he played other courses although there is no evidence of that and that is probably why he never mentioned any others and called that extended period his "Dark Ages." I most certainly do think he mentioned in his autobiography where he did play in those years he called his "Dark Ages" and I think the facts are those places amounted to no more than 3-4 courses that he listed in his autobiography. I think he mentioned all of them in his autobiography and that is precisely why he referred to that extended period as his "Dark Ages" when he played what he considered to be so little golf.
It is you who is speculating and assuming something here for which there is no evidence at all. I'm merely going on what Macdonald said himself about those years. If one takes him at his word those are all the FACTS we have, and there is no reason to speculate on more for which there are no FACTS! It is you who always harps on ONLY FACTS on here, right? ;)
-
Let's see, a locker in Old Tom's shop, learning about and playing The Old Course, for 25 months, with that great man, his son, the Dunns, and David Strath. Trips to Hoylake, and multiple trips abroad in the intervening years. Then, after going through 17 "Dark Years" of something less than real golf between 1875 and 1892 he ends up doing Chicago GC.
All of this happened before Walter Travis even bought his first set of clubs!!
The next step in the progression was when CBM read the best hole discussion, and this sparked the flame of his "Ideal Golf Links" concept, which doesn't need a retelling here. That happened 11 months before Walter Travis wrote the article that's being used to 'show' that he (Travis) was the first to come upon the idea!
CBM had 29 years of golf experience under his belt beforeTravis wrote his article, and he was familiar with the whole 'package' of the Scottish game 24 years before Waler Travis even picked up a club.
Travis' contributions to the game and to its architecture are well known, and The Old Man really doesn't need to have smoke blown up his reputation for the sole purpose of trying to take another man's reputation down.
-
"Let's see, a locker in Old Tom's shop, learning about and playing The Old Course, for 25 months, with that great man, his son, the Dunns, and David Strath. Trips to Hoylake, and multiple trips abroad in the intervening years. Then, after going through 17 "Dark Years" of something less than real golf between 1875 and 1892 he ends up doing Chicago GC.
All of this happened before Walter Travis even bought his first set of clubs!!"
I don't think this has anything to do with when Travis first bought a set of clubs. It only has to do with the extent of Macdonald's familiarity with GB architecture before he went abroad on three separate architectural "study trips" (1902, 1904, 1906) in preparation for the creation of NLGA and who may've been more familiar with various famous holes abroad before him that would eventually be created at NGLA (and afterwards) even if "in principle." Frankly, in the 19th century H J Whigam was probably a lot more familiar with GB architecture generally and specifically than either Travis or Macdonald were by 1901 since Whigam was a natural born Scot with a whole lot of golf experience abroad since he grew up there! ;) Macdonald mentioned he made thirty or forty drawings during those trips in the beginning of the 20th century. There is no question at all from Macdonald's own autobiography that he was intimately familiar with TOC and Royal Liverpool GC at Hoylake from his experiences at those two courses during the years 1872-1892 (and he certainly did use a few holes from those two courses at NGLA) but he does not seem to have been personally familiar in the 19th century with much more than that abroad. I would presume that is the very reason he felt the need to spend a number of months abroad three times between 1902 and 1906.
"The next step in the progression was when CBM read the best hole discussion, and this sparked the flame of his "Ideal Golf Links" concept, which doesn't need a retelling here. That happened 11 months before Walter Travis wrote the article that's being used to 'show' that he (Travis) was the first to come upon the idea!"
I am not certain when the "Best Hole Discussion" actually began in GB but above Tom MacWood said it began Feb. 15, 1901 so let's assume that's the case. Travis was abroad between the middle of July to the middle of August 1901 and apparently he played 36 holes per day at numerous courses some of which are listed in his London Golf Illustrated magazine article of Nov. 1901. Macdonald and Travis belonged to the same golf club---GCGC at that time (1901) so persumably Macdonald heard from Travis about the holes he admired long before Nov, 1901. ;)
"CBM had 29 years of golf experience under his belt beforeTravis wrote his article, and he was familiar with the whole 'package' of the Scottish game 24 years before Waler Travis even picked up a club."
The whole 'package' of the Scottish game? What does that mean? As far as the facts we have are concerned Macdonald was very familiar with TOC and Hoylake during those years. Again, this is probably the very reason he felt the need to spend a number of months on three separate architectural study trips abroad beginning in 1902 in preparation to create NLGA studying all the other courses and holes of note he had probably never seen before. His description in his autobiography about visiting North Berwick and a few holes there in 1906 seems to be an excellent example of this-----eg NB's Redan had ranked high on that "Best Hole Discussion" in 1901 and it appears Macdonald had been unfamiliar with what it looked like before 1906.
"Travis' contributions to the game and to its architecture are well known, and The Old Man really doesn't need to have smoke blown up his reputation for the sole purpose of trying to take another man's reputation down."
Again, I see nothing on here from me which attempts to up Travis' reputation for the sole purpose of taking down another man's reputation; in this case Macdonald's. All I'm trying to do is establish some basic facts along a very interesting timeline of what these two men were actually familiar with at any point in time along that timeline.
-
“The Biarritz question was posed because I thought it would be worth establishing the template concepts used at NGLA and when he might have seen them. Even though Brancaster, North Berwick, Prestwick, etc aren't mentioned in his book, we know he went to these places.
Now, as far MacKenzie and Macdonald comparisons, while both claim to have thought St Andrews to be the very best, I don't think AM went out of his way to try and duplicate anything from the UK, while CBM would look for the best areas of the property to implement a template, and if substantial earth had to be moved, he would. There are certain features on AM's courses that I think he had perhaps some features from overseas in mind, such as the 14th fw "trench" feature at Pasatiempo, but it was much more subtle. I don't think AM tried to compete with courses such as SA, whereas CBM tried to emulate or even tried to improve upon the original concept.”
David Stamm:
This is a very good point on your part and worth looking into (not that it hasn’t been before on here to some extent). I think there are number of things that have come forth perhaps even on this particular thread about the way CBM went about things to do with his architecture, when and even perhaps how and why that most have never considered before or at least not appreciated enough.
I would be glad to list what I think they are later. Would you care to?
Tom P
I don't know much about Dr Mac, but he most certainly did borrow concepts for projects. One very blatant instance is the Weston - s Mare' s 15th. The similarity to the Road Hole is uncanny and must be deliberate.
Ciao
-
Sean:
That may be the case; I wouldn't know because I'm not in the slightest familiar with that particular hole at Weston. Do you know if Mackenzie ever actually mentioned that the 15th at Weston was some copy or even "architectural principle" emulation of the Road Hole at TOC? That might be quite important in the context of this particular thread and discussion. ;)
I've been thinking a lot about this basic subject recently and obviously because of this particular thread (although that sure doesn't mean I have not been thinking about this basic subject for quite a few years).
-
Sean:
That may be the case; I wouldn't know because I'm not in the slightest familiar with that particular hole at Weston. Do you know if Mackenzie ever actually mentioned that the 15th at Weston was some copy or even "architectural principle" emulation of the Road Hole at TOC? That might be quite important in the context of this particular thread and discussion. ;)
I've been thinking a lot about this basic subject recently and obviously because of this particular thread (although that sure doesn't mean I have not been thinking about this basic subject for quite a few years).
Tom
Here is a link to a very interesting thread.
Ciao
-
Sean:
Is AM's mention that he copied the Road Hole on the 15th at Weston any more obvious than your link to that very interesting thread? ;)
-
Sean:
Is AM's mention that he copied the Road Hole on the 15th at Weston any more obvious than your link to that very interesting thread? ;)
Tom P
Ooops!
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38320.0/
Ciao
-
Sean:
Thank you. I am going to read that thread, AGAIN, with a great deal of interest!
-
The following is from post #238. There is a question in it about what CBM was referring to when he made his famous remark about American architecture-----"It makes the very soul of golf shriek." I asked Moriarty in #238 if he could produce a single example from app the last 7 years where anyone on here has mentioned what he was referring to. For some reason Moriarty seems to have avoided answering the question I asked him in post #238----eg "....can you find me a single example by someone or anyone on here of what Macdonald was referring to architecturally before I mentioned it on here in the last few months?" I wonder why he avoided answering it?
He said to me:
"As usual, your discoveries come about 7 years after the rest of us have already moved on."
I responded in #238:
"I definitely did not know that. Can you show me a single example from anyone that explained what Macdonald was talking about when he made that remark-----eg “It makes the very soul of golf shriek?”
You think of yourself as a pretty good researcher, don't you? If so, can you find me a single example by someone or anyone on here of what Macdonald was talking about before I mentioned it on here in the last few months? If you can I would be more than happy to admit I did not know that and was always unaware he was talking about something other than the architecture that we have generally described as "Geometric" or "Victorian" or "Dark Age" etc in America.”
-
Avoid answering it? I'd have had to have read it first. I am not here to entertain your research whims and I don't take my commands from you. Besides, what makes you think that anyone but you would have made a big deal out of such a thing as knowing when a book was written?
-
Again TEP, everything you just said in reply to my last post is conjecture on your part, you haven't provided one shred of corroboration for your assumptions so it doesn't surprise me that you must discount the facts.
Just think of how it sounds for you, supposedly an otherwise smart fellow, to be saying that CBM, who enjoyed 25 months of playing TOC while learning about the game and its environs from the like of Old Tom, his son, the Dunns and David Strath; made Hoylake his home when on his trips abroad between 1875 and 1892; and built the Chicago GC, all before Walter Travis even bought his first set of clubs or ever played the game; was given the idea for his "Ideal Golf Links" from an article Travis wrote in 1902, when Macdonald himself says it 'happened' for him 10 months earlier, with the publication of the best hole discussion.
Why do I say that you continually try to trash Macdonald whenever the opportunity presents itself? I think your continuous disregard for the facts in this matter, and they are well documented facts, shows just how truthful that statement is.
-
"Avoid answering it? I'd have had to have read it first."
Moriarty:
That's right you would have had to have read it first! :) So why don't you show me where you read that anyone on here mentioned what Macdonald was referring to with his remark "It makes the very sould of golf shriek" when you said, "As usual, your discoveries come about 7 years after the rest of us have already moved on."
Perhaps by that you actually meant I was the first on here to mention what he was actually referring to by that remark but you seem to want to make it look like the rest on here were aware of what he was referring to for 7 years before I mentioned it on here in the last few months.
-
".....when Macdonald himself says it 'happened' for him 10 months earlier, with the publication of the best hole discussion."
Jim Kennedy:
Macdonald said himself it 'happened' for him 10 months earlier than WHAT? ;)
Do you even know when the results of that "Best Hole Discussion" were announced? I don't but Tom MacWood has informed us that the "Best Hole Discussion" BEGAN on Feb. 15, 1901. Assuming that's true, and I don't know that it is, what again are you talking about with your statement that for Macdonald it 'happened' for him 10 months earlier? What exactly 'happened' for him? Is that when he became aware of the holes on the list some of which he was not familiar with?
My point is if it is true what Macdonald himself said about the courses he played in his "Dark Ages" the fact is there were a number of holes on that best hole list that he had never seen before and from his own autobiography North Berwick's Redan, perhaps one of the most recognizable of his template holes at NGLA, was one of them. He didn't become familiar with that one personally until 1906 but Travis mentioned it from his trip abroad in July-August 1901.
Some on here are trying to say Macdonald could not possibly have mentioned in his autobiography all the courses and holes he was familiar with abroad in the 19th century!! Oh yeah, exactly why is that not possible?? I'm going with what Macdonald actually said in his autobiogrphy himself that he knew at that time while a few others on here are merely speculating on what they think he knew abroad. If Macdonald said something himself I would take it as much more of a fact than I would something someone like Moriarty says on here such as it is highly unlikely Macdonald mentioned in his autobiography all the holes and courses he knew at that time. That is total speculation on Moriarty's part and there isn't a scintilla of a fact to point to the truth of it. What I do know is Macdonald said he played TOC numerous times between 1892-1875, Hoylake numerous times in those years from 1872-1892 and he played Wimbleton at Cambridge a few times and a course called Colburn Commons at least once which he referred to as the worst excuse for a golf course he had ever seen in his life.
Again, that kind of thing is apparently part and parcel to why he referred to as those years from 1875-1892 as his "Dark Ages." ;)
-
You know the dates, but if you must play the role of ingenue: The best hole discussion ran for several weeks from its start date. Even if 'several' meant 8, or 12, that still predates any commentary from Travis by 7 months. Another fact you can't accept because it knocks your silly premise O.O.B.
I think you need to go back and read about the "Dark Ages" because they have nothing to do with the time he spent on the golf courses abroad between 1875 and 1892, just his frustration with the lack of any good places to play during his time in America.
I don't know if he visited any courses other than the ones he mentions during his DAs, or even during his time at school. I think it's likely that he did, but I don't think it matters if he did or he didn't. What does matter is the 2 year sojourn at St Andrews w/men who were the heart and soul of the game, his time spent in the wilderness of golf (the USA between 1875 and 1892), his trips back to Hoylake, et.al., during that period, and his subsequent revelation about the necessity of constructing an "Ideal Golf Links".
I don't think it's beyond the realm of belief to think that CBM eventually saw Travis' article, but if anything it probably would have suggested to Macdonald that here was a soul-mate who understood what the game and its playing fields were about. Given that Travis became a tremendously accomplished player, and had the same outlook as CBM, it doesn't surprise me that Macdonald asked him to be a part of NGLA.
I believe that's a much more plausible construct then what you are trying to present.
-
"You know the dates, but if you must play the role of ingenue: The best hole discussion ran for several weeks from its start date. Even if 'several' meant 8, or 12, that still predates any commentary from Travis by 7 months. Another fact you can't accept because it knocks your silly premise O.O.B."
Jim Kennedy:
On that specific point, obviously you aren't looking at it that realistically in a historical of logical context. Let's say that "Best Hole Discusion" did run for 12 weeks (as you just assumed) before the results or list was published which might've been some weeks before Macdonald in America at that time could've seen it. If it began on Feb 15, 1901 as Tom MacWood mentioned it did (assuming he's right), that would put the date the list may've been published by the London Golf Illustrated as late as the middle of May, 1901 and given publishing realities in those days perhaps even June. Travis was over there for what Macdonald referred to as his "golfing pilgrimage" from July to August 1901 and returned just after the middle of August.
Secondly, the golf club of Travis and Macdonald at that time was the same----GCGC and given they were both US Amateur champions at that time (1901---ie Macdonald in 1895 and Travis in 1900) one would have to assume they knew each other very well. And so if Travis spoke with Macdonald after he returned from abroad in August then we are down to a difference of 2-3 months between the publishing of that London Golf Illustrated "Best Hole" list and not to even mention the magazine needed time to trans-ship (not fly it;) ) across the Atlantic. Furthermore, we have no idea at all when Macdonald became aware of the London Golf Illustrated "Best Hole Discusion" in 1901 and its final published list of holes. Do you know if Macdonald even subscribed to that magazine in 1901? Of course you don't. I doubt anyone does at this point. Perhaps Travis brought him home a copy of it from abroad.
So your original 10 month and later 7 month assumption would not seem to be very historically or logically accurate when it came to both Travis and Macdonald.
So perhaps, in the future, you should dispense with your remarks like; "that still predates any commentary from Travis by 7 months. Another fact you can't accept because it knocks your silly premise O.O.B." ;)
-
"I think you need to go back and read about the "Dark Ages" because they have nothing to do with the time he spent on the golf courses abroad between 1875 and 1892, just his frustration with the lack of any good places to play during his time in America."
In the last few days I read the entire chapter a couple of more times. I think it might be you who needs to go back and read it. But if you are interpreting it differently than I am, I guess that's just the way it goes on here and with people in general. The one thing I have going for me, though, is I am just depending on what Macdonald actually said himself (after all what better source could there be? ;) ) and I am definitely not speculating on facts about him and his life and golf he never mentioned which a few on here seem to be constantly doing! ;)
-
I don't know if he visited any courses other than the ones he mentions during his DAs, or even during his time at school. I think it's likely that he did, but I don't think it matters if he did or he didn't. What does matter is the 2 year sojourn at St Andrews w/men who were the heart and soul of the game, his time spent in the wilderness of golf (the USA between 1875 and 1892), his trips back to Hoylake, et.al., during that period, and his subsequent revelation about the necessity of constructing an "Ideal Golf Links"."
I couldn't agree with that more, and I have not tried to add to it by speculating on what Macdonald did that he "didn't say." ;)
-
Tom,
There you go again, grasping at straws. This is why you have no credibility on the issue, you have to stretch out the time frame to silly lengths in a vain attempt to make your premise work, and even at that there are still a few months you can't 'lose'. So now you've lowered yourself into making some incredibly dubious claims that you can't even substantiate with your own tortured logic. That's not a reputable search for history, it's just another fabrication on your part and it lacks the scholarship you constantly chastise others for lacking. Wake up Tom, it's just another witch hunt.
And that's why I'll say that your participation on this thread has been little more than another attempt at bashing Macdonald. You really don't care what's true or not, you only care if it 'fits' into your sad narrative. You have never had one positive thing to say about Macdonald without slamming him in the next breath, and I'm sure you will continue on that road with your buddy at your side.
-
"Given that Travis became a tremendously accomplished player, and had the same outlook as CBM, it doesn't surprise me that Macdonald asked him to be a part of NGLA.
I believe that's a much more plausible construct then what you are trying to present."
Jim Kennedy:
Then what 'construct' do you think I'm trying to present other than your ridiculous contention that I am trying to promote Travis at the expense of Macdonald somehow? You can just keep saying that if you want, and apparently you do, but I have never said nor implied nor believed anything like that.
In 1901 Travis was the reigning US Amateur champion (from 1900) and arguably the premier amateur golfer in America at that time (C.B. Macdonald CLEARLY never had any intention of using a professional golfer or professional golf architect at NGLA or for anything else he ever did in golf course architecture and actually back then he gave his reasons for that which today might be viewed as somewhat politically or culturally incorrect ;) ) and he belonged to the same club as Macdonald---Garden City Golf Club---since Macdonald moved from Chicago to New York in 1900.
-
"Tom,
There you go again, grasping at straws. This is why you have no credibility on the issue, you have to stretch out the time frame to silly lengths in a vain attempt to make your premise work, and even at that there are still a few months you can't 'lose'. So now you've lowered yourself into making some incredibly dubious claims that you can't even substantiate with your own tortured logic. That's not a reputable search for history, it's just another fabrication on your part and it lacks the scholarship you constantly chastise others for lacking. Wake up Tom, it's just another witch hunt.
And that's why I'll say that your participation on this thread has been little more than another attempt at bashing Macdonald. You really don't care what's true or not, you only care if it 'fits' into your sad narrative. You have never had one positive thing to say about Macdonald without slamming him in the next breath, and I'm sure you will continue on that road with your buddy at your side."
Jim kennedy:
It's unfortunate you think that and it's even more unfortunate that you keep saying it on here. Nothing could be further from the truth. These things I have brought up are simply the facts of Macdonald's and Travis' history, to be determined, no matter how you want to skew it to try to make it look nefarious on my part or on Wayne Morrison's somehow. I'm not sure what it is with you two on here and on the subject of Macdonald and his life and times. It's almost as if you are scared of the truth and more scared still of discussing it. I guess that's what happens when someone wants to try to protect or more likely enhance a "legend" from the entire gamut of the facts of his own life and times and history. Isn't it just so ironic that you two (although MacWood should be added) were the ones who accused Wayne and me of doing that with Hugh Wilson? ;) But it wasn't the first time for MacWood. He tried to do the same thing with Crump and then later Leeds. And it's doubly ironic that the flip side of your accusations against us on Wilson was Macdonald! ;)
-
Jim kennedy:
It's unfortunate you think that and it's even more unfortunate that you keep saying it on here. Nothing could be further from the truth. These things I have brought up are simply the facts of Macdonald's and Travis' history, to be determined, no matter how you want to skew it to try to make it look nefarious on my part or on Wayne Morrison's somehow. I'm not sure what it is with you two on here and on the subject of Macdonald and his life and times. It's almost as if you are scared of the truth and more scared still of discussing it. I guess that's what happens when someone wants to try to protect or more likely enhance a "legend" from the entire gamut of the facts of his own life and times and history. Isn't it just so ironic that you two (although MacWood should be added) were the ones who accused Wayne and me of doing that with Hugh Wilson? ;) But it wasn't the first time for MacWood. He tried to do the same thing with Crump and then later Leeds. And it's doubly ironic that the flip side of your accusations against us on Wilson was Macdonald! ;)
Tom,
I think you'll have to come back to reality for a few minutes and show me any reason why I would be scared of whatever truth gets revealed about any dead architect we talk about on this site. I have nothing to gain or lose monetarily and I'm not writing any books whose veracity will depend partly on my deflating any one of them in particular.
As far as Wilson goes, I have never even considered attributing Merion to another man (and I have said this earlier) even though he got a lot of help from Macdonald and Whigham. Another ridiculous and unfounded attack by you.
You need to update your enemies list, Dick.
-
Jim Kennedy:
Regarding your last post, frankly, no matter what I say to the contrary both you and MacWood and Moriarty just seem fixated on labeling it anti-Macdonald or labeling it me saying something against him. That is not the case, it's not my intention and it's not my belief about Macdonald----that the truth of what he did or didn't do or did or didn't know at any particular time should minimize the reputation he held and holds today. These are just the facts of that time in history and his time. If someone else influenced him at particular times and in particular ways that should be known as wello and I don't feel anyone on here should try to limit or quash that understanding by trying to constantly shout it down as you three clearly have been on this website on the subject of C.B. Macdonald. Long ago I thought that kind of attempt was making the three of you look pretty foolish and now I think others feel the same way about the three of you. If the latter has happened I must say, at this point, it is not exactly something I now regret. My ultimate hope is you three will just stop that limiting this truth and the discussion of it nonsense and just learn how to discuss and deal with the facts of history.
"As far as Wilson goes, I have never even considered attributing Merion to another man (and I have said this earlier) even though he got a lot of help from Macdonald and Whigham. Another ridiculous and unfounded attack by you."
Yes Wilson did get help and advice from Macdonald and Whigam. THAT has been part of Merion's history for almost a century now and Wayne and I have been well aware of it for many years and well before this website came along and MacWood and Moriarty with it. We never claimed anything other than that on here or anywhere else, and yes I agree with what you just said that there is no reason to attribute Merion East to another man, at least in that original stage from 1911 until about 1915 when William Flynn became an essential part of the evolution of the design of the golf course and that is why today Merion attributes the design of Merion East to Hugh Wilson and William Flynn. The latter may not have happened or happened when it did if it were not for approximately ten years of research on the app. 20 year design development of Merion East by Merion's architectural historian, Wayne Morrison,
There is no enemies list here as you mentioned in your last post. That really is ridiculous on your part and for that I see no productive reason to carry on this subject with you or perhaps any other one, as you have been nothing more than a broken record on here for quite some time. If you learn to be a bit more open minded and a bit less contentious, at some point, perhaps that can change.
-
You make a poor victim Tom. :P
-
"You make a poor victim Tom. :P"
Perhaps I do, but you make a decidedly poorer perp, Jimboohoo Kennedy. ;)
-
TEPaul, your delusional about Merion, but this isn't the thread for it.
Jim Kennedy:
I see no productive reason to carry on this subject with you or perhaps any other one, as you have been nothing more than a broken record on here for quite some time. If you learn to be a bit more open minded and a bit less contentious, at some point, perhaps that can change.
Wouldn't this be nice! You bowing out of a conversation where you have nothing to add. Somehow I doubt it though, when I look at how you have ruined an otherwise interesting thread. Do you know that about 30 of the past 50 posts are yours? 60% of the posts by one guy -- the guy who hasn't really offered much productive in the entire conversation! How does one person have more than half the posts, anyway? That means some of the time of the time you are the only one answering your own posts. Get a life Tom.
-
Moriarty:
You don't read very well do you? Or you don't interpret what you read very well? Did I say I was bowing out of this thread? If so where did I say that? All I said is I don't see any point in continuing to discuss Macdonald or where he played abroad in the 19th century or who influenced him architecturally at any point in time with Jimboohoo Kennedy.
Discussion? You can't discuss a thing about Macdonald, his life, his times, his golf, his architecture etc with anyone on here that isn't some complete hagiographic paean to CBM, and you never could. I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon, since it's been going on any time his name comes up on here for about the last five years and since those Merion threads started over a half decade ago. :o
By the way, why don't you try producing something on here that QUOTES what anyone said in the last 7 years about what Macdonald was referring to with his remark----"It makes the very soul of golf shriek?"
Obviously you can't; and obviously you can't admit you can't, so I guess the next best thing is to just continue to avoid the question, huh?
Oh Jeeez, I forgot, Jimboohoo Kennedy will probably tell me I'm bashing Macdonald again if I even ASK you AGAIN to produce something on here someone said in the last 7 years about what Macdonald was referring to by his remark---"it makes the very soul of golf shriek."
-
I knew it. No such luck. You'll just continue dominating and therefore ruining every half way interesting thread. Too bad. I'll never understand why Ran puts up with a pompous windbag like you.
As for your revelation about what Macdonald was referring to, I haven't looked for any past discussions and don't plan to. It is pretty damn clear from the text that he wasn't referring to geometric architecture because his own description was not of geometric architecture! In fact one of the reasons I was convinced that you just read Scotland's Gift for the first time is that you just figured this out a month or so ago. Apparently I was overestimating your reasoning powers. There are many things in that book that I understand and may not, but that doesn't mean that every time I figure out a paragraph or that you and someone else gets one wrong, I have to do a post on it treat it as a major discovery.
Only you would be so self-important to treat this as a major revelation. It is in the damn text, for God sake. Get over yourself.
You have made a mockery of this thread Tom. First drawing unsupportable conclusions from the Travis article. Then trying to make something out of Travis that he obviously wasn't. Then grossly misreading SG, and pretending it was some sort of all encompassing diary when clearly it is not. Posting more than every other poster combined. Your agenda has never been so obvious.
You are ruining this website, turning the best threads into complete jokes.
-
.
-
Jimbo Kennedy:
When one does good on here I think it's a must they should be congratulated for it. And so I want to say that last post of yours was one of your finest to date. It's just so meaningful and educational, and it certainly is spare and to the point which is a lot better than I've ever been able to do on here. Thank you so much, even though after reading your post # 375 a few times I still can't be sure whether you're implying you think Travis actually saw North Berwick's Redan before Charlie Blair Macdonald did-----or not!
Do you think it would be possible for you to teach Moriarty this marvelous new-found direction of yours evidenced on your marvelous post #375?
-
.
-
Well, Jimbo, I guess the most important thing for you to consider, at this point, is whether you have a sense of humor or whether you don't. If somebody asked me that about you, at this point, I must admit, I wouldn't have the vaguest fucking idea what the hell to tell them! ;)
-
Tom,
In light of the fact that we will never see eye to eye on the last 10 or 20 percent of this issue I'm removing my prior posting.
-
"Given that Travis became a tremendously accomplished player, and had the same outlook as CBM, it doesn't surprise me that Macdonald asked him to be a part of NGLA.
I believe that's a much more plausible construct then what you are trying to present."
Jim Kennedy:
Then what 'construct' do you think I'm trying to present other than your ridiculous contention that I am trying to promote Travis at the expense of Macdonald somehow? You can just keep saying that if you want, and apparently you do, but I have never said nor implied nor believed anything like that.
In 1901 Travis was the reigning US Amateur champion (from 1900) and arguably the premier amateur golfer in America at that time (C.B. Macdonald CLEARLY never had any intention of using a professional golfer or professional golf architect at NGLA or for anything else he ever did in golf course architecture and actually back then he gave his reasons for that which today might be viewed as somewhat politically or culturally incorrect ;) ) and he belonged to the same club as Macdonald---Garden City Golf Club---since Macdonald moved from Chicago to New York in 1900.
TEP
Was Travis playing out of GCGC or Oakland when he won the Amateur in 1900? When did CBM join GCGC? Didn't originally play out of Tuxedo? I thought NGLA had a pro.
I'm having trouble following this thread. What is your latest theory on CBM and/or Travis?
-
I found this other day. What courses would have been considered the classic links of Scotland in Macdonald's day?
-
“I'm having trouble following this thread.”
Tom MacWood:
Are you? That’s too bad and I'm sorry about that; it’s unfortunate but perhaps we can rectify that. How would you like to have a discussion on this thread (or perhaps another one) that asks an interesting question that just might develop some edifying answers that you can follow and discuss?
How about we discuss the following question?
“What courses would have been considered the classic links of Scotland in Macdonald's day?”
I hope you like that question and can follow the discussion of it because it is your question from your post just above this one. How about we first define what we mean by “Macdonald’s day” since that arguably could extend in the context of golf and architecture all the way from 1872 to 1939?
So let’s just pick the year 1901, shall we? Why don’t you go first and tell us what you think a good way would be to determine what the classic links or holes from them were at that time and not just in Scotland but in Great Britain; and not just in our opinions but in the opinions of those men back then who were very much concerning themselves with a question like this one? After all weren't some of the holes Macdonald utilized and utilized the principles of with his ideal course (NGLA) from not just Scotland but GB generally?
-
"Given that Travis became a tremendously accomplished player, and had the same outlook as CBM, it doesn't surprise me that Macdonald asked him to be a part of NGLA.
I believe that's a much more plausible construct then what you are trying to present."
Jim Kennedy:
Then what 'construct' do you think I'm trying to present other than your ridiculous contention that I am trying to promote Travis at the expense of Macdonald somehow? You can just keep saying that if you want, and apparently you do, but I have never said nor implied nor believed anything like that.
In 1901 Travis was the reigning US Amateur champion (from 1900) and arguably the premier amateur golfer in America at that time (C.B. Macdonald CLEARLY never had any intention of using a professional golfer or professional golf architect at NGLA or for anything else he ever did in golf course architecture and actually back then he gave his reasons for that which today might be viewed as somewhat politically or culturally incorrect ;) ) and he belonged to the same club as Macdonald---Garden City Golf Club---since Macdonald moved from Chicago to New York in 1900.
TEP
I believe some of your facts may be wrong. Was Travis playing out of GCGC or Oakland when he won the Amateur in 1900? When did CBM join GCGC? Didn't he originally play out of Tuxedo? And I thought NGLA had a pro. Do you know?
I've had trouble following this thread because I've been tied up the last few days. You've launched quite a few trial balloons on this tread and was wondering what was your latest theory on CBM and/or Travis?
By Macdonald's day I'm referring to the late 19th C. - what were considered the classic links of Scotland at that time?
-
"TEP
I believe some of your facts may be wrong. Was Travis playing out of GCGC or Oakland when he won the Amateur in 1900? When did CBM join GCGC? Didn't he originally play out of Tuxedo? And I thought NGLA had a pro. Do you know?"
Tom MacWood:
To take those four questions ;) first;
1. Was Travis playing out of GCGC or Oakland when he won the Amateur in 1900? I am not sure about that but from Travis' biography it appears Travis joined GCGC during the year of the founding of the club itself which was 1900.
2. When did CBM join GCGC? I do not know for sure but it appears from CBM himself that he was a member of GCGC in 1903. But that does not mean he had not joined in 1900, 1901 or 1902.
3. Didn't he originally play out of Tuxedo? I don't know; I've never heard that before.
4. Do I know if NGLA had a pro? Well, not exactly, unless you tell me what years you have in mind. If you're asking me that question because of what I said about Macdonald seemingly never working with a professional architect, I really don't see what that has to do with whether NGLA had a golf professional or not at any point in time. ;)
-
Jim Kennedy and Moriarty:
I have a question for you both, which is, do either of you believe that Charles Blair Macdonald was arrogant in the way he approached and applied golf course architecture in his career? Please give a yes or no answer and any explanation you care to regarding your yes or no answer. Thanks
And I should add, I truly do hope you do not think I am bashing CBM for simply asking you this question, and I also hope you don't think this question to be one that is diverting or destroying this particular thread. Personally, I don't see how it can be as this thread is about the question that asks if Charles Blair Macdonald really was the father of Golf Architecture in America? And as such (Macdonald as the Father of American Golf Course Architecture) the question of whether he could or should be viewed as arrogant in the way he approached and applied golf course architecture seems to be an appropriate question for discussion.
-
"You've launched quite a few trial balloons on this tread and was wondering what was your latest theory on CBM and/or Travis?"
Tom MacWood:
On the subject of CBM and/or Travis that I believe you are referring to I think you can find my feeling on that in the posts that follow post #150 where I quoted from the Travis article that appeared in the Nov, 1901 edition of the London Golf Illustrated magazine.
"By Macdonald's day I'm referring to the late 19th C. - what were considered the classic links of Scotland at that time?"
Good question. Assuming nothing much changed with them between the late 19 C and June-August 1901 I would say the dozen or so courses (or a number of holes on them) Travis listed that he had played and admired is a pretty good start to answering your question. He also listed approximately forty holes he admired in GB.
-
"You've launched quite a few trial balloons on this tread and was wondering what was your latest theory on CBM and/or Travis?"
Tom MacWood:
On the subject of CBM and/or Travis that I believe you are referring to I think you can find my feeling on that in the posts that follow post #150 where I quoted from the Travis article that appeared in the Nov, 1901 edition of the London Golf Illustrated magazine.
"By Macdonald's day I'm referring to the late 19th C. - what were considered the classic links of Scotland at that time?"
Good question. Assuming nothing much changed with them between the late 19 C and June-August 1901 I would say the dozen or so courses (or a number of holes on them) Travis listed that he had played and admired is a pretty good start to answering your question. He also listed approximately forty holes he admired in GB.
TEP
In Macdonald's day - 1870s to 1890s - the premier classical courses would have been St. Andrews, Prestwick and Musselburgh. The second tier classical courses would have been courses like Carnoustie, Troon, North Berwick and Muirfield. North Berwick's greatest claim to fame came when it hosted half of the famous Park vs. Vardon match in 1899
I'm wondering what your latest theory is on Macdonald/Travis, as I said you've already launched several trial balloons (that have suffered crash landings):
1. Travis inspired the Best Hole Discussion
2. Travis was the first to suggest copying famous holes
3. CBM had little experience on British courses
4. Travis had a wealth of experience beginning in the 1890s
5. Travis designed Ekwanok in 1899
-
Tom MacWood:
Apparently you don't want to discuss what those interested in the subject at the time (1901) thought the best courses were in GB. Believe me I think I can understand why you probably don't.
On your list of five above, I wasn't floating any theories when I mentioned Travis on this thread; I merely asked some questions and I got some answers, and I think I learned a few things in the process. Do you have a problem with that on this DG? ;)
1. No, I don't now believe Travis inspired the Best Hole Discusion.
2. No, I don't think he mentioned copying holes in that 1901 article but he certainly did mentioning using some of the ideas and features on all those GB courses and holes he listed such as about 4-5 times more bunkers than he felt American courses had at that time. At that time Travis clearly felt American architecture was designed only for the mediocre golf and that it should be more difficult to inspire American golfers to get better. That theme was on that HJ Whigam would expand on in a significant article on architecture in 1909!
3. According to CBM himself that appears to be the case before 1902. It seems, by his own chronology of his own life, all he was really familiar with over there before that was TOC and Hoylake.
4. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Travis' was a remarkably quick study and learner for sure---eg winning his first tournament less than a year after taking up the game. And of course he developed an interest and talent for architecture very quickly too---eg leading to #5.
5. Yes, I believe Travis co-designed Ekwanok in 1899 with John Duncan Dunn.
Hope that helps.
-
Tom MacWood:
Apparently you don't want to discuss what those interested in the subject at the time (1901) thought the best courses were in GB. Believe me I think I can understand why you probably don't.
Don't you remember we already discussed it. If you will recall I posted the entire original article to show how you and Wayne were attempting to take that particular paragraph out of context.
On your list of five above, I wasn't floating any theories when I mentioned Travis on this thread; I merely asked some questions and I got some answers, and I think I learned a few things in the process. Do you have a problem with that on this DG? ;)
The hell you weren't.
1. No, I don't now believe Travis inspired the Best Hole Discusion. CHECK.
2. No, I don't think he mentioned copying holes in that 1901 article but he certainly did mentioning using some of the ideas and features on all those GB courses and holes he listed such as about 4-5 times more bunkers than he felt American courses had at that time. At that time Travis clearly felt American architecture was designed only for the mediocre golf and that it should be more difficult to inspire American golfers to get better. That theme was on that HJ Whigam would expand on in a significant article on architecture in 1909! CHECK
3. According to CBM himself that appears to be the case before 1902. It seems, by his own chronology of his own life, all he was really familiar with over there before that was TOC and Hoylake. IS THAT ALL? CHECK.
4. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Travis' was a remarkably quick study and learner for sure---eg winning his first tournament less than a year after taking up the game. And of course he developed an interest and talent for architecture very quickly too---eg leading to #5. CHECK, CHECK
5. Yes, I believe Travis co-designed Ekwanok in 1899 with John Duncan Dunn. DO YOU HAVE ANY PROOF OF TRAVIS'S INVOLVEMENT IN 1899?
Hope that helps.
-
Jim Kennedy and Moriarty:
I have a question for you both, which is, do either of you believe that Charles Blair Macdonald was arrogant in the way he approached and applied golf course architecture in his career? Please give a yes or no answer and any explanation you care to regarding your yes or no answer.
The old, tired, CBM-the-Arrogant-Ogre claim; perhaps the most overplayed and undersupported claim in the history of gca.com. You and Wayne have been gossiping about this for years, yet as far as I know you have yet to even bother to try and make the case. So I file it with the Whigham-the-Lackey and Emmet-the-Homosexual gossip, under "U" for Unproductive and Unsupported.
If you think you can make the case that CBM was "'arrogant' in the way he approached and applied golf course architecture in his career," go for it. But instead of rehashing the same old gossip and innuendo, how about you try it with verifiable facts? Skip the unsupported and irrelevant gossip about who commissioned his statue, or the vague, out of context references to a letter or two. Give us VERIFIABLE FACTS which support your claim that CBM was arrogant in the way he approached and applied golf course architecture.
While you are at it, how about explaining how your claim about his supposed unabashed arrogance at all diminishes what he accomplished? Again, please not another rambling oration about what you think might be most interesting about CBM, or about how your ancestors were of a higher class, or about how he wasn't of the same stature as his beneficator. Give us VERIFIABLE FACTS. Surely you understand the difference between making your case and just going on and on about how you think there is a case to be made, don't you?
As for what I think, I think you guy have well overplayed your hand, and that the facts just don't support the case you want to try and make (whatever that it.) But as I said, make your case and we shall see. Lay your cards down.
-
Tom MacWood;
Interesting response! ;)
It looks like you just had some kind of RED and YELLOW psychological flame-out out there in Ohio at your computer.
Never mind then; the list of people who find it virtually impossible to conduct any kind of conversation with you on here continues to grow! ::)
-
"Lay down your claim."
Moriarty:
I'd be glad to! But I suppose I should ask you first if you are ready, at this point, to discuss the "Macdonald, The Arrogant" claim when it comes to his approach or application to golf course architecture. I ask because you may not be ready to discuss that at this time. If it is brought up you very well may react as you have so often on here and become virtually hysterical blaming everyone but yourself for everything. :o
You see, it wasn't me or Wayne who made a claim like that on this website; it was none other than one David Moriarty and back in 2003!! ;)
Do you even remember your 2003 thread "Re: Did Macdonald 'Jump the Shark' with The Lido?" I was reading some of it today. It's presently residing on page 66 of the GOLFCLUBALTLAS.com back pages.
Why don't we bring it up and reprise it and see what YOU said about Charles Blair Macdonald's ARROGANCE? Nobody mentioned it to you back then, you pretty much brought up the subject all by yourself on that particular thread which I must say was a quite original one. So how do you like them apples? Pretty interesting the way The World Turns, huh, Moriarty? ;)
Please refer now to the following post and we should see who perhaps first floated the subject of CBM's arrogance on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com or at least who once seemed quite fascinated by the subject and apparently wanted to develop it and discuss it on this DG!
Frankly, I think the subject is a fascinating one and should be developed and discussed on here----the only problem is the author (Moriarty) seems to have had quite the change of heart and change of opinion, and he's now accusing others of denigrating Macdonald for suggesting he was arrogant perhaps about the way he approached and applied golf architecture. But again, we were not the first on here to make THAT claim----Moriarty made it himself on the "Did Macdonald 'Jump the Shark' with the Lido?" thread right around six years ago! ;)
But just watch him try to weasel his way out of this one even though the evidence is right here loud and clear in textual black and white.
-
FROM JUNE, 2003 Post by Moriarty!! ??? ;)
"DMoriarty
Guest
Re:Did the Golden Age 'Jump the Shark' with the Lido?
« Reply #146 on: December 28, 2003, 07:35:14 PM » Quote
Tommy,
You and I are of course talking about different things. You are talking about importing golf to the US, spreading it across the country, going forth and multiplying. Call it golf manifest destiny, if you like.
I am talking about the approach taken by golf course architects here (and there for that matter.) Whether here or there, most were working within the general constraints of the land (Surrey apparently accepted.) MacDonald was a revolutionary in that he went the opposite direction.
_______________
Jim and TEPaul,
If I left the two of you to define and argue my premise, we'd never have had anything to talk about. Eight pages in and you guys are still stuck in my first post, arguing issue that have been buried since the beginning.
Quote from: jim_kennedy on December 28, 2003, 04:34:57 PM
Your ultimate point seems to be that Macdonald sinned greatly by pumping muck to make a golf course when others of the time were working in harmony with the land.
I never said MacDonald "sinned greatly" or that he had done something terrible, nor am I trying to run him down or smear his name. I did say that he approached Lido entirely differently than others approached their projects, and this constituted a major break with the rest of the Golden Age.
I also said that attempting the Lido was an act of arrogance on the part of the MacDonald, but I am certainly not the first to call C.B. arrogant, am I? Any time an architect takes on a project for the thrill of becoming a "creator" and starts trying to match Nature bump for bump, I think it is fair to call them arrogant. And by the way, I think what C.B. tried to do at NGLA was arrogant also (for different reasons), even though he pulled it off.
I think that this is a large part of the misunderstanding. You guys mistake looking critically at one of the guy's projects with some sort of personal attack aimed at dimishing his greatness. If we cant look critically at these guys' methods and approaches, then what the heck are we doing hanging around this website?
Quote
In your view this should be seen as detrimental and contrary to the "Golden Age".
Contrary to the Golden Age? Yes, it most certainly was. Contrary in the architect's approach to the existing landscape. Others generally worked with the existing landscape, C.B. created his.
But was it detrimental? I admit that my first post treats the Lido as detrimental to GAA. But, very early on, I repeatedly conceeded this point, emphasizing that I was not trying to prove C.B.'s was detrimental to the Golden Age. Nor was I trying to prove any causual connection between the Lido and the demise of the Age. Thus the discussion about the departure being a "symbolic" departure, not a causal one. Thus my continued focus on the "Contrary" prong. Thus the description of the Lido as a modern course. Thus no mention of the "Detrimental" prong in post 37, where I try to set out my entire position. I dont know how I could have been more clear.
If this was truly my issue then both sides have been wasting time, we ought to have been discussing other C.B. courses influenced by C.B.'s approach taken at the Lido. [By the way, the two WWs would make that discussion very difficult, as they were intervening superceding causes.]
So we are left with the "Contrary" prong. And the architecture at the Lido was contrary. A reversal of the process. Something out of Nothing, as opposed to Something out of Something.
Quote
The major obstacle in your way, and one that you have yet to hurdle, is proving that Lido had any detrimental effect upon the golf course architecture of the time. This is the primary, salient point and one that you must successfully cross to continue on with the argument, that his "contrary to the time" building technique has any meaning whatsoever.
Frankly, I don't think there is enough evidence in the historical record for you, or anyone, to "jump" the first hurdle.
As I have said above, proving detriment to other GA courses isnt my "primary, salient point" nor even my point at all. It hasnt been for a very long time, if it ever was. My concern is with whether Macdonald's approach was contrary to the others of the time. The fact that there are no direct Golden Age descendents of the Lido bolsters my point, rather than tearing it down. As I have said repeatedly, regading MacDonald's approach to the using Nature and the natural landscape, the Lido was a modern course, not a Golden Age course.
Why is it that you guys want to continue to argue with points I have conceded? Perhaps we agree with everything else? Perhaps you agree that, in process, the Lido is a modern course, and that it represented a major departure from the rest of the Golden Age?"
-
Tom MacWood;
Interesting response! ;)
It looks like you just had some kind of RED and YELLOW psychological flame-out out there in Ohio at your computer.
Never mind then; the list of people who find it virtually impossible to conduct any kind of conversation with you on here continues to grow! ::)
TEP
Forgive me. I find it very difficult to have a serious conversation with someone who presents himself as knowedgable who in actuallity has limited knowledge and who continually distorts the few facts that he does know.
-
Tom MacWood:
You are forgiven by all means. I've actually come to feel quite sorry for you. Take it easy---I think you need a rest and probably a good and long one.
As for Ekwanok and Travis, I checked with Bob Labbance's associate who said he thinks the mention of Travis co-designing with John Duncan Dunn in the fall of 1899 comes from the club's history that includes hotel records and such.
So, this seems to be about the sixth course where Tom MacWood is claiming the club is wrong and he's right. I guess it pretty much gets down to who's going to believe some old indirect newspaper and magazine articles that Tom MacWood has and makes more out of then they even say and whose going to believe what the club has? It pretty much always boils down to that on here with you, it seems, so I guess we'll just have to leave it at that-----eg Tom MacWood claiming he's right and also claiming nobody else has the FACTS but him! ;)
-
Tom MacWood:
You are forgiven by all means. I've actually come to feel quite sorry for you. Take it easy---I think you need a rest and probably a good and long one.
TEP
Thats very kind of you - I have found it good to take some time to recharge the battery from time to time. Based on the bizarre emails and IMs you have been sending me perhaps we could both use a rest.
-
I'm sorry if you find my emails to you recently like the one asking you if you'd reconsider helping a number of us out on the USGA Architecture Archive bizarre. I note here I never got a response on that. Would you like to respond to that one here? That just showed me again pretty much where you seem to be coming from on the entire subject of golf course architecture and its history.
But never mind----we can call it a day if you think you need to take a rest. I think that time has come.
-
I'm sorry if you find my emails to you recently like the one asking you if you'd reconsider helping a number of us out on the USGA Architecture Archive bizarre. I note here I never got a response on that. Would you like to respond to that one here? That just showed me again pretty much where you seem to be coming from on the entire subject of golf course architecture and its history.
But never mind----we can call it a day if you think you need to take a rest. I think that time has come.
TEP
I don't respond to any of your messages. Its difficult to take the uninsulting messages seriously in between the insulting messages.
And why would I want to be involved with someone who has spent the last several years insulting and berating me -- publicly and privately? If the USGA was truly interested you would be the last person they would send to engage me. I have a very good relationship with them, and have for several years, and they are very aware of my opinion of you.
-
TEPaul,
Let me make sure I understand you? Your support for your repeated assertion that CBM was arrogant in his approach to golf course architecture is some misunderstanding you have about a single post of mine taken out of the context of a 6 year old thread? If you say so.
I haven't read that thread lately, nor do I plan to. After all it is six years old. But if I recall it correctly, I still believe much of what I wrote but some of it I might reconsider. I'd certainly present the entire thing differently, as I think I largely failed to get my point across. I've learned a lot since then, and while much of what I have learned has reinforced my beliefs surely some have changed. If my beliefs haven't changed, then I've been wasting my time.
I don't think the thread has much relevance here, especially since you didn't understand my point then and apparently still don't. I still view what CBM tried to do at Lido as arrogant, although I think he learned from the experience. I also think what he tried to do at NGLA took a certain amount of arrogance, but without it he never would have been able to accomplish what he did.
If you want to adopt my position from 2003 on the issue, be my guest, but you've got a ways to go before you understand it. Meanwhile, you still have not provided any FACTUAL BASIS for your claim.
As always, I remain ready for a fact based discussion.
As always, you fail to produce any facts that support your point.
-
"As always, I remain ready for a fact based discussion.
As always, you fail to produce any facts that support your point."
Moriarty:
YOU remain ready for a fact based discussion? No you don't because in this particular case it's all about what YOU said about Macdonald six years ago and in the interim have been accusing Wayne Morrison and me of saying about Macdonald----trying to downplay Macdonald and his contribution to American golf architecture, as an arrogant man and arrogant approach to architecture etc.
I've failed to produce any facts to support my point? Oh no I haven't; my point was simply you said what you've been accusing us of saying about Macdonald which we never said at all. I just reprised an entire five page thread ("Re: Did Macdonald 'Jump the Shark" with The Lido?"0 that is chocked full of a litany of posts from you saying exactly the same thing about Macdonald that you've accused us of saying. It is all there in black and white text for all to read and see.
You can't deny it now, Moriarty, and you can't weasel out of it by rationalizing it away with your ridiculous specious remarks. IT's ALL there for everyone to read and to see what a massive hypocrite you truly are. I suppose you could delete it or alter it but we will all see that you did that and tried to weasel out of it that way.
From time to time you have complained on here that you are worried about your reputation due to what many have said to you and about you on this website. You should be worried about your reputation----there is so much you have done and said on here that you should be worried about----and that old thread points out in spades that one of the things you should be truly worried about is being perceived as a real hypocrite.
-
Tom MacWood:
No problem; I won't ask you again to get involved in this USGA Architecture Archive effort. If you have friends in the USGA, as you say you have, this is something you should have offered to get involved in yourself a long time ago but you never did. I think it says a ton about where you're really coming from on this entire subject of the history of golf architecture. The fact seems to be you're in this just for yourself. Pretty selfish and self-centered I'd say. Don't worry, I won't contact you again in any way.
-
"As always, I remain ready for a fact based discussion.
As always, you fail to produce any facts that support your point."
Moriarty:
YOU remain ready for a fact based discussion? No you don't because in this particular case it's all about what YOU said about Macdonald six years ago and in the interim have been accusing Wayne Morrison and I of saying about Macdonald----trying to downplay Macdonald and his contribution to American golf architecture, as an arrogant man and approach to architecture etc.
I've failed to produce any facts to support my point? Oh no I haven't I just reprised an entire five page thread ("Re: Did Macdonald 'Jump the Shark" with The Lido?" that is chock full of a litany of posts from you saying exactly the same thing about Macdonald that you've accused us of saying. It is all there in black and white text for all to see.
You can't deny it now, Moriarty, and you can't weasel out of it by rationalizing it away with your ridiculous specious remarks. IT's all there for everyone to read and to see what a massive hypocrite you truly are.
________________________________________________________
As I figured, this was not an attempt at a legitimate discussion, but instead just the latest lame attempt at "gotcha," where you and Wayne (who knows if you even know how to use the search function) desperately go through these convoluted exercises just to try and make some inane point that has absolutely no relevance to any real topic whatsoever. Pulling up a 6 year old thread where I argued that CBM was arrogant for taking on the Lido project? So what. I still believe it. I haven't denied anything or tried to weasel out of anything. That Lido thread could have been a very productive, but if I recall correctly you ruined that one as well.
Anyway, I explained my basis for the opinion I expressed in that thread. In contrast, you and Wayne still have never backed up your gossip about CBM and his approach, or offered factual support for your repeated claim that his "arrogance" adversely impacted his work.
Every day you surprise me with just how unstable you have become.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
TomM,
I figured as much, but too bad you too are on TEPaul's hate-mail list. Yet more evidence that this guy is too creepy to deal with, yet too creepy to ignore. Do you suppose he has illicit photos of Ran and Ben? Otherwise why would they let a sleazy nut-job like this roam their site, harassing whomever dares cross him?
Do you suppose TEPaul even sees the irony in his taking umbrage about you ignoring what he writes on behalf of the USGA? Did he forget already that in the past he has sent you messages containing bald-faced lies about what various officials at the USGA had supposedly said about you?
Personally, I find it impossible to take the USGA seriously if they'd let either Wayne or TEPaul play any sort of role in anything remotely important. Never mind them repeatedly lying about and concealing important source information, imagine the USGA giving charge to the guy who, we've been told for years, pissed on the graves of some of the most important men in the history of golf and golf course design in America. And giving equal charge to his sidekick who celebrated and joked about the event (real or not) for years! Of course now they claim it never happened, but to me that is just as bad. What kind of creeps make up a story like this and run with it?
-
Moriarty:
There is just no having any discussion or conversation on this website with you, no matter what I do or how hard I try. I can't and the list is really long of others who couldn't, and others who had so much more to offer this place than you ever could have even if you remotely tried to cooperate with anyone which it seems you never have. I suppose you just don't know how to. I don't think anyone on this website really can have a decent discussion or conversation with you or not for long. You have pretty much fucked up GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and all on your own and that is a very remarkable prospect to consider, for sure.
Wayne Morrison is a very good friend, a good and cooperative guy in this thing we all love, and he is extremely productive at it, something I doubt you could ever hope to be the way you're going. He just sent me a few messages sort of pleading with me to get off this site because of you primarily. He thinks trying to do anything on here so long as you're on here is a complete waste of time and he basically just cannot understand why most all the others on here don't just stand up and demand that you be completely dismissed and permanently. I think Wayne is right, and I guess I always have.
-
Neither victimhood nor sanctimony suit you tom, so why don't you give 'em a rest.
For every accusation you make against those who don't agree with you there is an accusation they can make against you.
No one will ever 'win', period.
-
Moriarty:
There is just no having any discussion or conversation on this website with you, no matter what I do or how hard I try. I can't and the list is really long of others who couldn't, and others who had so much more to offer this place than you ever could have even if you remotely tried to cooperate with anyone which it seems you never have. I suppose you just don't know how to. I don't think anyone on this website really can have a decent discussion or conversation with you or not for long. You have pretty much fucked up GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and all on your own and that is a very remarkable prospect to consider, for sure.
You suggested we have a conversation. I told you to show your cards. Your response was to pull up a six year old post of mine and try to twist it with all your might. Yet I am the one who cannot have a conversation? Interesting.
At this point, Tom, I want you to leave me alone, and I want you to leave alone everyone else you try to hassle or bully. Surely you realize by now that I will not be bullied or browbeat I away from discussing things that interest me, by you or anyone else.
Wayne Morrison is a very good friend, a good and cooperative guy in this thing we all love, and he is extremely productive at it, something I doubt you could ever hope to be the way you're going. He just sent me a few message sort of pleading with me to get off this site because of you primarily. He basically just cannot understand why most all the others on here don't just stand up and demand that you be completely dismissed and permanently. I think Wayne is right, and I guess I always have.
Tom, Any grief caused you or Wayne is purely of your own doing. I'm not the one who is hiding the source material from one of America's greatest courses and suppressing its real history, while at the same time pretending to be acting in the best interests of the club and the USGA. I'm not the one who wrote for years about how you and another witnessed Wayne desecrate the graves of CB Macdonald, Seth Raynor, and try to desecrate the grave of H.J. Whigham (all at the Southampton Cemetery in the early fall of 2006.) I am not the one who claims there was even a photo of it. (Will that photo be in the USGA archives?) I am not the one who has lied and misrepresented the words and intentions of various officials at the USGA and certain clubs. I am not the one who has sworn vendettas against those who are merely interested in understanding the history of golf design. The list goes on, but you get the picture.
This is no place for anyone who wants his opinion accepted by decree rather than persuasion, and Wayne didn't want his pet theories and projects exposed to the light of day, and he found it impossible back up his claims with verifiable facts, so he left. While the same applies to you, I don't give a damn if you stay or go, but leave me the hell alone.
-
"You suggested we have a conversation. I told you to show your cards. Your response was to pull up a six year old post of mine and try to twist it with all your might. Yet I am the one who cannot have a conversation? Interesting."
What do you mean I tried to twist it?
It's just there in textual black and white from six years ago. You said what you said back then and so did I, so let's go, let's use it as it was and is, OK?; let's discuss it. Do you have a problem with that?
I don't.
-
Are you serious? One minute you are posturing to get me kicked off the website and threatening that one of us must go, and the next minute you want to discuss a post I wrote six years ago about a course we aren't even discussing? You are up and down like a toilet seat at a mixed party.
I explained myself repeatedly in that thread. Read it if you'd like, but I have no interest in rehashing it.
As I said above, if you ever bother to make your case regarding CBM's supposed shortcomings, then I'll consider it so long as you actually rely on facts as opposed to the gossip we have gotten so far.
We've got nothing to talk about unless and until you actually figure out how to start backing up your many questionable opinions with relevant fact, and can do so without being so insufferably rude and creepy.
-
As for Ekwanok and Travis, I checked with Bob Labbance's associate who said he thinks the mention of Travis co-designing with John Duncan Dunn in the fall of 1899 comes from the club's history that includes hotel records and such.
TEP
I have the club history and there is no mention of hotel records and such. There is a very good reason why Travis himself never took credit for the design.
-
"TEP
I have the club history and there is no mention of hotel records and such."
Tom MacWood:
Well then when it comes to the mention of the hospitality of the Equinox Hotel in Sept/Oct, 1899 in Bob Labbance's biography of Walter Travis, I guess you just assume he made it up.
I don't.
-
"TEP
I have the club history and there is no mention of hotel records and such."
Tom MacWood:
Well then when it comes to the mention of the hospitality of the Equinox Hotel in Sept/Oct, 1899 in Bob Labbance's biography of Walter Travis, I guess you just assume he made it up.
I don't.
TEP
If he had the hotel records wouldn't he've been more specific about the date or dates? Doesn't Sept/Oct 1899 seem a bit vague to you? By the way Travis's golfing activities are well documented during that time, he played in several events around NY in September and October (Lake Saranac event, Westbrook event, US v Canada at Morris County, Metropolitan Open at Nassau) and also played in the US Open in Baltimore in mid-September. There is no record of him playing at Manchester in September or October 1899.
-
Tom MacWood:
I realize Travis' golfing activities in the fall of 1899 are well documented. Matter of fact, Jim Kennedy listed them on this thread. Does that mean to you that he could not have been at Ekwanok when he was not elsewhere playing golf?
"If he had the hotel records wouldn't he've been more specific about the date or dates?"
Not necessarily. Bob Labbance was writing a biography of Travis and I'm not sure the exact dates when Travis stayed at the Equinox Hotel is that necessary or interesting to anyone other than perhaps you, at this point, because you are always trying to find mistakes in club histories and biographies and such, and that kind of question above is one of your techniques. As I said, I very much doubt Bob Labbance just made up that part about Travis enjoying the hospitality of the Equinox Hotel but apparently you think he did.
Again, I don't.
-
Jim Kennedy:
Allow me to ask you something: Here is something Moriarty said on this thread:
“The old, tired, CBM-the-Arrogant-Ogre claim; perhaps the most overplayed and undersupported claim in the history of gca.com. You and Wayne have been gossiping about this for years, yet as far as I know you have yet to even bother to try and make the case. So I file it with the Whigham-the-Lackey and Emmet-the-Homosexual gossip, under "U" for Unproductive and Unsupported.
If you think you can make the case that CBM was "'arrogant' in the way he approached and applied golf course architecture in his career," go for it. But instead of rehashing the same old gossip and innuendo, how about you try it with verifiable facts? Skip the unsupported and irrelevant gossip about who commissioned his statue, or the vague, out of context references to a letter or two. Give us VERIFIABLE FACTS which support your claim that CBM was arrogant in the way he approached and applied golf course architecture.”
And now here is something he said on a thread six years ago (to you and me actually ;) ).
“ I also said that attempting the Lido was an act of arrogance on the part of the MacDonald, but I am certainly not the first to call C.B. arrogant, am I? Any time an architect takes on a project for the thrill of becoming a "creator" and starts trying to match Nature bump for bump, I think it is fair to call them arrogant. And by the way, I think what C.B. tried to do at NGLA was arrogant also (for different reasons), even though he pulled it off.
I think that this is a large part of the misunderstanding. You guys mistake looking critically at one of the guy's projects with some sort of personal attack aimed at dimishing his greatness. If we cant look critically at these guys' methods and approaches, then what the heck are we doing hanging around this website?”
So let me ask you Jim, don’t you see anything peculiar about his approach to this very same subject on this thread including his accusation that Wayne and I are the ones responsible for this CBM-the-Arrogant-Ogre claim? Do you see anything hypocritical in the way he is acting now and what he is saying now in comparison to what he said six years ago on that thread I just reprised?
I should also point out to you Jim, if you read that old thread and this one on the subject of some arrogance on the part of CBM, you, at least, have been remarkably consistent over the years. It does not appear that you have changed your opinion on that particular subject but Moriarty certainly has and the fact that he refused to admit it or address it now and even tries to deny it and even blame that claim on Wayne and me shows me a pretty high degree of hypocrisy on his part.
I don't like that kind of hypocrisy and I know you don't either; therefore I see no reason why you should respond to him any differently on this thread than you did on that one "Re: Did Macdonald 'Jump the Shark' with The Lido?" six years ago.
-
Not necessarily. Bob Labbance was writing a biography of Travis and I'm not sure the exact dates when Travis stayed at the Equinox Hotel is that necessary or interesting to anyone other than perhaps you, at this point, because you are always trying to find mistakes in club histories and biographies and such, and that kind of question above is one of your techniques. As I said, I very much doubt Bob Labbance just made up that part about Travis enjoying the hospitality of the Equinox Hotel but apparently you think he did.
Again, I don't.
TEP
When writing a history (of any kind) the more precisely you can date an event the better. I don't go looking for mistakes (that would be a huge waste of time), I stumble upon revelations in the process of researching early American and British golf architecture. If you had ever conducted any research you'd probably know how the process works.
-
"When writing a history (of any kind) the more precisely you can date an event the better. I don't go looking for mistakes (that would be a huge waste of time), I stumble upon revelations in the process of researching early American and British golf architecture. If you had ever conducted any research you'd probably know how the process works."
Tom MacWood:
No question about it that precise dates are valuable or accurate dating in any case. That's why I put so much value in "timelining" for an accurate historical analysis such as the one with the creation years of Pine Valley, and perhaps even what CBM knew or didn't know abroad before 1902. I don't exactly go looking for mistakes either but certainly have come across some interesting ones, and mostly wholly accidental ones, of real significance and I am pretty intuitive about finding them through "Timelining." I do know how the process works despite your last remark which has gotten to be something akin to a broken record on here. You've said for years on here C&W is all I know while you know very well that's not remotely true as you also know very well why you keep saying something like that on here.
-
TEP
If Bob L. had the hotel records and the precise dates of Travis's visit (as you suggest) why would he present such vague time frame (Sept/Oct)? Does that make any sense?
-
Maybe he checked in on Sep. 30th and checked out Oct. 1? :o
-
...or checked in on Sept 1 and checked out Oct 31.
-
Tom,
I agree with David on this thread because he's mainly sticking to facts with some conjecture, I disagreed with most of his points on that other thread and I still do.
I agreed with you on various points on that other thread and I still do, on this thread I think you're more willing to forgo a reasonable interpretation of what facts are known in favor of conjecture.
What I notice on that other thread is a lack of any real confrontation between anyone, even though there were disagreements. Nowadays I see more confrontations, and they're not between David, Tom Mac, or myself even though we regularly disagree.
That's not a judgement, only an observation.
-
So let me ask you Jim, don’t you see anything peculiar about his approach to this very same subject on this thread including his accusation that Wayne and I are the ones responsible for this CBM-the-Arrogant-Ogre claim? Do you see anything hypocritical in the way he is acting now and what he is saying now in comparison to what he said six years ago on that thread I just reprised?
I should also point out to you Jim, if you read that old thread and this one on the subject of some arrogance on the part of CBM, you, at least, have been remarkably consistent over the years. It does not appear that you have changed your opinion on that particular subject but Moriarty certainly has and the fact that he refused to admit it or address it now and even tries to deny it and even blame that claim on Wayne and me shows me a pretty high degree of hypocrisy on his part.
I don't like that kind of hypocrisy and I know you don't either; therefore I see no reason why you should respond to him any differently on this thread than you did on that one "Re: Did Macdonald 'Jump the Shark' with The Lido?" six years ago.
Is this really all you have left Tom? Desperately begging other posters to take up arguments against me that have been fallow for 6 years?
Unlike you, I don't go into every discussion with some pre-ordained legend to protect or predefined point to make. I follow the facts where they lead me, and the facts have lead me to change my views on CBM significantly over the past six years. As I said above, I still believe much of what I wrote in that old thread, but would put it differently today. I welcome disagreement from Jim or anyone else, so long as they disagree without being a complete jerk.
And Tom, there is nothing hypocritical going on on my side You and Wayne obviously think that CBM was arrogant, but that has never been the problem. Rather, my problem with you guys is that you trash him with rumor, gossip, innuendo, and caricature, but you never bother to try to make your case with actual fact and analysis. Six years ago I set out the basis for my claim for all to see and challenge. In contrast you and Wayne stick to petty, small minded gossip, trying to trash the CBM's eputation indirectly, without ever bothering to back any of it up.
Make your case or let it go.
-
"Unlike you, I don't go into every discussion with some pre-ordained legend to protect or predefined point to make. I follow the facts where they lead me, and the facts have lead me to change my views on CBM significantly over the past six years. As I said above, I still believe much of what I wrote in that old thread, but would put it differently today. I welcome disagreement from Jim or anyone else, so long as they disagree without being a complete jerk.
And Tom, there is nothing hypocritical going on on my side You and Wayne obviously think that CBM was arrogant, but that has never been the problem. Rather, my problem with you guys is that you trash him with rumor, gossip, innuendo, and caricature, but you never bother to try to make your case with actual fact and analysis. Six years ago I set out the basis for my claim for all to see and challenge. In contrast you and Wayne stick to petty, small minded gossip, trying to trash the CBM's eputation indirectly, without ever bothering to back any of it up.
Make your case or let it go."
Moriarty:
If you changed your mind about CBM or his arrogance in approaching or applying golf course architecture, that is just fine with me---that's very cool with me, actually. I think as we live and learn we sure can and do change our perspectives and opinions about golf architecture and its architects, including CBM.
I've always thought he was arrogant with his approach, application, and the way he dealt with the world he lived in and that has always been fascinating to me---totally fascinating.
My problem with you is you said he was arrogant back in 2003 and in the interim you have been accusing Wayne and me of saying that first on here about Charles Blair Macdonald, but we never did. You've been saying we have but the fact is WE NEVER DID! I just proved that with that 2003 thread ("Re; Did Macdonald "Jump the Shark' with the Lido") you started YOU were the one who said that first, claimed that first and maintained it first and the fact you find it impossible to admit it to now and even deny on this thread is just about the height of hypocricy on your part, in my opinion!
If you think Wayne or me said Macdonald was some kind of arrogant ogre before you did with that thread or yours back in 2003 just show us all where we said that before you did. I've asked you to show us all that and the fact is you just completely avoid it? Why is that???? In my book, it's totally obvious and shows you to be the hypocritical twit you are and always have been on this website!! You're the dude who asks for facts, right?? ;) Well then, you weasel, show us the facts where we said that before you did on your 2003 thread (Re: Did Macdonald 'Jump the Shark" with The Lido?").
My bet is you can't do that or won't do that which shows totally loud and clear the complete hypocite you are and always have been on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.
Let's see you prove me wrong about that, Moriarty. My bet is you can't and all we will see is more of your tranparent attempts at argumentative deception!
-
TEP
Whatever you say.
-
My problem with you is you said he was arrogant back in 2003 and in the interim you have been accusing Wayne and me of saying that first on here about Charles Blair Macdonald, but we never did. You've been saying we have but the fact is WE NEVER DID! I just proved that with that 2003 thread ("Re; Did Macdonald "Jump the Shark' with the Lido") you started YOU were the one who said that first, claimed that first and maintained it first and the fact you find it impossible to admit it to now and even deny on this thread is just about the height of hypocricy on your part, in my opinion!
If you think Wayne or me said Macdonald was some kind of arrogant ogre before you did with that thread or yours back in 2003 just show us all where we said that before you did. I've asked you to show us all that and the fact is you just completely avoid it? Why is that???? In my book, it's totally obvious and shows you to be the hypocritical twit you are and always have been on this website!! You're the dude who asks for facts, right?? ;) Well then, you weasel, show us the facts where we said that before you did on your 2003 thread (Re: Did Macdonald 'Jump the Shark" with The Lido?").
My bet is you can't do that or won't do that which shows totally loud and clear the complete hypocite you are and always have been on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.
Let's see you prove me wrong about that, Moriarty. My bet is you can't and all we will see is more of your tranparent attempts at argumentative deception!
Is this a joke?
Are you seriously contending that you and Wayne have never said that CBM was arrogant, that he was an egomaniac, that his personality interfered with his designs? Do you really believe that you guys haven't incessantly mocked him and portrayed him as a temperamental self-worshiping asshole who listened to no one and only gave a damn about himself? Do you really think I cannot come up with examples of you guys portraying him as an egomaniac? You were cc'd on Wayne's recent email to me, weren't you?
Probably not a joke, so it must be your latest bizarre game. Obviously you've set it up so the result is dependent upon a bizarre and irrational condition: Who used the word "arrogant" first? Sorry, but I won't play. I never wrote that you guys portrayed him as an arrogant ogre first. I wrote your presentation of him as an arrogant ogre is old and tired, and has been overplayed and unsupported for years. I stand by that.
And for the record, I have never portrayed CBM the way you guys portray him. Lumping me in with you guys is absurd.
-
"Are you seriously contending that you and Wayne have never said that CBM was arrogant, that he was an egomaniac, that his personality interfered with his designs?"
Moriarty:
No, I've never contended on here that I've never said CBM was arrogant or some type of egomaniac. I think anyone who's studied the man admits that and so do I. I have said many times on here though that that really does fascinate me. I've also said many times that I think that aspect is a very good one for a good discussion on here. I would hope you would participate in it but you seem to only want to deflect the whole thing with posts similar to the ones you've made in the last few days. As to what you said about his personality interfering with his designs I have no idea what you mean by that unless it is some implication to some other personal problems he had that were referred to in some old letters from others who knew him.
What bothers me about you is you're now contending that Wayne and I were the ones who first claimed on here CBM was an arrogant man but I have shown it was you who did that on that six year old thread of yours "Re: Did Macdonald 'Jump the Shark' with The Lido?" Part of the point you were making on that thread of yours was that he was an arrogant man to have taken on a project like The Lido so as to practically play God or the Creator with a particular site and you even said you felt he was arrogant to have done NGLA. You tried to make the point that his arrogance with that project (The Lido) may've even destroyed the Golden Age of architecture and ushered in the beginning of some modern age of architecture where the land itself was not particularly respected or used to lead the roll of golf course architecture. Frankly, and in my opinion, that point really is a pretty interesting one to make and consider whether it was actually true or not.
I just think you need to admit that and stopped trying to blame Wayne and I for first claiming that on here. If you can't or don't admit it I think that shows some real hypocrisy on your part and obviously I don't think that's appropriate and certainly not at the expense of Wayne Morrison and I.
So, no, what I'm trying to say to you is not a joke at all; it is very serious, and I'm serious about it! You should be too.
-
"You were cc'd on Wayne's recent email to me, weren't you?"
Yes I was and I thought it was a most thoughtful and helpful message to you about this very subject. I think it's too bad you ignored it and failed to respond to him. I think a copy went to Tom MacWood too and he failed to respond as well. That's too bad, as a resolution was certainly in the offing with that message of Wayne's.
-
David Moriarty:
Let me just say this, and if you really consider it carefully, I think it can serve to get us off the dime of this constant adverserialness on here, at least about C.B. Macdonald and what his career was all about not just in and of itself but how it may've affected other architects and their approach at the time and afterwards----at the very least in an architecturally "symbolic" sense----ie Man as the ultimate Creator of GCA or Land (Nature itself) as the ultimate Creator or canvas.
I just reread the first page and a half of that six year old thread of yours "Re: Did Macdonald 'Jump the Shark' with The Lido?" and I can very clearly see how your primary point was pretty much misundertood as most of the rest of us (not all to some extent but most of us) sort of compartmentalized the thread into other points or subjects or Sub-subjects that didn't have much to do with your point. Some seemed to understand your point or premise but just rejected it out-of-hand fairly quickly.
Your first post really wasn't bad at all or misleading at all (with my recent rereading) as you claimed it may've been on your post #33. That post (#33) was very clear as to what you were trying to say.
I think this (that thread) is a large and fascinating and very important subject and I think it should be reprised (or restarted on another thread) and thoroughly discussed on here.
The irony may be that even though I apparently missed your point in that thread six years ago I don't think I am missing its point now, and I also believe I pretty much completely agree with the point you really were trying to make on that thread.
Frankly, I don't think it even matters if no golf course like a Lido was done again for the next half century; it occurs to me that the fact The Lido happened the way it did very well may've turned much of the Golden Age and some of its most signficant architects down a road that was essentially the opposite of Lido and that may even explain some of Macdonald's later discontent with the things he saw around him into the 1920s and beyond! ;)
-
1. I never claimed you guys were the first to call him arrogant. Rather, I wrote that your guys have never bothered to back up or support your long continuing gossip and innuendo about his supposed character flaws. See Wayne's "Macdonald's Gift: Golf" post in the Lido thread, for example.
2. My take on Wayne's recent email (and the insults and cheap shots it contained, especially at the end) is a bit different than yours. Nonetheless, while it is none of your business, I did respond to him and invited continued dialogue so long as it was civil. He declined the invitation.
3. Last night you were ranting against me, insulting me, trashing my efforts on the old thread, harassing me via private email despite my requests that you leave me alone, and demanding that I be kicked off the website, and threatening to leave if I was not kicked off. This morning you want to rehash this six year old discussion as if things are peachy keen? No thanks.
-
I think the last post for this thread should come not from me, or from any other actors, but from JC Urbina who posted the original inquiring thread; something like...
"Well JC, you've seen it from all corners and watched it played in many winds...what do you now think about the question you posed?"
-
Based on what was in CBM's rear view mirror, the date he started his GCA, and his accomplishments, I am agreeing with HW Wind.
-
Vinnie...
I wanted to thank you for your post #38.
Right about the time this thread started my Scotlands Gift arrived in the mail. I'd previously read your post and thought it was good, as are all your posts. But as I began reading the book and especially that chapter on his time in St. Andrews and then his returning home to nothing but garbage golf courses...your post really hit home with me.
I can't imagine being so deeply in love with golf, being in the home of golf, playing with others who love the game as much as you, and then going somewhere where there is no golf to speak of. I would be crushed, depressed, and in agony. As I imagine CB MacDonald was...and your post really hit home on that one.
Terriffic work. And I mean this sincerely, I think reading your post while at the same time reading Scotlands Gift opened up my eyes to how fortunate I am to be in such a golfing mecca and have all these opportunities to play this great game at almost anytime I want.
It is truly a blessing.
Thanks!!!
As an FYI to all GCA'ers...there is a 99% chance that I will have an unfilled spot in a foursome at East Lake the 3rd of December. Pop me an private message if anyone has interest. The spot has now been filled...FYI.
Anyway...that is all.
-
JohnS:
Interesting what you just said there. I was rereading Herbert Warren Wind's Forward in the Classic Books reprint of C.B. Macdonald's 1928 autobiography, "Scotland's Gift Golf" and I believe he definitely summed up in seven pages CBM's life and times a whole lot better than anyone on this website ever has, but then again, none of us are a Herbert Warren Wind. ;)