Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Frank Giordano on May 05, 2014, 02:47:58 PM
-
In an earlier thread about Willie Park, Jr.'s impact on the game, I noted that Walter Travis was rarely mentioned here, although one could argue his impact on the game was very significant as the game was in its infancy in America. Here's a copy of a brief piece I wrote for the Pinehurst MEMBERabilia, the Country Club's newsletter, in advance of last year's playing of the North-South championship here. Is Travis not accorded his due respect on this website? Can others reinforce our knowledge of the magnitude of his achievements? Or can any of us suggest reasons why Travis is rightly ignored here?
Here's the article.
The North & South Amateur Champion 100 Years Ago
--by Frank Giordano
When he arrived in Pinehurst to compete in the 1912 North & South Amateur, the 50 year old Walter J. Travis had already established himself as one of America's greatest golfing figures of all time. The most successful amateur golfer in the country during the early 1900s, Travis had already won three US Amateur titles and, in 1904, became the first non-British golfer to win their national amateur championship. Living in the New York City area, where golf early established a foothold in this country, Travis had already won the Metropolitan Golf Association (MGA) championship three times. His successful campaign here one hundred years ago garnered for him a third North & South title. Yet Travis wasn't finished with major amateur titles, as he captured a fourth MGA cup at the age of 53.
Walter Travis was far more than a great amateur champion, though. His many-faceted talents as an author-publisher, equipment innovator, and golf course designer earned him a unique place among America's golfing elite. Only Jack Nicklaus has achieved so vast an influence upon the game as Travis, although Jack's contributions as architect, equipment designer, and author have all benefitted from the labors of a large supporting staff of professionals.
Walter Travis was a prolific writer on a variety of golf topics, and his first book, Practical Golf (1901), treated such topics as golfing techniques, golf equipment, construction of golf courses, the design and placement of hazards, the rules of golf, and handicapping in the conduct of golf competitions. The American Golfer magazine, which Travis founded and published in 1908, was the most influential golf magazine of its time.
A fearless innovator, Travis tried whatever new approaches and equipment that offered him an edge in competition. The first player to win a major event — the 1901 U.S. Amateur — using the Haskell rubber-cored golf ball, Travis virtually changed the nature of golf overnight. The gutty ball was dead, inserts were needed in the face of wooden clubs to prevent splitting, and golf courses had to be lengthened because of the longer shots made possible by the Haskell.
Travis achieved his British Amateur victory using the aluminum Schenectady center-shafted putter, which the Royal and Ancient would eventually ban along with all mallet-headed putters. He experimented with varying lengths of driver shafts, up to 50 inches, to gain greater length off the tee. At his home course in New York, Travis employed smaller cups on the practice green, to sharpen the accuracy of his putting.
A giant of a man, with a gigantic ego, Travis may belong among the game's very greatest course architects. It is not fanciful to call him the first "U.S. Open Doctor," given his remodeling of the Country Club of Buffalo and Columbia Country Club courses just prior to their hosting the Opens in 1912 and 1921. The credit he once claimed for the design of Pinehurst No. 2, however, is another story, which will perhaps be told another time.
-
"A fearless innovator, Travis tried whatever new approaches and equipment that offered him an edge in competition. The first player to win a major event — the 1901 U.S. Amateur — using the Haskell rubber-cored golf ball, Travis virtually changed the nature of golf overnight. The gutty ball was dead, inserts were needed in the face of wooden clubs to prevent splitting, and golf courses had to be lengthened because of the longer shots made possible by the Haskell."
My hero. ;)
-
I think his 1904
Open British Amateur win was the nitrous oxide that powered the golf engine in the USA.
-
The theme of this discussion thread pretty much sums up the almost 20 year mission of the Travis Society. We would argue that Travis's contributions to the game of golf are largely unknown and underappreciated. Among other factes of his contributions follows. His great success as an amateur golfer can be only attributed to his study of the game, and personal dedication. Without question, he was the country's leading and most well-known golfer through the first decade of the 1900s. His positive influence on the games of Bobby Jones and Frances Quimet are well documented. His influence on the development of golf equipment is seen throughout the early literature. His golf course design ideas were revolutionary in the very early 1900s, e.g. can you find anyone who wrote so frequently and disparagingly about the ubiquitous use of cross-bunkers, and the strategic placement of bunkers earlier than Travis? I'm ignoring his influence on the rules and format of play, or his years as founder and editor of The American Golfer, etc, etc., etc. I rest our case.
-
Ed:
What's your take on Travis's influence on Ross, in light of his words in this American Golfer article:
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1920/ag2333f.pdf
Sven
-
The theme of this discussion thread pretty much sums up the almost 20 year mission of the Travis Society. We would argue that Travis's contributions to the game of golf are largely unknown and underappreciated. Among other factes of his contributions follows. His great success as an amateur golfer can be only attributed to his study of the game, and personal dedication. Without question, he was the country's leading and most well-known golfer through the first decade of the 1900s. His positive influence on the games of Bobby Jones and Frances Quimet are well documented. His influence on the development of golf equipment is seen throughout the early literature. His golf course design ideas were revolutionary in the very early 1900s, e.g. can you find anyone who wrote so frequently and disparagingly about the ubiquitous use of cross-bunkers, and the strategic placement of bunkers earlier than Travis? I'm ignoring his influence on the rules and format of play, or his years as founder and editor of The American Golfer, etc, etc., etc. I rest our case.
Ed
Are you speaking in an American context or describing his influence world wide ?
Niall
-
Ed,
Interesting comment about cross bunkering, a feature that was tremendously repetitive at GCGC in 1938.
If Travis didn't like them he sure fooled the members at GCGC
It would seem that some of these ODG's did one thing and wrote another.
I agree that Travis is under recognized in golf, ditto Emmett, Flynn and Wilson
-
Ed,
Interesting comment about cross bunkering, a feature that was tremendously repetitive at GCGC in 1938.
If Travis didn't like them he sure fooled the members at GCGC
It would seem that some of these ODG's did one thing and wrote another.
I agree that Travis is under recognized in golf, ditto Emmett, Flynn and Wilson
-
I think his 1904 Open win was the nitrous oxide that powered the golf engine in the USA.
Agreed. An under-appreciated event in the history of American golf. It is usually over-shadowed by the US Open at Brookline nine years later.
Bob
-
Ed,
Interesting comment about cross bunkering, a feature that was tremendously repetitive at GCGC in 1938.
If Travis didn't like them he sure fooled the members at GCGC
Patrick:
Are you sure the cross bunkers should be attributed to Travis and not to Emmet?
I don't know the answer to that.
-
Ed:
What's your take on Travis's influence on Ross, in light of his words in this American Golfer article:
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1920/ag2333f.pdf
Sven
Beyond his skills as a player, Travis 'got' the quiet revolution in golf architecture that took place in Britain (circa 1901) much earlier than most in the US. From what evidence I've seen, Travis' American contemporaries understood that and he was consulted often.
Travis' influence on early 20th century gca remains under-appreciated. I'd guess the primary reason for that is because he did not design many courses in his own name pre-1910. But Travis keeps turning up as a consultant over that decade. The extent of that consulting will take some digging in local newspaper archives.
Bob
-
Patrick--
Didn't Emmet change a lot of Travis's work at GCGC. Perhaps he returned some of his cross-bunkers. On the other hand, in his 1909 article in The American Golfer, titled, "Garden City's New Hazards", Travis listed cross, or cop bunkers, on #3, 10, & 14. The cop-bunker on #10 was described as the "Old Cop Bunker", so it appears that he left some of Emmet's cross-bunkers, and maybe added some, but did not rigidly adhere to his basic principles in that project. It is apparent that he added many bunkers there, stating that when the project is completed, the course would have 150 hazards (not counting the large number of "sand patches on the sides"). On those courses, whose original Travis drawing I've studied, he stuck to his notions about strategic placement along the sides of fairways (those courses include: Lookout Point CC, Cherry HIll Club, Pennhills Club, Stafford CC, CC of Troy, Yahnundasis GC, & CC of Scranton).
Re Sven's question about Travis's influence on Ross. If you opened that link you'll see--in addition to Travis's opinions about cross-bunkers, his reference to "a history of the number two or championship course at Pinehurst". In that section of the 1920 article, Travis claims major responsibility for convincing Mr. Tufts of the need to make #2 "more exacting". When, in Travis's words, "I won him around to my way of thinking and he gave me carte blanche to go ahead, I knew the changes that I had in mind would result in a big uproar at the start, and I didn't feel like shouldering the whole responsibility. So, I suggested that Donald Ross and I should go over the course together, without conferring, each propose a separate plan." He goes on to say, "For some time I had been pouring into Donald's ears my ideas: in point of fact, I had urged him to take up the laying our of courses---".
Those are some lofty claims. I recall having conversations about this article with Bob Labbance, at the time he was working on "The Old Man", and, as the Travis Society's archivist, I was providing research assistance. Bob's opinion, with which I concurred, was that the must have been some validity to Travis's claims. Otherwise, we would have found some evidence of his claims being disputed. On the other hand, I don't think that anyone associated with the Ross Society believes that Ross was influenced by Travis. I have not read any of Ross's works, but I haven't heard that he gives any credit to Travis. My personal experience with Travis and Ross courses adds nothing, in terms of verification, but I must say that on a few Ross courses, such as the CC of Buffalo or Teugaga CC, the green sites feel very familiar to me, as a Travis-nut. One of those intriguing mysteries, subject to lots of speculation. I tend to believe Travis because, having read most, if not all of his writings, I have been impressed by his modesty regarding his achievements (discounting his description of the 1904 British Amateur).
Ed
www.travissociety.com
-
Ed,
Interesting comment about cross bunkering, a feature that was tremendously repetitive at GCGC in 1938.
If Travis didn't like them he sure fooled the members at GCGC
Patrick:
Are you sure the cross bunkers should be attributed to Travis and not to Emmet?
Tom,
I guess part of the answer to your question is whether Travis endorsed cross bunkering by retaining Emmett's prior work.
As to differentiating between what Travis introduced and what Travis left intact, and what Emmett may have reintroduced or left, I'd have to spend some time with Tom Kirby in the archives.
I don't know the answer to that.
-
Ed:
Other than GCGC, where the cross-bunkering may or may not be a vestige of a course built before Travis had fully developed his anti-"Willie Dunn System" sentiments (or were even the work of a different architect all together), are there any other Travis courses that have features that are reminiscent of the geometric architecture he decried in that article?
All the best,
Sven
-
Sven--There are none that I know of. It would be interesting to have original drawings of Travis's very early courses such as the Mount Pocono GCC 9-holer that he designed in 1903. His 1916 drawing of the Roscoe Conkling Park course in Utica, NY did not have cross-bunkers, nor di his 1916 Park Club course in Orchard Park, NY. Leads me to think that he was faithful to the principles that he described very early in the 1900s, with the exception of GCGC.
I have not been able to determine if other designers wrote about the strategic and aesthetic placement of bunkers prior to Travis. He added a chapter on hazards to his book "Practical Golf" in 1902 in which he supported the notion of creating hazards, and expressed distaste for the cross-bunker type of hazard. He illustrated his opinion with hazards drawn along either side of the fairway. Had others written about this 'modern' type of bunkering prior to Travis? If not, why is he not given more credit for the concept?
Ed
www.travissociety.com
-
Hollywood had numerous cross bunkers.
Another example of the field product differing from their writings
-
There's an old plan of Hollywood in the men's clubhouse that predates Travis' renovations. It'd be worth looking at that to see how many cross bunkers Travis inherited.
-
There's an old plan of Hollywood in the men's clubhouse that predates Travis' renovations. It'd be worth looking at that to see how many cross bunkers Travis inherited.
Blake,
If an architect is brought in to an existing golf course and retains specific features from that course, that's tacit approval of those features.
-
I think it is a real stretch to call any of the original Travis bunkering at Hollywood "cross-bunkers". But, given the very large number of bunkers on holes such as #12, it was virtually impossible to get to the green without going over a bunker. And, #3 had fairway bunkering that stretched nearly across the fiarway. None of those resemble the cross-bunkering that was ubiquitous in the very early days of golf course design, and as illustrated in Travis's 1920 article mentioned previously in this thread. That does not disprove your point, Patrick, nor am I trying to. Just looking at the impact that Travis had on golf course design in terms that what he expressed in his writings and that vast majority, if not all, of his golf course projects.
-
From Tom Paul:
Walter Travis never won a US or British Open but he sure did shock the British in 1904 by winning the British Amateur (the first American to do so).
But as a far as being under appreciated as the first American to win the US Open, that distinction would have to go to Philadelphia's John J. McDermott who won the US Open in 1911 and 1912 (and in 1911 as the youngest in history). For some reason that fame seems to go to Francis Ouimet who won the US Open in 1913. Why is that? It could be because Ouimet was an amateur and McDermott was a pro.
-
I would agree with Patrick's assertion that if an architect, while remodeling, leaves existing features on a course, that is "tacit" approval. In the case of Hollywood, I think that the best source for determining what Travis did there is a map published in the HGC history book. There are absolutely no cross-bunkers of the type that Travis railed against, and illustrated in various articles.
-
Ed:
A while back there was a thread on the "economy" or early remodels, essentially noting many features were left as they were due to reasons of cost and effort.
Unless we know the specific reasons why features were left as they were, I don't think any assumption regarding tacit approval can be based solely on the fact that those features were left undisturbed.
I would state that in the case of a wholesale remodel, the argument is a lot easier to buy.
Sven
-
I would agree with Patrick's assertion that if an architect, while remodeling, leaves existing features on a course, that is "tacit" approval. In the case of Hollywood, I think that the best source for determining what Travis did there is a map published in the HGC history book. There are absolutely no cross-bunkers of the type that Travis railed against, and illustrated in various articles.
Ed,
Maps are nice, but, I'll have an early aerial that I have of Hollywood posted by Bill Brightly.
I think you'll find an abundance of cross bunkers in the photo.
The aerial reflects what was built and played.
-
I think it is a real stretch to call any of the original Travis bunkering at Hollywood "cross-bunkers".
Early aerial photos refute that statement.
But, given the very large number of bunkers on holes such as #12, it was virtually impossible to get to the green without going over a bunker.
And, #3 had fairway bunkering that stretched nearly across the fiarway.
None of those resemble the cross-bunkering that was ubiquitous in the very early days of golf course design, and as illustrated in Travis's 1920 article mentioned previously in this thread.
What about the cross bunker on # 4 ?
9 ? 16 ? 18 ?
That does not disprove your point, Patrick, nor am I trying to. Just looking at the impact that Travis had on golf course design in terms that what he expressed in his writings and that vast majority, if not all, of his golf course projects.
Ed,
The photo is very revealing.
Hollywood had to be one of the great courses in the country.
It's a shame that it was softened over all these years.
Especially when you consider that it's less than a mile from the ocean and enjoys great breezes.
-
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Hollywood.jpg) (http://s228.photobucket.com/user/wcb323/media/Hollywood.jpg.html)
-
Patrick:
What would be really helpful is a map of what the course looked like before Travis redid it.
Sven
-
Patrick:
What would be really helpful is a map of what the course looked like before Travis redid it.
Sven,
I'll try to get a copy of the map
If I recall correctly Tom MacWood had an abundance of material on Hollywood.
Maybe there's an old thread on it.
I remember battling with Tommy Naccarato about Hollywood
-
From Tom Paul:
Walter Travis never won a US or British Open but he sure did shock the British in 1904 by winning the British Amateur (the first American to do so).
But as a far as being under appreciated as the first American to win the US Open, that distinction would have to go to Philadelphia's John J. McDermott who won the US Open in 1911 and 1912 (and in 1911 as the youngest in history). For some reason that fame seems to go to Francis Ouimet who won the US Open in 1913. Why is that? It could be because Ouimet was an amateur and McDermott was a pro.
Duly noted. :-[ Rookie mistake.
-
The aerial posted is terrific. And, it is amazing to me how closely the map I referred to earlier depicts what is present in the aerial. Difficult to find any differences. And, I would like for someone to point out the kind of cross-bunkering that Travis opposed in this aerial. I'm referring to cross-bunkering of the old-style, that essentially consisted of a trench dug across the fairway at predicatable intervals. Guess it boils down to definition of cross-bunkering.
In reference to Sven's earlier post, it is my understanding that the Travis remodeling of HGC in 1917 was a complete rebuild of greens and bunkers. The routing was essentially the same as Mackie's.
-
From Tom Paul:
Walter Travis never won a US or British Open but he sure did shock the British in 1904 by winning the British Amateur (the first American to do so).
But as a far as being under appreciated as the first American to win the US Open, that distinction would have to go to Philadelphia's John J. McDermott who won the US Open in 1911 and 1912 (and in 1911 as the youngest in history). For some reason that fame seems to go to Francis Ouimet who won the US Open in 1913. Why is that? It could be because Ouimet was an amateur and McDermott was a pro.
And also because JM was a hothead and FO epitomized the gentleman-golfer archetype so desired by the USGA. And perhaps because JM kinda sorta went nuts and lived in and out of institutions his remaining years, while FO never kinda sorta went nuts.
Then there's that Buffalo vs. Boston thing...
-
You folks should go take look at the restoration of Hollywood. Ed has some pics of the new work on his website, but it's hard to appreciate the scale in those photos.
-
From Tom Paul:
"Jimbo:
Don't apologize for any 'rookie mistakes' because I'm not gonna apologize for my mistakes with starting out goofy and getting goofier fast. But, I tell you what---with your supreme research ability I would just love to see you do some deep research on the relationship between Travis and Macdonald, say in the timeframe of maybe 1910 to 1920. Being interested in golf and golf architecture history, I would just love to have been a fly on the wall when those two guys ran into one another alone in some room somewhere during that timeframe! (what were their issues with one another? ! would have to say an ongoing misunderstanding over the entire Schenectady Putter issue, as well as tension on USGA Amateur States Rules and Regs which Macdonald apparently had a strong hand in drafting in the teens.").
-
Joe,
Both were fellow members of GCGC
-
From Tom Paul:
"Jimbo:
Don't apologize for any 'rookie mistakes' because I'm not gonna apologize for my mistakes with starting out goofy and getting goofier fast. But, I tell you what---with your supreme research ability I would just love to see you do some deep research on the relationship between Travis and Macdonald, say in the timeframe of maybe 1910 to 1920. Being interested in golf and golf architecture history, I would just love to have been a fly on the wall when those two guys ran into one another alone in some room somewhere during that timeframe! (what were their issues with one another? ! would have to say an ongoing misunderstanding over the entire Schenectady Putter issue, as well as tension on USGA Amateur States Rules and Regs which Macdonald apparently had a strong hand in drafting in the teens.").
For starters, I'm pretty sure that Travis raised a few Southampton eyebrows and caused at least one moustache to twitch when he penned this* in October of 1912:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5160/14160969653_940ebdcd39_o_d.jpg)
* found at LA84 Foundation
...and even though they 'fell out' prior to '12, Travis may have expressed a strong opinion that NGLA was going to be 'too hard' early on. That, and his apparent disdain for 'copied' holes wouldn't be overly appreciated by another gentleman with equally strong opinions (you know who ;D ).
-
Jim, that makes for nice, juicy gossip, but I am not sure the record supports the theory that Travis's comments/feelings about NGLA lead to the apparent falling out. It seems much more likely that it was the opposite. Travis had been effusive in his praise for NGLA during the process and at its completion. And as for his supposed distain for copied holes, what about his 18th at GCGC, which was very much a copy of the Eden? Also there were reports of plans to build a Redan there too, but I don't think that happened.
I think there had long been tension between Travis and a certain element of the US golf establishment (not necessarily CBM). I recall seeing articles as early as 1904 where certain figures disparaged Travis for pushing the bounds of Amatuerism.
ADDED: Actually the accusations of professionalism go back to the first year or two of the new century.
-
David,
There may have been additional frictions created by the "Schenectady Putter".
CBM could be considered an influential member of the USGA.
In 1910 the R&A banned the putter, but, the USGA did not follow suit.
However, it could be that CBM was in favor of having the USGA ban it.
That would certainly lead to bad feelings, especially considering their relationship prior to 1910.
-
True David, but I don't believe that I suggested that this article was the situation changer in their relationship, only one more piece.
Like you, I don't think there is a definitive moment that changed their relationship, probably more like some little digs, or failures to have the other's back, or taking unbending positions that have an impact on ones supposed friends which caused a drifting apart over time.
Travis is still effusive in the article, but it isn't with praise for NGLA...and it seems pretty plain to me that he's taking a jab at the idea of copying holes, even if he resorted to using them himself. Perhaps he had his doubts about NGLA early on, but felt that it would be more wise in many ways to wait a few years until the club and course established themselves before leveling any criticism. I don't know, I'm only speculating, but I don't feel that I've gone OOB. ;D
-
I hope this discussion will lead to a clearer understanding of the relationship between Macdonald and Travis. It is clear that there was a period of time when they had a decent relationship, i.e. when Travis was engaged by Macdonald in the development of the NGLA concept. The R&A ban on mallet headed putters, including the Schenectady, may have been the start of the deteriorating relationship between the two. Travis did not respect Macdonald's position on the R&A committee. He wrote openly about his opinion that Macdonald had no official voice as an American representative. Later, Macdonald wrote a letter, published in The American Golfer, disputing Travis' opinions (I need to find that letter and post it here).
As TPaul suggests, the Schenectady controversy was probably the start of their declining relationship, though earlier, there may have been the questions about Travis's amateur status. Though the whole amateur status question probably riled Travis, it seems to me that his later criticisms of NGLA might have sealed the deal in his relationship with Macdonald.
Both were strong minded individuals. Macdonald was the voice of the USGA, against which Travis often protested about issues concerning competition formats,and qualification procedures for the Amateur, etc. Travis did not present as a friend of the USGA. It does not appear that either was an individual who would compromise.
With all of Travis very early involvement in the development of the NGLA, I wonder what he did to get himself eliminated from the team, and why he eventually became a harsh critic of the course.
There is a lot to be learned about the relationship of two of the most powerful figures in golf in the early 1900s. I look forward to learning more about it.
Ed
www.travissociety.com
-
Ed,
When the dust settles, I think you'll find "EGO" at the center of their falling out.
-
Patrick--I agree completely. The questions in my mind is, what was the breaking point in their relationship. Afterall, as members of GCGC, they often played with, or against, each other, and early on, they seemed to have a good working relationship. They were both of strong "egos".
Ed
-
Cross Bunkering to me means that a single bunker (# 10 at GCGC) or series of bunkers extend from one side of the fairway across more than the mid-point of the fairway and in most cases to the other side of the fairway.
Cross bunkering is not confined to a "single" bunker.
How many holes at Hollywood fit each type of cross bunkering, singular or serial ?
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/Hollywood.jpg)[/URL]
-
From Tom Paul:
Jim:
I asked you through Joe Bausch a few posts ago to use your supreme research capabilities to look deeper into the apparent relationship between Travis and Macdonald between say 1910 and 1920 (I might just back that up some to say 1908 when Travis started American Golfer), and, in my opinion, you are definitely off to a great start with what you just produced from Travis (American Golfer) in 1912! (the article "Too Severe" about NGLA).
Between the USGA library, LA84 and some private club collections (exs: PV, Piping Rock etc), I thought I had pretty much read everything of that ilk via the full runs of the likes of American Golfer and Golf Illustrated (arguably the most informed and prominent golf magazines of that era). But I do not recall reading the one you just produced. I find it rather stunning given the widespread and general praise for NGLA in that time frame.
Given all things considered in American golf (including architecture, Rules, agronomy, golf administration, tournament fame etc) in the first and second decade of the 20th century, those two men may've been the most prominent and generally recognizable of all, it is just so interesting and probably significant to discover more, hopefully a lot more, about whatever adversarial dynamics existed between them and certainly why! I think it has pretty well be documented and therefore recognized that Macdonald and Travis probably developed issues with one another over the Schenectady Putter and probably amateur status issues but it looks from the article you just produced that it lapsed out into one with architecture as well, and to no less than the crown jewel of Macdonald's career. I have read some criticisms of NGLA before but I only recall it coming from some on the other side such as J.H. Taylor (for being too difficult), and really only via what Tilly wrote about criticism of American architecture coming from the other side.
It may even be true to say that we tend to unthinkingly create "legends" out of some of those men by our inclination to idolize them and their achievements. It occurs to me that perhaps an inordinate amount of those men (viz Leeds, Travis, Macdonald, Tillinghast, Crump etc) just may've been so interesting and perhaps great BECAUSE they were complex and complicated men with ideas and opinions that reflected their personalities. If so, it is better for us to get into the truth of their lives and times and perhaps dynamic relationships with one another, including warts and fights and all, and if we do we should understand far more about what the entire tapestry of it all was really about in that fascinating seminal evolving time in American golf and architecture..
You're a fantastic researcher and analyst, Jimbo, so keep it going on this subject and this good thread begun by Frank Giordano on the impact of Travis, and it just might turn into one for the ages! We praised Mark Bourgeois the other day in that conference call for some of the awesome previously unknown fascinating stuff he has found and is putting together on some other things to do with Macdonald's life and career (ex: that call loan info from Henry Frick) and he actually sloughed it off by say he couldn't have done some of it without you.
Keep up your good research, and thanks for it!
-
:-[
Travis' criticism of NGLA made the 'real' news a month after the magazine article appeared, prompting a tit-for-tat response from "a prominent golfer".
The snip also includes a few paragraphs by Behr on foursomes/fourball play.
Brooklyn Daily Eagle - Friday - November 15 - 1912
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7380/14165013913_e164fa8021_o_d.jpg)
-
Patrick, CBM was most definitely a key player in the Schenectady Putter controversy, and (not surprisingly) he actively tried to broker a solution that would preserve a single set of rules for all of golf. It is a bit of an oversimplification, though, to say that he was "in favor of having the USGA ban it." His position was actually pretty nuanced and I don't think it was well understood (then or now) and it probably created quite a bit of bad blood. This was a tumultuous time in the US regarding golf administration and there was lots of ill will toward the R&A and the foreign influence on the game in the US.
__________________________________________________________
Jim,
While I appreciate you posting these articles again, it might be worth noting that this ground (and those articles) have been covered many times before. The second article you posted is summarizes a letter that appears in Max Behr's Golf, which seems to have been somewhat of a rival magazine to Travis's American Golfer. Here is the complete letter from Nov. 1912 edition:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Golf190411NGLAGCGC.jpg)
The letter prompted a response in AG the following month, in which Colt was quoted at great length to support further criticism of NGLA. Ironically, Colt wasn't directly addressing NGLA in the quotes, as I don't think he had seen the course at the time he wrote the book from which the quotes came.
-
Here is the AG reply I mentioned, from Dec. 1912:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/AG191212GCGCNGLA1.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/AG191212GCGCNGLA2.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/AG191212GCGCNGLA3.jpg)
(The bit on foursomes comes from the same issue.)
-
From Tom Paul:
Jim:
That Brooklyn Eagle article is another marvelous addition on your part to this fascinating discussion on Travis and his impact, and, including his evolving/devolving (first good then apparently deteriorating) relationship with C.B. Macdonald. It's a crying shame that the author of that article does not identify who the 'prominent golfer' is he was referring to in the first column of that article. What do you suppose the chances are the "prominent golfer" was Charles Blair Macdonald?
By the way, the Schenectady Putter issue and perhaps how it may have affected their relationship is covered in incredible detail and depth in Macdonald's book (Scotland's Gift Golf) that was written close to twenty years after the most seminal events of the Schenectady Putter issue (1909-1911).* In that book Macdonald makes available a massive amount of contemporaneous correspondence. To say it is complicated is a real understatement. However, in that correspondence of that time there is the following piece from Macdonald's pen to the R&A Rules Committee------"There are a few people in this country stupid enough to think, owing to Travis's uncalled for and undignified criticism of his treatment at Sandwich, that this is in the line of retaliation. That can be dismissed without thought. Travis is now putting with a Braid Aluminum, and, if anything, putting better than ever."
Obviously, if Travis got wind of that correspondence around the time it was written (1910) he probably would've gone ballistic on Macdonald, at least privately if not publicly.
*It should certainly be noted that at no time did Macdonald seem to agree with the R&A Rules Committee that the Schenectady Putter should be banned. On the other hand, it very well may've seemed that way to Travis as Macdonald was an absolute master at the art of complex "parliamentary process." Basically he could and did wrap any controversial issue in the most complex and labrynthine process and language imaginable. Because of that most probably had little idea what he was agreeing with or disagreeing with. In a real sense that was a fairly common tactic of the autocratic elite of that time to obfuscate from the Hoi Polloi what exactly they were doing or thinking about. To make it even more confusing and perverse there certainly were those of that time who felt that technique was perhaps the best and most intelligent application of the art of "compromise." Macdonald was completely brilliant at it. Travis seemed to be far more straight forward in how he said what he felt and meant.
-
As for the substance of the issue, I keep coming back to the fact that prior to these articles (and prior to the Schenectady Putter issue) Travis and his magazine were resoundingly singing the praises of NGLA, both during the creation and when it was essentially finished. And given that Travis was there for at least part of the the process of its creation, he was in a good position to speak to the merits of the course then.
And, Jim, while I understand the theory, I think it is too much for you to speculate that, "Perhaps he had his doubts about NGLA early on, but felt that it would be more wise in many ways to wait a few years until the club and course established themselves before leveling any criticism." To believe this you have to discount and disregard all of what he had written up to this point! We owe him more respect than that, don't we?
The fact is, Travis was all over the place with NGLA. Remember that the next year he changed directions again and took credit as one of those principally responsible for the layout! I could be mistaken, but I get the sense that his comments were being driven as much by personal animosity than by anything else.
-
Anyway, the second AG (presumably by Travis) critique (above) prompted a few responses which were published in the January 1913 edition of Golf:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/AG191301ReplyNGLA.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/AG191301ReplyNGLA2.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/AG191301ReplyNGLA3.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/AG191301ReplyNGLA4.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/AG191301ReplyNGLA5.jpg)
-
Fascinating nuances - thanks for all the old articles posted and new thoughts expressed.
The early understanding of the relationship between soil/climate/turf and architecture was more in depth than I would've imagined, as were the theories/competing approaches to designing for the average golfer while challenging the world's best.
The architects, golfers, critics, and club members quoted in those old articles are strikingly articulate in their points-counterpoints, and in some cases very 'modern' in their suggestions (e.g. play the appropriate set of tees).
It struck me that a course like TPC Sawgrass (when it first opened) might've engendered a reaction closest to the one that the (much different) NGLA recieved, i.e. questioning the architect re what he was trying to do, challenging him on how he tried to do it, critiquing him on the end result , and theorizing on why it worked/didn't work for the average golfer and pro alike.
-
P.S. check out this line from one of the editorials. You sure don't read this kind of writing anymore, at least not in Golf Digest/ Magazine/World/Week/Club Atlas. Our loss. The writing is very good; the concepts/ideas actually worthy of adults even better.
"If the ideals of man were to be forever weighted down with the imperfections of the masses, where would it be possible to create those object-lessons which compel that enlargement of perspective with its consequent advance?"
-
David,
I don't believe anything posted so far shows any disrespect for Travis.
-
Not trying to insult you, Jim, and I apologize if I did. I am just disagreeing with your speculation that Travis may have had serious doubts about NGLA all along. It just doesn't match what Travis had written in the past. Plus, we've got to look at the context of these statements, and by the time Travis wrote this article in 1912, he had a serious issue CBM, especially his role and involvement with the USGA and R&A. Look at the AG's from this period. There are plenty of examples of him railing against CBM.
So it doesn't make sense to me with start with this article as if there was a clean slate, as if what had come before had never existed. While Travis had made a few arguably critical comments about certain aspects of NGLA (the Road hole for example), generally his comments had been very positive. For example, after the initial invitational, he wrote that NGLA would "easily be[] far and away the best in this country." In the same article he also wrote . . .
At first blush it might be thought the playing of such an ideal course would be a little too strenuous, too exacting, without any let-up. Not so. Interest never slackens, nor is there any suggestion of satiated indifference from such a wealth of grand holes throughout—no thought of one's nose being kept at the grindstone.
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.
Hardly sounds like he thought it was "too severe" to me. And this is not the only place where he was singing the praises of NGLA.
-
reads schizophrenic to me.
-
reads schizophrenic to me.
Yes, but who?
__________________________________________________________
Here are two blurbs from Travis's Jan. 1913 American Golfer, published while the above spat about NGLA was ongoing. The first is republished from a Brooklyn paper and calls CBM out directly. The second doesn't mention CBM but, given the first, the target is obvious. And as the blurb mentioned, there had been a previous article in December. That short blurb didn't mention CBM, but again in context the target seems obvious.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/AG191301CBM.png)
Travis had always been outspoken against certain practices of the USGA but with the Schenectady putter fiasco he seems to have become much more vigilant. He was often calling out various members of the golfing establishment for one thing or another. For example, in the same issue as the articles above, he takes on Emmet regarding a agronomy matter (soil compaction), and during the same period he slams Whigham for his description of the proper way to play the Biarritz at Piping Rock, and there is plenty of commentary on the governance of the USGA. Individually the various blurbs and articles don't seem like much, but taken together it seems to me that there was broad hostility there that might have focused on CBM but it wasn't just limited to CBM. I've always wondered whether the creation of Golf Illustrated in 1914 wasn't in part a response to Travis's editorial bent in AG.
-
reads schizophrenic to me.
Yes, but who?
__________________________________________________________
Why, both of me, of course. I mean, him. Or them.
-
I know I am, but what am I?
-
Seriously, though, unless it was a political play to acquiesce to his good friend, Charles, I cannot imagine why WJT would be so vehement in his condemnation of the difficult of the course in one breath, then move to soften the words in the next. I've met bombast, but never like this.
-
I understand what you are saying but I think you have the order wrong. The article where Travis was praising NGLA came first. There was a well-publicized members tournament at NGLA in July of 1910, and and the excerpt above (in blue) is from the AG article on NGLA in the August 1910 issue of American Golfer. The other articles - where Travis becomes critical - are from late 1912 and early 1913.
So what changed? At least two things happened in the fall of 1910 which seemed to have really set Travis (and others) off:
1. In September 1910, the R&A banned mallet putters, including the popular Schenectady putter which Travis had used to win the British Amateur 6 years before. I won't get into it here, but this created a huge stir in American golf and fueled strong sentiments against the R&A and what was portrayed as British paternalism and condescension. CBM, who was the only American on the R&A rules committee, ended up trying to broker peace which would have preserved a single set of rules, but the result was that much of the hostility toward the ruling ended up being directed at him. Travis was leading this charge. And he and CBM went back and forth on the issue.
2. Also, in November 1910, Horace Hutchinson published an article entitled "An English View of American Golf" in H.J. Whigham's Metropolitan Magazine. Hutchinson was considered close to CBM and Whigham (who was from a prominent golfing family in Prestwick, had been very involved in the creation of NGLA with CBM, and was his son-in-law.) In the article, Hutchinson is somewhat critical of many of the leading American courses, but heaped praise on CBM's NGLA. Perhaps unfairly, the article was viewed as a slap in the face of American golf.
Given the Schenectady putter fiasco, the timing couldn't have been worse. To put it mildly, a segment of the American Golfing community were very upset by the comments and read it as another shot at American golf and at American's generally. Much of the hostility was expressed in Travis's magazine, with Travis seemingly at the middle of it. There was a letter/article written by "Americus" trashing Hutchinson, and given that NGLA had escaped criticism from Hutchinson, CBM and NGLA seemed to be targets as well. I don't know whether or not Travis was in fact "Americus," but he certainly was egging him on, even publishing an editorial comment adding to the critique. There were also calls for reforms to the USGA which was considered to chummy with the R&A and not representative enough of the outlying clubs.
Anyway, it gets pretty complicated, but this seems to have lead to a strong anti-british sentiment and a strong anti-CBM sentiment by Travis and probably some others. It was still ongoing a few years later, when AG went after NGLA after the tournament with the high scores. And it continued in the Amateur Rule crisis a few years later.
Note, this isn't intended to be the final word on any of this, just a quick and dirty assessment to try to set out some of the potential issues between Travis and CBM and a certain segment of the golfing establishment.
-
Thank you, David. I've got to go back and do my due diligence.
-
I believe that Mr. Moriarty described the essence of the conflict that arose between Travis and CBM. I am convinced that the difficulties arose out of the Schenectady controversy. Travis was critical of CBM's position on the R&A committee, expressing the opinion that he had no official role and did not represent American interests well. To his credit, Travis published CBM's letter of response. But, the damage was done. When you look back at the development of the NGLA concept, Travis was directly involved, along with Emmet and others. There is a report that Travis was instrumental in determining a proper name for the course. But, in the end, Travis was dropped from the project, and was not recognized as having had any part in it. Why? I think it was because of the bitter feelings generated by the Schenectady issue.
-
When you look back at the development of the NGLA concept, Travis was directly involved, along with Emmet and others. There is a report that Travis was instrumental in determining a proper name for the course. But, in the end, Travis was dropped from the project, and was not recognized as having had any part in it. Why? I think it was because of the bitter feelings generated by the Schenectady issue.
I think the problem with this theory is the timing. The putter controversy didn't begin until September 1910, after NGLA's initial tournament, and Travis was no longer being listed as part of the project by this time. In other words, Travis appears to have been dropped long before the putter controversy.
-
David,
The R&A banned the putter in 1910 ?
Surely there had to be conflicting opinions prior to the date of the ban.
-
Patrick, Above I said Sept. 1910, but I think that while the actual R&A rule was changed in September 1910, the Rules Committee had barred the putter in sometime in the spring (April?) of 1910.
As for as conflicting opinions about the putter prior to this date, I don't think there was anything in the R&A or USGA rules about limits on clubs until some time in 1908. (Prior to that the use of a pool cue had been barred.) Some time in 1909 the R&A barred the use of a croquet mallet, and clarified in 1910 by barring all center shafted clubs, and specifically included the Schenectady.
-
David--You are absolutely right that my opinion about the link between the Schenectady putter controversy and the CBM-Travis "breakup" is a theory, aubject to being tested and proven or not. I would welcome anny light you can shine on the time-line of the CBM-Travis "breakup". Were Emmet and Whigham also dropped from the NGLA project?
-
Emmet and Whigham were not dropped from the project. Both were acknowledged throughout and in NGLA's statement to member's after the clubhouse finally opened, although both credited CBM with the creation of the course. (As did Travis, at least for a while.)
As for the timeline of the "breakup" between Travis and CBM, I am not sure when it began, but suspect it was in 1910 with the Schenectady Putter fiasco and with the Hutchinson article.
People have assumed that Travis's having been dropped at NGLA was part of what you call the "breakup," but I am not so sure. Travis's writing remain positive about NGLA in 1909 and in 1910 even though he no longer appears to have been directly involved with the project. So perhaps there is some less controversial reason he was no longer involved. Maybe he didn't have time. Maybe it didnt fit in his schedule. Maybe he was busy with his changes at GCGC or with the creation of Salisbury Links. Maybe he didn't want to pony up the grand to join. Or perhaps there is some other reason that had nothing to do with a "break up." I don't know one way or another. But it is speculative to assume that Travis was being unfairly cutout or that he was thrown off the project because of some sort of falling out or "breakout." There doesn't seem to be any record of that, and Travis certainly had ample opportunity to express those views in 1909-10 if that was indeed the case.
Anyway, my point above is that Travis's NGLA involvement (and the end of his involvement) seems to have predated the 1910 Schenectady putter fiasco, do I don't think we can reasonable say that the latter led to the former.
Here is question for you or anyone else. When did Travis first start taking money for designing courses? Was he paid for Salisbury Links? If he started taking money during the 1907-1909 period, then this might explain why he was no longer involved at NGLA.
-
David--I should not have used the term "break-up". So, let's put that aside. The fact is, CBM states in his book that "I dropped Travis". I think it is worthy of exploring the reasons why Travis was "dropped". If you go through "Scotland's Gift Golf carefully, I believe you will come away with the sense that CBM had a dim view of Travis. He acknowledge losing to Travis, but seemed proudest of the two victories he had over Travis. He dismissed the Schenectady Putter as anything of importance, and pointed out that Travis was putting better with another putter. In the chapter on the NGLA, he did not mention Travis once. So, my question is: what was it between these two guys?
-
I am not so sure I read Scotland's Gift the same way. For example, as for Travis's use of the Schenectady Putter, Travis himself said he putted just as well with another putter, so I don't think it makes sense read anything into CBM saying the same thing. I don't recall anything negative about Travis, but if you have something specific in mind, I'll go back and take a look. (It wouldn't surprise me if CBM didn't like Travis by the time he wrote Scotland's Gift, but this doesn't necessarily mean he was negative about Travis when NGLA was being designed.)
It is true that CBM doesn't mention Travis much regarding the creation of NGLA, but this could be because, after some initial involvement, Travis didn't have much to do with it. This is pretty consistent with the reports at the time by all involved including Travis himself, who viewed the course as a monument to CBM.
As for the reason Travis was dropped NGLA, I too think would be nice to know what happened, but we don't know. The best we can do may be to eliminate theories that don't make sense. And the Schenectady putter explanation doesn't seem to make sense because the timing is wrong.
Do you know when Travis started to get paid for his design work? CBM said early on that NGLA would be built without the aid of a professional architect, and if Travis began taking money for design this could have been a reason for him to be dropped at NGLA.
-
Here is part of what Travis had to say in about how the ban on the Schenectady putter would impact his game and the games of others:
There will undoubtedly be lots of grumbling from players when they find they have to discard their favorite putter. And in most cases the change will work a slight hardship, although this is more fanciful than real. For years I have been using a putter of the Schenectady type. Quite recently I have had a club built along accepted lines and I find that my putting hasn't suffered a bit. And this will prove to be the case with the large majority of players.
-
All things depend on the eye of the beholder, but if you did not find anything in Scotland's Gift Golf, that had a negative connotation about Travis, I suggest a reread. Or, if you'll give me a little time, I'll pull up some comments that I believe have negative connotations, e.g. his reference to Travis's "inappropriate" criticisms of his treatment during the 1904 Brit Am. You theorize that CBM did not mention Travis in the NGLA work because Travis "did not have much to do with it". There are reports that suggest Travis's involvement was important, e.g. suggesting the name of the course, inspecting the grounds. I think we are a long way from understanding the relationship between CBM and Travis, and given the significant influence those two had on the game of golf in the early 1900s, it is worthy of further, careful study.
-
Ed, Maybe I am misremembering, so I look forward to reading comments from Scotland's Gift that you feel had a negative connotation toward Travis.
As for whether or not Travis had much to do with NGLA, there is overwhelming evidence that CBM was the person running the show from the very beginning. Even Travis acknowledged this. Nonetheless it is possible that Travis had some contribution, but I've never seen anything setting out a major contribution to the creation of the golf course. Do have anything in particular in mind. As for the name change from National Golf Course to National Golf Links, I probably don't place as much significance on that as you seem to.
I agree that careful study would be helpful, but unfortunately we don't have too much information, so we end up with a lot of speculation.
I take it you don't know when Travis started getting paid for his design work?
___________________________________
Mr. Schmidt. Welcome to the site. You're right about Whigham.
-
David & Ed,
Years ago, Tom MacWood initiated a thread about Travis's contribution at NGLA.
Perhaps, if it could be located, it might have information that could be helpful.
I know that Tom and I disagreed on the level of Travis's involvement and impact on NGLA.
I tend to think that "ego" is at the center of the rift.
"Personalties", especially big personalities, often clash.
-
Pat,
Here's one from TMac:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,13355.0.html
-
The title is misleading, but this one gets around to Travis/CBM at post #103.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,13177.100.html
-
From the Dec 21st, 1910 edition of the NY Daily Tribune*
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5231/14212230051_a39f042dc1_o_d.jpg)
* If this article or the information contained in it has already been posted somewhere else in the world of GCA, too bad, you're reading it again. ;)
-
That is a incredible post, Jim. Though CBM protested in his book that he was unaware of the implications of the mallet-headed putter ban by the R&A, i.e. that it included the Schenectady, this post suggests that he was in total support of the R&A ruling. Based on some historic misteps in CBM's book, i.e. when the Schenectady was created, and when Travis first used it, I'm beginning to have some questions about his grasp of the facts.
btw--David--I do not know when Travis was first paid for his design of a golf course. I will review our information to see what I can find.
-
Jim,
Thanks for those links. Tom MacWood had posted some terrific information in that second link, particularly his timeline.
____________________________________________________________
Ed,
You state, that "this post suggests that [CBM] was in total support of the R&A ruling." That is a vast oversimplification of CBM's position, and one that completely ignores all of what he had written about the issue at the time and later. I don't think it makes much sense to make such broad assumptions about CBM's position based on one second-hand newspaper account, especially when we have actual statements by CBM of his position written at the same time! We'd be better off reviewing his discussions on the matter in SG, and his letters contained therein, including the one written days before this article was written, and the transcript of his speech at the USGA meeting in question.
As for your questions about CBM's grasp of the facts, I think we'd be better off if we started with our own grasp of the facts. A good place to start is with CBM's January 5, 1911 letter written to Watson/ the USGA responding to the USGA's request for a "history of facts leading up to the recent ruling of the R & A regarding form and make of golf club." He was there and involved. We weren't. I'm inclined to trust his version of the facts over any conclusions we might jump to based on one newspaper article.
As for your mention of CBM's "historic missteps," particularly the one about when the Schenectady putter was created, could you point that out to me? I don't recall that. Thanks.
-
DAvid--Earlier you'd suggested that you might have "misremembered" somethings from Scotland's Gift. Re: CBM's statements concerning the invention/creation of the Schenectady and the first time that Travis used the Schenectady, I am confident that, if you go back to review Scotland's Gift, as you suggested you would, you will find the errors that CBM made in reference to the Schenectady, and Travis's use of it. In my opinion, those are the kinds of errors that a person might make, some 20-25 years after the fact. However, they're also the kinds of errors that would give cause for wondering about other information that CBM included in his book--some 20-25 years after the fact.
-
Forgive me for being blunt, Ed, but you really seem to be grasping at straws here. If there is something inaccurate about about CBM's well-documented description of his role in the Schenectady utter fiasco, then by all means let's have it. No use beating around the bush with asides like when CBM said Travis first used the putter, or when he said it was invented. First and most importantly, these issues are tangential, at best. Second, I think you may be mistaken when you indicate CBM got these things wrong.
As for CBM's statements regarding the creation/invention of the Schenectady putter, it is entirely irrelevant. Even so, after looking at the book, I don't know what was the supposed error? CBM mentioned that center shafted golf clubs had been around for 50 years. They had been. He also mentioned that Burn had conceded that wooden Schenectady-type putters had existed in St. Andrews for 20 years. They had. At one point he also mentioned that Schenectady putters and goose neck putters had been in use for a decade, and technically with regard to the American version of the Schenectady, this was off by a year or so, but surely this isn't the egregious error to which you refer is it? If not then where is the important error regarding the creation of the Schenectady putter? As I said, maybe I missed it.
You also claim that CBM erred in his description of "the first time Travis used the Schenectady." Again, entirely irrelevant. And again, I don't think the error is CBM's. Unless I missed it, CBM was silent as to "the first time" Travis used a Schenectady. (How on earth would CBM know that?) What CBM actually wrote was, "Travis was presented with a Schenectady putter at Sandwich immediately before the amateur championship by an Apawamis member, Simeon Ford, I think, and Travis played with it through that championship and won." Here CBM blundered. According to Travis, he received the Schenectady putter not from Ford, but from Mr. Phillips. "I got going all right the following week in the practice rounds . . . but the putting was still the weak feature. Finally, the day before the Championship, Mr. Phillips, of the Apawamis Club, Rye, a member of our party, suggested I should try his putter, a Schenectady. It seemed to suit me in every way and I decided to stand or fall by it." Do you think that because CBM got the name wrong that this should be "cause for wondering," as you put it? I don't.
Seriously Ed, I don't get what you are trying to prove here? Much of the information in SG about the Schenectady putter fiasco is in the form of verbatim letters written by CBM at the time of the controversy, and the rest of the material is entirely consistent with those letters, and with other contemporaneous reports. When you suggest things like "CBM was in total support of the R&A ruling" you are attempting to rewrite well documented history. Likewise when you suggest that CBM's account is inaccurate and all you come up with are questionable readings of tangential points. I am left wondering why?
Again, if there are substantial errors, then I'd love to hear about them, but so far the errors seem to be yours, not CBM's.
-
From Tom Paul:
Ed:
I was looking through the Travis Society website this morning, and I noticed a few things to do with Pine Valley that might need to be altered or added on your website (and perhaps to PV's design evolution story).
First, Crump asked Travis to do a reverse routing/design of the course in 1915 not 1917. Second, it seems that Travis actually only did two hole drawings that were reversible (#1 and #16, and they appeared in American Golfer in Aug and Sept 1915). However, Travis did drawings of all the holes of the course with the exception of #12.
I mention this because those drawings were not identified as to the architect for the longest time (in modern times). I got them over fifteen years ago from the files of Gil Hanse (how and when he got them is another quite interesting story). Frankly, at this point, I'm not even sure if those drawings got out of PV's archives at that time and never returned. I will get in touch with Andy Mutch and check (perhaps I'm forgetting something I researched some time ago). Gil always thought those drawings looked like Travis but there was no way, at that time, to prove it. There is now because the drawings of #1 and #16 (in the complete set (with the exception of #12)) are identical to the drawings that appeared in Aug. 1915 in American Golfer in an article by the editor (Travis). It's an interesting article, particularly as he says it kept him up nights trying to figure it out.
So what else is interesting about this? I think the fact that Travis did not do a drawing of #12 might help show when, how and why Crump got stuck on his fourteen hole course----eg his fourteen hole course sequenced from #11 green to #16 tee, and the fourteen hole course was in play from 1914 until the full eighteen was finally opened in 1921-22 (three to four years after Crump died). The fourteen hole course worked well enough as golfers simply played #1-#4 again and were right back at the clubhouse. The other interesting thing to me about Travis's drawings is his 14th hole---eg it is the only hole drawing that is very different from the holes of the course that exist today. It is also one of the most remarkable risk/reward cape holes I have ever seen (it goes from a tee approximately where #14's middle tees are to a semi-island green where the beginning of the 15th fairway is, and there is a fairway for this hole where the #15 "Nature Walk" is from the 15th tees to the fairway. The hole on a direct line from tee to green is around 250 yards (quite a bit downhill) and was apparently intended to be "high risk" drivable by an adventurous expert player. To play the hole via the fairway made it play approximately 300 yards. And, because of its green placement it show how by Aug-Sept 1915 Crump had not yet thought to take the 15th tee to the far side of the pond. In addition, who actually designed the existing 14th hole is something of a question (I feel the most likely candidate is Crump's foreman, Jim Govan. This was mentioned by his son, George Govan, in a 1991 article). It is also possible that Crump never saw the even roughed out 14th hole.
Again, maybe I'm just forgetting some research I did on this some time ago but perhaps not. I know this might seem a bit abstruse so I hope you get the gist of it and its potential significance, including what all Travis was involved in at PV. A bit more conjectural is some old reports that Crump did ask Travis for his opinions on some of the designs of the putting greens.
Regarding the Macdonald/Travis relationship/equation et al on this thread, it should be noted that Crump also had Macdonald (Whigam?) down to the course for a day at some point. Macdonald made a few suggestions, at least one of which was done---eg the massive bunker/waste area fronting the fairway on #4. Macdonald also supplied him with his famous quote about PV; "It might become the greatest course in the world IF they can get the grass to grow."
-
I mentioned last page that there were to ongoing issues in 1910 which probably impacted Travis's relationship with CBM and others in the American Golf establishment. We've been discussing the Schenectady putter fiasco, but the other possibly related issue going on at the same time was Travis's growing hostility and resentment toward the R&A, British Golf, and the British Golf Press. Perhaps by extension, there was also quite a lot of hostility toward those in the US (such as CBM) who were most sympathetic with the R&A, British Golf, and the British Golf Press, and visa versa. I mentioned the Hutchinson article and the Travis response above, but the links to some of Tom MacWood's posts reminded me that the anti-British bent to Travis's writing had really gotten going earlier in the year, with his April 1910 publication of his long article entitled How I Won the British Open.
http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1910/ag35d.pdf
The article can be read at the link above and it and the accompanying material, especially the Ford speech, are worth a read. The article came off to many as a bitter, petty, and untimely screed against how poorly Travis felt he was treated six years before at the 1904 British Open, and was viewed by some as inappropriate and perhaps even a ploy to sell magazines and garner attention. In his January 11, 1911 letter explaining the facts underlying the Schenectady putter fiasco, CBM referred to "Travis's uncalled for and undignified criticism of his treatment at Sandwich." Writing in the Golf, The Official USGA Bulletin in May 1910, Harry Hilton had gone much further:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/191004GolfUSGABullHilton1.jpg)(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/191004GolfUSGABullHilton2.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/191004GolfUSGABullHilton3.jpg) (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/191004GolfUSGABullHilton4.jpg)
Hilton followed up with a bit more the next month, further questioning Travis's motive and referring to his "childish outbursts" and "bitter resentment:"
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/191005GolfUSGABullHilton1.jpg)
For those looking for a source of ill will, or at least evidence of ill will, this exchange might go a long ways toward setting the stage.
-
From Tom Paul:
Ed:
As I told you this evening, I think this particular subject is not only fascinating, it's hugely important, and, I believe, has some of the basic ingredients that can serve to explain some of the important elements/issues that drove the direction of American golf and its administrations in the future.
Of course, it would be interesting to know if Travis and Macdonald may have had a real falling out at some point, including what it was over, and perhaps did not speak to one another again (or for years). I think we can be sure this was the case with Travis and Emmet (ie: Emmet's letter (around 1920?) to Travis asking if they could be friends again. And, I agree with you that their falling out probably was over GCGC). But on the specific issue of when or why Macdonald dropped Travis from the design committee of NGLA, that one may be harder to pin down. All I know now is that Macdonald did say in his book (in 1928, about a decade and a half later) that he did 'drop' Travis, but he did not say why or when. I think it's quite safe to say that most stuff never really happened at NGLA without Charlie Macdonald condoning it, even in those very early years.
Therefore, I would point out that I think it was mentioned somewhere on this thread that apparently, or that it appears, Macdonald dropped Travis from the NGLA design committee before 1910. If that is true and it had to do with the Schenectady Putter issue or Travis being critical of the British or some amateur status issue, I think it would be very odd indeed that Travis played in that well reported July 1910 invitational at NGLA. He not only played in it, he beat Macdonald in the first round of match play and then in the better ball stroke play event at the end of the tournament he partnered with Macdonald to win it.
Next, I'm going to do, and I encourage, some serious research into the initial organization of the Western Golf Association (WGA) in 1899, including who specifically the organizers were. Macdonald moved from Chicago to New York right around that time, and of course he was one of the founding members of the USGA in 1894-95. So, the question is, did Macdonald have anything to do with the organization of the WGA--or did perhaps the WGA just view him as one of those "Eastern Elitists" who fled Chicago and was not adequately representative of them? It is certainly no secret that Macdonald had little respect for the WGA in the ensuing years. At one point, in his book, he labeled them as "recalcitrants." It is also possible that the WGA never really recognized (officially) the USGA as the ruling amateur body of the USA until around 1920.
For his part, Travis wrote a scathing article about the USGA in American Golfer in the late teens over the Ouimet et al amateur status issue. In that article, as I recall, he suggested the USGA was so out of touch with golf in America that the WGA should replace it as the national ruling body of amateur golf.
-
Tom--I totally agree that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to pin down the precise reason that Macdonald "dropped" Travis from the NGLA project. Doubtless it was a series of events. Still, their relationship, and influence on the game, are worthy of further study, as you've indicated. I just reread the March 1910 article, titled How I Won the British Championship, followed by quotations from a large number of UK newspapers, at the time of his 1904 win. Easy to see how his article stirred up a hornet's nest. And, understandable that Hilton would write such a scathing rebuttal; published in Golf, not the AG as I said, though I seem to recall that Travis published a letter from Hilton. But, this particular controversy followed his being 'dropped" from the NGLA project, right? So, the mystery continues. BTW, have you read the July 1904 Golf article titled "The Amateur Championship of Great Britain", by P.B. Burn? He has some interesting things to say about Travis, and how he went about his business during the championship, concluding There are fine players who do not attend to these matters, small and insignificant as they may possibly be when there is so much at stake, but they go to prove that the amateur championship is in hands that will not allow it to suffer in any way. For what it's worth.
Ed
-
Tom--I totally agree that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to pin down the precise reason that Macdonald "dropped" Travis from the NGLA project. Doubtless it was a series of events.
Why is this "doubtless?" Why couldn't it be something simple and/or singular? Why do people assume that he must have been dropped as a result of some ill-will or falling out?
Travis appears to have been dropped at NGLA before many of these other disputes surfaced. So if there is a causal connection, maybe it is that Travis became bitter toward CBM and much of the golfing world because he wasn't wanted or needed at NGLA. Or perhaps there is no causal connection at all.
-
Was their not some other controversies at the 1904 Amateur involving Travis where he claimed a hole (correctly) after his opponent had grounded his club in what was designated a bunker by local rules, and in a subsequent round where Travis made some transgression and his opponent failed to call him on it ?
Niall
-
Niall -
Correct. See WT's account of the 1904 British Am in The American Golfer. (Sorry, I don't have a link.)
Bob
-
Niall -
Correct. See WT's account of the 1904 British Am in The American Golfer. (Sorry, I don't have a link.)
Bob
Link in post 80.
There were also accusations regarding Travis and his Amateur status.