[Joe Bausch]

Is this story about Willie Campbell true?  Hell, I don't know, but it is funny:

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mike

I can’t talk much about what happened in the States, but you may have noted that I prefer to use the word hazards rather than bunkers. Because the early inland courses were full of hazards as I keep mentioning, stonewalls, streams, railways, roads, bunkers, mounds, dykes etc.,etc. Bunkers were not the only hazard on a course.  Our early inland curses were full of hazards with many not having bunkers built let alone located for months after opening.

If there is a difference then it may come from the clients brief, because Willie certainly knew how to design and build golf courses, from his knowledge gained from Charlie Hunter and of course Old Tom. Willie was no village idiot, he had real experience behind him. Is that not reflected in some of the courses he was involved with when arriving in the States?

My own opinion, is that Willie Campbell had more talent that The Foulis Brothers and on a par with D Ross when he arrived in the USA. Regrettably, we never saw the true depth of his ability dying young.

Melvyn

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
I would not characterize all the early courses in America or Britain as rigid and formulaic. Willie Dunn was known to use the formula illustrated by Travis in American Golfer, and found on page 4 of Shackelford's Golden Age book. I wouldn't throw every golf architect working at the time under that bus. Why do you feel the need to denigrate Campbell? He was clearly a very important man in the early development of American golf, and probably has not been given his due. I think everyone understands the reasons for your campaign against Barker, but your hostility toward Campbell is strange.  

Since I wrote the essay I've found a few other courses Campbell designed beyond the ones I mentioned: Cambridge GC, which was Harvard GC's home; Prides Cross GC, WB Thomas's private course; Salem GC; Bridgewater GC and Topsfield GC.  

[Tom MacWood]

I think Campbell's influence on other golf architects may be understated too. We know Campbell was a golfing mentor to Leeds; QA Shaw and GH Windeler (who both dabbled in golf design) were also early members of The Country Club. Campbell was also a mentor for golf architect Arthur Lockwood. He was Lockwood's tutor and caddied for him at the 1900 US Am at Garden City. He lost to Travis in the finals. I believe Campbell may well have had an influence on Alex Findlay. When Findlay moved to Boston in 1897-98 he played out of Franklin Park. Campbell was the most active architect in the region when Findlay began getting into design, in fact his design activities increased significantly after Campbell's death. And on the grounds of Franklin Park was the Boston Cricket Club, where Fred Pickering was the the premier Boston cricketer and the superintendent of the grounds. I don't know how FP got involved in golf but I would not be surprised if Campbell didn't have something to do with it. I believe William Flynn played his early golf at Wollaston, but I don't believe that's the same course Campbell designed.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - I've always wanted to ask you this directly, and your last two posts brought the question to mind. This is a big topic, but one lense through which to discuss it is in terms of the nature and fundamentals of golf course architecture. And my question is, what do you think should be considered viable (and worthy, and note-worthy) architecture, i.e. at what point/stage in the life and development of a course does it become an example of good design, does it became valuable in and of itself as a manifestation of the fundamental principles of golf course architecture?  Let me sidetrack for a moment -- the following quotes we've discussed before; they are from articles from back in 1906 referencing the opinions of Andrew Kirkaldy (who visited key courses with Sandy Herd):

"Since the   declaration   by   Andrew   Kirkaldy that  Myopia  is  the best test of good golf  he has seen in a  long life of links   visiting,  many amateurs   who   live   afar   from   Boston   have   the desire   to   engage   in   a   competition   over   the noted   course.   To   meet   the   many   requests, open   competitions   have  been arranged   by the   Myopia   golf   committee for   May  31   and September   29."  And

"...On  a   strict poll, however,  the professionals  would  vote for Myopia   as   the   first   course   in   the   East, Wheaton in   the   West,  Aiken in   the   South, and Lambton Country   Club  links in Toronto, the best in the North....That  two of   the   four --   Myopia   and   Alken --  owe   their excellence to   the   efforts   of   the   one   amateur has long been known --a sportsman who played and studied   golf   here   and   abroad   before undertaking to   put   his   ideas   into   a   course with the detail and thoroughness that have made him a leader at   field   sports, yachting, fishing and shooting. He   has   had   a   free hand and   the   hearty   cooperation   of   his   club committess, besides having the support of a brainy professional, John  Jones, at both Myopia  and  Aiken..."

Now, I think we agreed last time that the "one amateur" in question was Leeds.  And this is from not long after he had completed the 2nd 9 at Myopia (and, I assume, made changes to the whole course).  I don't have to throw Willie Campbell under the bus or try to minimize his contribution to wonder why, so relatively early on, the work that Campbell did was supplanted so thoroughly -- at least in the minds of some key contemporary observers -- by Leeds' work, with so much praise lauded on Leeds.  Again, without trying to disparage Campbell's contributions, could it not be that only with Leeds did the fundamentals of golf course architecture, the principles of  good design, manifest themselves?

What do you think?

Peter  

[BCrosby]

Shorter Pallota - was Myopia a great course by 1906 because of Campbell or despite Campbell?

The same question applies to many of the forgotten pioneers of gca. Certainly they should be credited in the design chain, but I don't have much sense of whether their designs were largely erased because they were crude or because of changing tastes or for other reasons. Sometimes obscurity is not deserved. Sometimes it is.

Bob   

[Peter Pallotta]

Note to self: Attend Bob Crosby School of Effective Writing. Don't skip class. No booze.

Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Booze is a prerequisite. Think Hemingway. Take a drink. Write a short sentence. Take another drink, write a short sentence, and so forth. When finished, throw your glass. At Max Perkins, if around.

Bob

[Tom MacWood]

Peter
Leeds added the second nine in late 1898, early 1899, and then began to systematically improve the golf course over an extended period. Making changes just about every year - mostly in the form of additional bunkers. Leeds also made several trips abroad and was able to see first hand the dramatic developments in golf architecture taking place in the early 1900s. Campbell was dead by 1900. I've got believe his short career and premature death did not help his legacy, especially in the States. Leeds got the credit and deserved credit. Its not unlike Paton & Low at Woking, Wendeler at Brookline, Wilson at Merion and Colt at Sunningdale. The perfecter often gets all the credit at the expense of the original architect. Of those examples, Colt was only one I'm aware of who went out of his way to correct the record. I don't believe there was much of an appreciation for routing in those days either, certainly not to the extent it is appreciated today.

On the Kirkaldy & Herd's 1906 tour of Myopia from the Boston Globe:
"With two members of Myopia, one whom is responsible for the layout of the course as it is today, and with Alex Findlay, the two Scotsmen played a full round...The talk would have been Greek to an outsider. The Myopia member astonished the Scotsmen by remembering offhand all the features of the principal holes on the course of Great Britain better than they did. With the visitors this member would agree that such and such a hole at Prestwick and St. Andrews was a 'toy' or 'a grand good hole'. Kirkaldy was much interested in the fact that Willie Campbell, his old friend, had tried shots at this or that hole. It was a reunion in the spirit of the old and new gods of the game."

Clearly in their minds Campbell was closely associated with Myopia. Oddly the current club history has no mention of Campbell.

Do you know if Kirkaldy was familiar with the inland courses around London?

Herd was the professional at Huddersfield and HH Barker's mentor. I wonder if he arranged for his boy to come to Garden City on this trip. Barker came to America the following year, although rumors began circulating in 1906 that he was going to turn pro.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Oddly the current club history has no mention of Campbell.- TMac

That is odd. Do you think it's a carry-over from the days when Pros were second class citizens at some courses, or does it change the cachet to say a Pro was involved and that MHC wasn't purely the product of an amateur sportsman.

[Tom MacWood]

Jim
That maybe part of it. You are right about how they were treated. But like I said before I believe his premature death and relatively short stay hurt his legacy. And you've also got to give some credit, or blame, to the author of the club history. There is plenty of evidence Campbell was the pro at Myopia, but for whatever reason he didn't find it.

I also question who all was involved in the expansion of Myopia to 18 holes late 1898. Leeds is given full credit, but I wonder if he had any help from Campbell or John Jones, who was the new pro in 1898. At the time Leeds was a new member at Myopia, and although he did have experience laying out Kebo Valley, he certainly did not have the experience or reputation of Campbell.

I found this in The Golfer June 1898:

"The new links [Cambridge GC] will complete a trio of eighteen-hole courses for this neighborhood. The famous County Club of Brookline has had a full course laid out by Campbell, who also planned the course of the Cambridge Club, and the Myopia Hunt club has taken steps to bring its links up to the standard number of holes."

There are couple of different ways you can read it.

[Peter Pallotta]

"I don't believe there was much of an appreciation for routing in those days either, certainly not to the extent it is appreciated today."

Tom - thanks. The line I quote above struck me as particulalrly interesting. I don't know if you're right, you may well be. But two thoughts /objections occured to me immedately, though I don't know if they hold any water:

1) It was 1906, and Colt was already working and would soon be doing work in North America that would demonstrate the importance of good routing, especially to those 'in the know', i.e. that smallish group of well-heeled and well-travelled insiders who were familiar with golf course architecture and its developing ideas/ethos/ideals. Would it be correct to put Kirkaldy in that camp? (I don't know the answer to your question re his knowledge of the inland courses.) I ask, of course, because if the answer to that question is yes, it would add significance to the sentence from that 1906 article about the Kirkaldy-Herd visit, i.e. about playing the course with a Myopia member, "one whom is responsible for the layout of the course as it is today" -- and who astonished the Scots with his detailed knowledge of the great British links courses. (Just an aside - again, no mention of Leeds by name, as if he went out of his way NOT to have outsiders aware of his work.)

2) IF the land that Myopia sits on was an ideal site for golf, and IF Campbell's 9 holes had been very well routed to maximize the site's potential, that would suggest he get more credit than he does. But I don't know (I mean just that, I don't know) if either of those is true -- and if they aren't, it would suggest to me that it was Leeds' work, and the additional nine and with the changes throughout over the years, that more than made up for the 'deficiencies' of the site (and of the original routing?)

Peter

[DMoriarty]

Oddly the current club history has no mention of Campbell.- TMac

That is odd. Do you think it's a carry-over from the days when Pros were second class citizens at some courses, or does it change the cachet to say a Pro was involved and that MHC wasn't purely the product of an amateur sportsman.

Rather than carry-over,  I think this might have been the period to which you refer.

From the Plain-Dealer in Cleveland, April 19, 1908:





An active member would have been much more visible to a membership as a whole, and generally worked very hard for a very long time to nurture the golf course.   This seems to have been more highly valued that planning the course in the first place.   But also, crediting someone from their own social class might have come much easier for these men.  

______________________________________

. . .
Can someone tell us how his architecture differed from the efforts of other early pros?  I see no evidence of that on the early Merion course frankly.

Mike can you be more specific about the features from the old course at Merion that so offend you?  Were they on tbe original nine or the added nine?    Were they there when the course opened?  Or were they added by members or other professionals?  

While I can guess your motivations for trying to demean men like Campbell, it is shortsighted on your part.   Did you forget already about the time and energy you and Joe spent trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?  Now, you have the soul of golf shrieking.  A cynic might note that your story changes with the point you are trying to make.

David,

I never said any hole at the original Merion course was 78 yards.  

My mistake.  It was 65 yards or 72 yards.
____________________________________________________________________
Peter,  

I don't think Colt came to the United States until some years later, offhand I think it was 1913.  A few others had demonstrated the importance of a good routing by then.  In 1915 when Behr wanted to highlight how a course should be routed, he used NGLA as his example.   I don't think there were too many "well-heeled and well traveled insiders who were familiar with golf course architecture and its developing ideas, ethos, ideals."   At least not in the United States in 1906.   There was Leeds and there was Macdonald and Whigham, Travis, and some of the professionals.  Tillinghast probably qualified but I am not sure he had quite come into his own in 1906.  No doubt there were more, but those that were tended to stick out like sore thumbs.  I think you overestimate the breadth of interest in and knowledge about the intricacies of golf courses among the social elite until NGLA came online.  

This is a concept you have repeated numerous times, this idea that there was this large groundswell or buildup of developing thought before NGLA, but I really do not think there is any evidence of this.  If you have any such evidence of his I'd love to see it.  Thanks.

As for Myopia, I believe Tom MacWood posted above that the original nine holes is mostly intact and part of the existing 18 holes.   But even if Leeds started from scratch (and I don't think that was the case) I would still think that Willie Campbell's work at the Club would be considered an important event in the club's history.   Willie Campbell was a very big deal.   And he was apparently important to Leeds, given him telling stories about shots that Campbell had tried.

Recognizing the contributions of non-members was obviously not high on the priority list at some of these clubs.

[Joe Bausch]

Did you forget already about the time and energy you and Joe spent trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?  

David, please provide for me if you can where I spent time 'trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?".  I don't recall ever posting on that topic.

[DMoriarty]

Did you forget already about the time and energy you and Joe spent trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?  

David, please provide for me if you can where I spent time 'trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?".  I don't recall ever posting on that topic.

No offense meant, Joe.   But I recall that Mike posted quite a bit of information on where Hugh Wilson might have played golf while playing for Princeton around the turn of the Century, and surely you understand at this point why I link the two of you.  After all almost everything new he posts comes from you, doesn't it?   And his purpose was to prove that Hugh Wilson had already been exposed to enough solid architecture to prepare him to design Merion, wasn't it?   I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall that he even credited you with doing the dirty work of tracking down the source material.   

If so, would you be more comfortable if I had written the following?

Mike spent a lot of time and energy trying to prove that the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion, and Joe Bausch spent a lot of energy finding the source material that Mike tried to use to justify his argument. 

[Peter Pallotta]

David - maybe a discussion for another day/thread, but fwiw I'd put the number of people who were really in the know about the ideas/trends/rising stars in golf course architecture at only about 100, and I agree that if we're thinking in terms of those ideas about the fundamental principles as promoted and espoused by CBM, that number is even smaller (even much smaller) than that.  But on the other hand, I think you may be under-estimating the nature and extent of the general conversation about golf course architecture.  Here's what i mean. In 1906, that 'conversation' had become 'popular' enough that a daily New York newspaper, not even one of the golf journals, thought enough of their sports section readership was interested enough in architecture for an article on "Thinking Golf".  It was in the November 18 1906 edition of The New York Sun (I found it on the Library of Congress, Digitial Archives, Historic Newspapers).

The 1906 article announced that "Thinking Golf" was all the rage in America, and that club committees were busy having their courses altered so as to  better exemplify this new ethos. (It mentions Walton Heath as a wonderful example of Thinking Golf).  By the term, they seemed to mean the idea that hazards should be placed/arranged so that players could think and play their way around them instead of being forced to go over them.  Interestingly, the article notes that the great amateurs of the day were more enamoured of the Thinking Golf idea than the professionals were, one of whom (I think it was Taylor, or it may have been Braid) thought it 'unfair' that a worse player was not necessarily penalized for being unable to get over a hazard that the better player could.  The idea seems to have been an early version of Bobby Jones' idea (for Augusta) that a birdie or a par would be hard to achieve but that a bogey, honestly sought, would be easy.

Yes, that's not a detailed understanding of the principles that lay behind the great holes of British links golf, but it does seem like the 'dawn' of, for lack of a better word, strategic golf architecture and its principles was happening quite out in the open. And if this tyoe of article was being publish in The Sun, I imagine that group of 100 or so was probably getting into it in a more detailed way.

Peter    

[Tom MacWood]

David
The best golf architects understood the importance of routing, but it was rarely discussed in golf publications. I don't believe any of the contributors of Horace Hutchinson's Golf Greens and Greenkeeping (1906) emphasized it. Colt in Sutton's Book of the Links (1912) may have been the first to explain its importance, and even after that you rarely find it discussed in golf magazines.

[David Lott]

Peter -

Booze is a prerequisite. Think Hemingway. Take a drink. Write a short sentence. Take another drink, write a short sentence, and so forth. When finished, throw your glass. At Max Perkins, if around.

Bob

Bob:

I think you may be confusing Hemingway's writing habits with those of Fitzgerald, who was more into lubrication while writing. But neither of them should have thrown anything at Max Perkins, who polished their gems to an even higher luster.

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

I never said any hole at the original Merion course was 78 yards.  


My mistake.  It was 65 yards or 72 yards.

David,

You are a liar who is once again just making stuff up.

I said the land they were renting for their original course was 70some acres, not yards.

[Mike_Cirba]

Did you forget already about the time and energy you and Joe spent trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?  

David, please provide for me if you can where I spent time 'trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?".  I don't recall ever posting on that topic.

David is simply lying again, Joe.

The truth means nothing to him on his personal vendetta.

Don't you get that yet?

Do you really think he's after the truth about Merion??  

Do you think that matters to him in the least?

He'll use you for whatever information he can ply from you and throw you under the bus without a second thought or a hint of conscience.

[Mike_Cirba]

Did you forget already about the time and energy you and Joe spent trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?  

David, please provide for me if you can where I spent time 'trying to prove that the the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion?".  I don't recall ever posting on that topic.

No offense meant, Joe.   But I recall that Mike posted quite a bit of information on where Hugh Wilson might have played golf while playing for Princeton around the turn of the Century, and surely you understand at this point why I link the two of you.  After all almost everything new he posts comes from you, doesn't it?   And his purpose was to prove that Hugh Wilson had already been exposed to enough solid architecture to prepare him to design Merion, wasn't it?   I could be wrong, but I vaguely recall that he even credited you with doing the dirty work of tracking down the source material.    

If so, would you be more comfortable if I had written the following?

Mike spent a lot of time and energy trying to prove that the American courses Wilson played around the turn of the Century more than prepared him to design Merion, and Joe Bausch spent a lot of energy finding the source material that Mike tried to use to justify his argument.  

Joe,

Are you starting to understand what you're dealing with here?

I guess these guys feel the've gotten whatever they felt he needed from you so you're pretty disposable at this point.

[DMoriarty]

Peter, Thanks for the reference to the article.  I'll take a look.  And you are correct that there was at least some more interest in the proper function of a golf course.  CBM also preached that the lesser player (or sometimes the smarter player) should be given an alternate route to the hole around the hazards, but that the route would probably take an extra stroke.

But Peter it is a big jump from starting to talk about something, and having the know-how and where-with-all to actually do it.  And in 1906, very few did.  

______________________________________

Joe Bausch.   I really did not mean any offense.

[Tom MacWood]

David
There is no need to drag Joe B into what ever disagreement you or I might have with Mike. I believe he has remained remarkably neutral in all of this, and has been a source of tremendous information. Information is information, I don't care who is bringing it as long as they keep bringing it, and Joe has brought more than just about anyone.

And I might add Mike has shown the ability to find a lot of this stuff on his own.

[BCrosby]

Peter/David -

One example of the cross pollination going on about gca in the early 1900's was the Oxford Cambridge golf matches in 1903.

On the UK side were John Low and C.H. Alison. Playing for different US teams were Travis, Emmet, Tilly, Leeds, Whigham, CB MacDonald, Chandler Egan, Behr and others who went on to prominence in US architectural circles.

Note that Low's Concerning Golf was published in the same year as the tour, a book that MacK called one of the best ever on architectural ideas. At about the same time the changes that Low and Paton made at Woking were causing considerable debate and controversy. See Darwin, Simpson, MacK, Campbell and others for accounts of the controversies and issues raised at Woking. The "new" inland architecture was also being put in the ground at Huntercombe, Sunny Old and at Walton Heath, all being high profile designs at the time covered widely by the golf press.

It's hard to believe that when the OCGS and the Yanks got together every evening for dinner there weren't lengthy discussions about design issues and current debates in the UK and the US. Partly because there were in fact very lively debates going on in the UK at exactly that time about inland v. links designs. Partly because members of the OCGS were not impressed with many of the US courses and said so. But mostly because everyone was trying to sort out the implications of the Haskell. The new ball meant everyone had to rethink first principles. And a who's who of present and future US golf architecture was there every evening to participate in the discussions with the Brits.

But the OCGS visit was one of many ways in which there were cross Atlantic borrowings going on.

My read is that by the time NGLA came to be in 1912, there had already been a decade or more of discussions about key architectural concepts and that most everyone in the design biz was familiar with the key issues. CBM was certainly an important part of all that, but only a part. 


Bob

[DMoriarty]

TomM,  I have no quarrel with Joe Bausch, at least not from my persective.

___________________________________


BCrosby,  

As I noted above, I agree that there was starting to be a conversation about the proper function of the golf course around this time.  The Best Hole Discussion in Golf Illustrated played a role in that discussion, as did books by Hutchinson and others.  But as I said to Peter, there is a big difference between a few people discussing something and actually bringing it into fruition.  And there is little evidence that the courses were being greatly improved in the United States on any sort of wide scale during in the middle of the first decade of the 20th century.

In 1909, H.J. Whigam provided a summary of what had gone on in America between since his previous article on the subject in 1897.

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.

He  continued . . .

We started well enough twelve or fifteen years ago by showing how to make a good golf course inland.  Yet there as 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 to 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 hwo 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 at Manchester Vermont, and there is Garden City, which lately has gotten much improved.  When one has mentioned these one has included practically all of the links in the country which approach the interest and quality of the best courses abroad, and even these fall a long ways short of perfection.  

He then went on to note that while Ontwensia and Wheaton had "represented the last word in making artificial courses at that time," neither had been improved since then and were actualy much worse, because as conditions improved they both relied as a defence on long grass, "the worst feature of the game in America."

And while Whigham noted that Garden City had been much improved, he thought it was far from what it should be.  "As it is, nearly everything is either wrong about the course or else not quite right."  He also noted that even to improve Garden City as much as he did, Travis "had to risk any amount of hostile criticism, and even now the course is hardly within measureable distance of what it ought to be if properly laid out."

As for NGLA, I think you are a bit late on when NGLA "came to be" and you are many years too late on when its influence began to be felt.   CBM began preparing for the project as early as 1902, and articles on both continents began discussing and debating the project as early as 1906.  The article mentioned above was published in 1909 is Scribner's, and provided fairly detailed descriptions of the concepts underlying the course.   This being said, while it is technically correct to say that CBM was "only a part" of what was going on, he was an extremely large part and perhaps the dominant part, and the part without which the other parts might not have fallen into place.  

As to the more immediate topic at hand,  it is disappointing that Whigham did not give more credit to the early professional pioneers like Willie Campbell.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()