"Those were a list of courses he either designed or re-designed or advised. I've been studying Colt for a long time and he was quite detailed and diligent about the courses he listed."
Yes, that (French?
) C&A list of courses really looked quite detailed and diligent as to what they designed or re-designed or advised on.
For someone to determine from that list what they designed or re-designed or just advised on I guess it sure would require studying Colt for a very, very, very long time.
I think it would be hard for anyone who has really read all those agronomy letters between the Wilson brothers and Piper and Oakley and carefully considered them not to get a pretty good feel for the various types of guys those men were, particularly Hugh Wilson and his brother Alan-----they actually seemed quite different to me in various ways---eg Hugh was clearly a lot less expostulatory about various issues that did not have to do with agronomy----eg amateur status et al. And Hughís sort of gentle and cordial sense of humor, both self-deprecating and otherwise, is very evident throughout.
It seems a bit off the subject of this particular thread but since amateur status issues are being discussed regarding some of those men, I would say that Peter Putter article is very interesting on that particular subject. In my opinion, he gets most of the sentiment of the time correct but he pretty much misses the boat on the details of how the USGA technically looked at and dealt with that particular issue during those years Peter Putter mentions.
Essentially, some of those men were having their amateur status criticized and discussed in the press and that was definitely not how the USGA wanted to see it happen and play out and they constantly tried to discourage that approach with their developing policies and procedures on Amateur Status which in my opinion are still pretty generally misunderstood by the general public and even researchers.
Most people fail to realize that to have oneís amateur status questioned and removed by the USGA one had to fill some criteria first and one was that an amateur had to have first established a reputation as a player of skill and note to even be able to trade on it for remuneration in the eyes of the USGA. Technically that generally meant that an amateur player had to have competed at a fairly high level----eg national or state or regional championships of expert players. Amateur players such as Travis, Quimet, Tillinghast, Lockwood et al fell into that category in the eyes of the USGA and their amateur status was questioned and removed by the USGA for various reasons. Crump would have fallen into that category but Hugh Wilsonís reputation as an amateur of playing skill and note probably would have been far less clear in the eyes of the USGA.
Another interesting sort of irony right around the 1914-17 timeframe was that the man who actually wrote some of the central resolutions for the USGA on the developing and evolving subject of amateur status rules and regs and thinking appears to be none other than C.B. Macdonald. His resolution that was apparently adopted by the board of the USGA in 1915 was a real study in complex thinking and wording, the ultimate gist of which was to tell American amateurs that the USGA expected them to know what amateurism meant, and that the association was not going to create some laundry list of potential violations but if any amateur player of skill and note did violate amateur status in the opinion of the USGA that they would hear from the USGA about it. And in a number of cases thatís what happened---probably the most famous and controversial being the case of Quimet and two other players of note----all coincidentally from the Woodland GC.
The Woodland GC and even the Mass. Golf Association sort of got up in arms over that and actually sent a team of lawyers to the USGA in New York to defend Quimet and the two others. The USGA completely refused to hear them insisting that their procedure was solely that the players themselves must appear before them (that a club or regional golf association could not represent them) to discuss the individual merits of the case against them. Ultimately that is what Quimet and the two others did do and their amateur playing status was restored by the USGA.
And lastly, the USGA did not and I donít believe ever has actually declared any amateur player of skill and note to be a professional if they are viewed by the USGA to have violated their amateur status. As far as they go is to declare them to no longer be an amateur player and their ability to play in amateur tournaments is then consequently barred (or debarred as CBM used to call it).
So the upshot reality of all the foregoing is if say you or Joe Bausch decide to accept remuneration for your efforts on Cobbs Creek, the USGA will probably not be contacting you on some violation of your amateur status.
But if I took even a red cent for something I've done in architecture since I've competed in the past in regional, state and national competitions of expert players I would fully expect the USGA's SS Gestapo to show up at my barn and throw me into the Golf Hoosegow for the remainder of my natural days. Of course my recourse would be to remind them thusly----"Don't you remember that around 1920 you Silly Rabbits created the "Architects Exception" to the USGA Amateur Status Rules and Regs?"