NGLA Critique by Travis--Sour Grapes?

[wsmorrison]

This review of NGLA was apparently written by Walter Travis, editor of "The American Golfer" and appeared in the April 1915 edition.  Originally Travis worked with Macdonald and Emmet on the design and construction of NGLA.  There was a falling out and Travis exited the collaboration.  This review seems particularly critical and may very well be a result of the disintegrated personal relationship between Travis and CB.  Yet it has some real detail in it and is not merely an emotional attack.  Primarily taken to task are the 2nd, 3rd and 4th holes at NGLA.  Most consider the 4th to be completely bullet proof and in fact the greatest Redan ever built.  What do you make of Travis's critical analysis.  Is there merit to his report or is it in fact sour grapes?

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

More than anything Travis sounds like some tour pros who scream bloody murder that it's not right to ever put them in a position to embarrass themselves apparently not taking into consideration that everyone is in the same boat! It seems to me if a golfer really does feel he's the best he should also feel he has the mental fortitude to out compete anyone no matter how severe the test!

I do think Travis's article is very intersting in that he may be describing a golf course that was simply set up really hard in a maintenance sense (greens that're too firm) and not exactly the difficulty of the architecture itself. (To me what he's describing sounds like THE IDEAL MAINTENANCE MELD!  I've often wondered what Macdonald really did feel about the inherent ARCHITECTURAL difficultly of NGLA because he also did explain that he concentrated hard on designing a way for the less good play to find a reasonable way around the golf course. In this sense Macdonald seemed to imply NGLA was accomodatingly strategic (perhaps unlike PVGC).

(But I think I know where you're going here. One wonders if Travis would've said this if Macdonald had not basically fired him from NGLA as a design partner!)  

[Andy Hughes]

Why was Travis fired? Could it have been because of the views he expressed in the article?

[Tom_Doak]

That was a VERY interesting read, although I disagree with about half the things Travis said.

For starters, that is the first time I've ever read anyone suggest that the ground in America is much firmer and faster than on the links of Scotland.  I suppose that may have been the case in some climates, before fairway and greens irrigation was standard; but I still don't understand his calling the links courses soft.  Bobby Jones was disappointed to see how much softer St. Andrews had gotten between his playing days and 1958 ... and few think it's soft today, by modern standards.

The other great irony is that what Travis condemned in 1915 for being too difficult, most Tour pros would condemn today for being much too short and not exacting enough off the tee, whereas most ten-handicappers I've met think the course is just the most fun of anything they've ever played.

However, it can't be jealousy ... no golf architect is ever jealous of anyone else's success.

[Paul_Turner]

There was some earlier criticism by Travis of NGLA (about 1912).  At least I think it was by Travis because it was an editorial piece in American Golfer.  There's a response in support of NGLA in Golf Illustrated.  Travis actually goes after the blindness of NGLA, this time.  And uses a previously published Colt article to support his case:  Colt dislikes blindness...  Then Golf Illustrated in its reply  debunks his claims using the same Colt article:  Colt likes certain types of blindness...

Overall, Travis appears to have lost his marbles.  The comment about the hollow fronting N Berwick's 15th is interesting though.

British courses are always soft    Perhaps the American courses were super fast in the summer?  Did NGLA have irrigation from the start?

 

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Our discussion at the Delaware County Historical Society yesterday pointed me in the direction of Travis's issues with Macdonald.  

Travis is clear about the marked differences in soil and the "holding quality" that was achieved, or rather not achieved, such as the 6th.  Yet he points out that there are some real architectural features, exacerbated by maintenance practices, that are a real problem for him and that is the "extravagant undulations and slopes" of the greens.  Travis says that there are 11 greens that are so severe that even after a "perfect shot" it is almost impossible to get down in 2.

Travis indicates clearly that Macdonald's intention was to imitate the great holes in the UK for this course and in this, he failed.  Travis points out details of holes like the Sahara (the putting green bears no resemblance), the Redan (differences in angles and hollows and such) and the like.

Travis goes so far as to say that every hole is too severe and that 90% of American courses would be improved if they had a few holes like NGLA but that 18 was too difficult.  Now Travis was the best player in America.  How was he as a putter?  Might Travis have felt that his advantage tee to green might be somewhat compromised by the greens themselves.  He said the course was a "leveller."  Was he a poorer putter after the Schenechtady (sp?) putter was banned by the R&A?

Was the course considered "superhuman" to others?  It is hard for me to understand why the best player in America would take this stand.

[ForkaB]

I, too, was struck by Travis' comments on firmness/softness.  However.........

.....I wonder if the firmness which we now see on most links courses is a relatively new phenomenon.  I know that when I first visited Scotland in 1978, the sensation of walking on links fairways was best described as "spongy" or "peaty."  Since then, two things have happened.  Firstly, there has been significantly increased traffic on the major links courses, leading to compaction of the soil.  Secondly, the UK climate has (I think) been much drier (and warmer) over the past 25-30 years than it was before.  I woudn't have used the term "fast and firm" to describe links courses in 1978.  By 1983, however, I would have.

In contrast, what little information I have about course conditions in the 1920 or so period in the USA (from long past conversations with my granfather) imply that US courses wer emuch faster and firmer on those days than after WWII.

[wsmorrison]

Tom Doak,

Were the greens at NGLA a breakout in terms of severe slopes and contours in the US at the time?  Are they significantly more severe than the holes that were meant to be emulated as Travis suggests?  

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:  yes, the contouring of National's greens was more severe than anything in the USA up to that time, and is generally an exaggeration of the contouring of the links greens he was copying.  The Alps at Prestwick has nowhere near the contour of the 3rd at National; only St. Andrews and Machrihanish and Prestwick have undulations as severe as some of the National's.

I've always understood that Travis was a short but accurate hitter who compensated with a great short game.  That impression would jibe with the courses he designed -- not too long, smallish greens with a fair amount of contour.  Remember, he is the one who ADDED contour to the greens at Garden City, although his undulations are not as severe as those at National.

Travis, the competitor, would not have liked the wide fairways of National because they gave too much advantage to a long and wild hitter.  So, it's strange to see that he focuses on the undulations of the greens in this piece.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

To confirm Travis's style of play, I read a contemporary account recently that said he hit everything very low, bounced everything up and was not very long.

They said Travis never hit a ball higher than 10 feet off the ground.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"Why was Travis fired? Could it have been because of the views he expressed in the article?"

Andy:

I don't know that "fired" would be the right word but in organizing NGLA and in preparing to design and construct it Macdonald explained that he made Devereaux Emmet and Walter Travis his so-called "associates" in the design of the course (presumably his son-in-law Whigam was always with him in that capacity). But Macdonald then mentions that he let Travis go in that capacity. He doesn't mention why but it was probably up to five years before that article about NGLA was written by Travis.

One very logical reason they may have gotten on the "outs" with each other is Macdonald was sort of on the other side of the ultra famous "Schenectady" putter issue which of course directly involved Travis.

[TEPaul]

" It is hard for me to understand why the best player in America would take this stand."

Wayne:

I'm not sure this has a thing to do with the fact that Travis may've been one of the best player in the country at that and probably a lot more to do with just what kind of man Travis was. I don't think it's any secret that Travis was a dour and clearly very opinionated man. Put a guy like that together with C.B. Macdonald and after a while something's probably bound to give bigtime!!

[Allan Long]

The timing of this thread scares me. I just got done reading Scotland's Gift last night, and was wondering why Macdonald broke off his association with Travis. After reading what Travis wrote, it does seem that the broken association played some part in what was written in the article. I have not played NGLA, so I say this not being able to agree or disagree with Travis, but rather what Travis wrote doesn't seem to be consistent with what was written by others during the time period in regard to the course.

[T_MacWood]

I don't believe this critique is the result of sour grapes due to a quarrel over the design of the NGLA. Why Travis stepped down, if he stepped down, is unknown, but is unlikely he was 'fired'.

When the course unofficially opened and hosted its first small event in July of 1910, Travis was was invited (he defeated Macdonald in the 1st round) and he wrote a very complementary article on the course.

It is more likely the bad blood, which is obvious in his criticism, is the result of the Schenectady controversy which came to a head in Sept. 1910. They were on opposite sides of the issue and attacked one another in the press.

There is an article in last years Golf Architecture (the magazine of the Society of Australian Golf Arch.) on the history of criticism in which this article is featured...among others.

[JESII]

SOUR GRAPES!

I find it very hard to believe that Walter Travis would not have gone to a National Open if they held it at NGLA simply because the course is too hard. It may be tough to prove , but I call bulls**t on that.

I am not nearly so well versed as many of you on the relationship CB MacDonald had with Walter Travis, and I have no idea why they split up during the construction of NGLA, but Travis makes it quite clear that it would have been impossible to exaclty recreate the prototype holes because of the expense. Knowing before going into the project that the goal was to copy, as closely as possible, some of the greatest holes from GB then how can you condemn the project five years later for not copying every detail exactly. Furthermore, if you are copying 18 of the best holes you have ever seen, how many of those holes are easy?

Jim

[T_MacWood]

JES
Where did Travis say he wouldn't play in the National open?

[Brian_Gracely]

TomMcW,

I think JES might have inferred that Travis was speaking about himself at the beginning of the 2nd paragraph.

[JESII]

Tom

Sorry, I misread the opening sentence of the second paragraph poorly.

Jim

[JESII]

I even wrote my response to that misread poorly

[JESII]

The question of Travis' motives for this poor review are the topic, he has two points for why National is lacking; the poorly copied renditions of three holes, and the severity of those holes with respect to ground conditions.

Is it necessary to get every detail when making a copy of a hole? In the Sahara example, Travis seems to think the NGLA hole is in no way similar to the original. Why then would it be considered a copy? Is it and are the other two good or even great holes in their own right?

The ground conditions question is a good one and there appears to be some support on here for extremely firm ground in the early days of golf in the US before automatic irrigation. I would imagine when soil is hard and dry it would feel and play much harder than when sand gets hard and dry.National is out on Long Island, so it seems there should be a sandy base there as well.

If a particular hole is designed so that a ball struck by a good player cannot hold the green under normal conditions I would question its quality as well, but if that were the case throughout, why did so many others give such high praise?

Jim

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

What struck me is the perception of the golf course then, and the perception of the golf course today.

The article would have one believe that NGLA was devilishly difficult, while today, it's considered fairly easy, especially when compared to its neighbor, Shinnecock Hills, which I maintain is a substantially harder golf course.

I also was struck with the authors thoughts, at the time of writing, regarding the lack of strategy or options.  Today, NGLA is perceived as containing multitudiness options for almost every level of player.

If the article was the product of sour grapes, should we then not look at all articles with enlightened suspicion ?

Should we always seek to discover and understand the motives as well as the message ?

Or, are we to take all articles written by Donald Trump and Walter Travis at their word ?

While it's true that the holes at NGLA aren't exact replicas, I don't believe it was ever CBM's intent to make identical copies.

I think of the geometry terms, similar but not congruent when I look at replica holes, especially the ones of CBM, SR and CB.

Understanding the personalities of the individuals involved, their egos and their works sheds some light on the genesis of the article.  The article also seems to contradict itself.  On one hand he claims to agree that NGLA is the greatest and on the other goes on to say that it's too difficult and not representative of it's intended goal, as interpreted by the author, of duplicating the copied holes.

I can see how holes # 2 and # 3 could be criticized as being difficult for their time.  Hole # 3 remains difficult to this day.

I'd have to vote for: sour grapes or personality conflict as the reason for the article.

[TEPaul]

"Today, NGLA is perceived as containing multitudiness options for almost every level of player."

Pat:

Would that mean that NGLA contains a multitude of options or would it mean that each particular option is multitudiness?

(If that's too technical or too deep for you please feel completely free to disregard the question altogether).