What did the early term "expert" mean?

[TEPaul]

The early accounts in newspapers and club histories commonly referred to "experts" as the ones responsible for course planning and design of courses.

Who were they generally referring to around the turn of the century and into the teens?

I submit in almost every case they were merely referring to what they considered to be good golfers.

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

Why don't we lay off this Merion business for a while?

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

Where in what Tom wrote does the word "Merion" appear? Where is it even implied?

Lest you forget or don't want to bother reading one post above yours, Tom wrote, "The early accounts in newspapers and club histories commonly referred to "experts" as the ones responsible for course planning and design of courses. Who were they generally referring to around the turn of the century and into the teens? I submit in almost every case they were merely referring to what they considered to be good golfers."

Give it a break for once...

Tom, I agree with you completely. It seems that most of the "experts" were good players and that anyone from Scotland was both a good player and an expert before even teeing it up.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

Why don't you try to stop turning every single thread by some of us in Philadelphia into another  thread about Merion or into something about you?  We've all heard of the term "self possession", I'm sure, but this is getting sort of ridiculous on your part. Are you going to try to turn discussions about  clubs like Oakmont and Myopia and a number of others of that same early era into something about you too?    

[DMoriarty]

It depended upon their expertise. 

Have at it.  I for one will sit this one out.

[TEPaul]

"It depended upon their expertise."

That appears to be very true---eg their expertise as golfers!   

"I for one will sit this one out."

Thank you. That would be much appreciated and seemingly an excellent idea.  

[Thomas MacWood]

In most cases expert would refer to a golf architect. I just ran into it the other day. Carl Fisher the developer of Miami Beach was discussing the design of one his courses. In that case the expert turned out to be Willie Park II.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE -

I've seen some of the ads from those early days, promoting an expertise in laying out courses 'along the most modern and scientific lines'.  I've wondered:

- what would've qualified for 'the most old-fashioned and unscientific lines'? and,

- there must've been a whole lot of people who were decidedely NOT experts for this term to be used so often

Generally, the early golf ads remind me of those for cure-alls sold out of wagons by travelling salesman, the kind that cured baldness, bad livers and nervous disorders alll...

Peter 

 

[Mike_Cirba]

I've seen it numerous times in reference to course architecture and construction but the one common denominator among the accounts I've seen is that they were proficient and experienced players, whether amateur or professional,  which seemed a rare commodity at the time.

[TEPaul]

Almost without exception the so-called "amateur/sportsman" designers of clubs such as GCGC, Myopia, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley etc. were considered to be good to very good golfers of their time and seemingly the best golfers those clubs had. The clubs and newspaper accounts at the time invariably seem to refer to them as "experts" when their involvment with the design of those club's courses was mentioned.

With all those men from those clubs mentioned it seems the common thread amongst them all was the vast amount of time they spent involved in their projects, in every case a number of years and sometimes decades.

One point of this thread is to show that there seems to be a preception amongst some on this website that when these men began in architecture they were too inexperienced to do what they've been given credit for and of necessity had to turn to someone with more experience to do it for them such as original course routing and design. This does not appear to be the case. I believe we all probably need to accept that despite the fact they had no previous experience in design, they most certainly had some very strong ideas about what golf and architecture should be and that they simply acted on this themselves in their original design projects. H.C. Fownes may be the best example of this yet, although Boston's Herbert Leeds most certainly seems to be another excellent example.

The latest example seems to be Oakmont and H.C. (and W.C Jr) Fownes. In the case of H.C. there does not even seem to be anyone remotely on the horizon who he turned to for advice architecturally as Merion did with Macdonald and Whigam. Part of this could certainly be at the time H.C. began he did not have much connection with the USGA or the Lesley Cup (which would not actually be formed until 1905). The latter two entities is were MCC had much stronger connections when they moved to Ardmore.

Another point is it just does not seem to be historically appropriate or accurate for this site or anyone for that matter to simply make the assumption that it's a GIVEN men like that could not have routed and designed their own courses and that they all had to find someone with more experience to do it for them. The accurate historic record of almost all the clubs mentioned above seems to indicate otherwise.

For this reason I believe this era and that type of "amateur/sportsman" designer and his common modus operandi is a most important one in the evolution of American architecture. It would not be half as interesting if the courses they did were not considered so great and so enduring.

It is also interesting to note after WW1 this age of that type of "amateur/sportsman" designer seem to slow to a stop and virtually die out. This as well, has to indicate some very important factors in the history and evolution of American architecture.

[Adam Clayman]

As far as golf's concerened, aside from maintenance science, I doubt the term has changed in it's origins since the earliest days. That being self-proclaimed.

[Adrian_Stiff]

X is the unknown. Spurt is a leak under pressure.

[Andy Hughes]

One point of this thread is to show that there seems to be a preception amongst some on this website that when these men began in architecture they were too inexperienced to do what they've been given credit for and of necessity had to turn to someone with more experience to do it for them such as original course routing and design.

Not to pull David into this thread, but I believe if anything the Merion threads showed me that you are wrong about this Tom. 

One mistake I believe has been repeatedly made is discussing the creation of Merion but using the end product as the basis.  Mike Cirba has repeatedly made the case that Merion's initial iteration was so bad, or at least so far from its later acclaimed state, that half the holes were wholly redone.  He has also demonstrated that the routing, far from being a work of genius, was actually essentially pre-ordained based on the land, its configuration and its parameters.  I do understand Mike's reason for making these observations was to riddle the notion that CDM was responsible for the initial creation, but the same facts also lead to the obvious conclusion that Wilson didn't really know what he was doing at first. 

Is it therefore wrong to say Wilson, when he began, was indeed too inexperienced and did not know enough to create what would later become Merion?

[TEPaul]

"Not to pull David into this thread, but I believe if anything the Merion threads showed me that you are wrong about this Tom. 

One mistake I believe has been repeatedly made is discussing the creation of Merion but using the end product as the basis.  Mike Cirba has repeatedly made the case that Merion's initial iteration was so bad, or at least so far from its later acclaimed state, that half the holes were wholly redone.  He has also demonstrated that the routing, far from being a work of genius, was actually essentially pre-ordained based on the land, its configuration and its parameters.  I do understand Mike's reason for making these observations was to riddle the notion that CDM was responsible for the initial creation, but the same facts also lead to the obvious conclusion that Wilson didn't really know what he was doing at first. 

Is it therefore wrong to say Wilson, when he began, was indeed too inexperienced and did not know enough to create what would later become Merion?"



ahughes:

One thing I have never done in these Merion debates is to use what you call the 'end product' as any basis at all in these debates with the likes of David Moriarty's and Tom MacWood's apparent belief that Macdonald was more involved in the original routing and design of Merion East than the club and us have given him credit for. The only timeframe I'm concerned with is between 1910 and 1911 when the course was initially routed and designed and constructed and then let grass-in for a year between Sept 1911 and Sept 1912.

Whether Mike Cirba or anyone else claims the course in 1912 (when it opened for play) was really bad is not at all the point either. The entire point is who routed and designed it in 1911 and was Macdonald's roll in that minimized by the club at that time.

We believe it was not. Apparently some such as Moriarty and MacWood believe it was. Hugh Wilson and his committee routed and designed the course in 1911 and they received advice and suggestions from Macdonald in that effort just as Merion's architectural record has always shown.

Macdonald approved one of Wilson's and committee's course plans stating that it contained the best last seven holes of any inland course in the world. That doesn't sound to me like Macdonald thought that first iteration was all that bad. 

But again, the point isn't how bad or how good the course was at that time or even how inexperienced Wilson was in 1911. The only point is if it is historically accurate that Wilson and his committee should be given architectural attribution and credit for the routing and design and creation of Merion East in 1911, as the club has always said.

We believe Wilson and his committee should be given that architectural attribution and credit as Merion's record has always shown which has always included the advice Macdonald/Whigam provided in only two one day visits to Ardmore, and the advice they provided Wilson and his committee at NGLA during a two day visit there.

Furthermore, you can read in Moriarty's essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" that the club and its board when they said to the MCC membership in a letter in early Jan. 1911 that "experts are now at work on the course..." that the board's letter could not have been referring to Wilson and his committee simply because they had no previous experience in golf course architecture and that consequently the board must have been referring to Barker or Macdonald and Whigam.

We believe that assumption and that premise is completely wrong and that the board most certainly was referring to Wilson and his committee as those "experts" as many others did at that time simply because they were very good golfers.

Frankly, it makes no sense at all to say Barker was "at work" designing the course in 1911 because Barker hadn't been there since June 1910 and never returned and Macdonald and Whigam weren't there between June 1910 and April 6, 1911 during that one day visit when they went over the grounds and over various plans Wilson and committee had created in the winter and spring of 1911 and approved one of Wilson and committee's course plans.

[RSLivingston_III]

I would be cautious about placing an absolute on the meaning of "expert".
I like this quote from AG1912.

Some golf experts are those who can take an obscure subject and by explanation make it still more obscure.

[Andy Hughes]

Tom, I'm sorry, I am not sure we are talking about the same thing? I am not referring in any way to who deserves credit (or blame) for the intial iteration of Merion nor am I trying at all to suck you back into a discussion of Barker, routings etc.  I am not nearly foolish enough to place myself in the middle of that discussion 

I am referring to Wilson, and trying to make the case that contra your thesis in this thread he was both too inexperienced and unable to create a great course.  Obviously that changed later, but was there much of his first efforts that would bolster your contention?

[TEPaul]

"I am referring to Wilson, and trying to make the case that contra your thesis in this thread he was both too inexperienced and unable to create a great course."


ahughes:

Is the point you're trying to make that you think Hugh Wilson was too inexperienced in 1911 to be able to route and design and create Merion East with his committee?

If that's your point, perhaps there are a few things you might need to know about Merion's history such as what the club's board meeting minutes say about that. 

I suppose anyone could just assume that the committees responsible for the creation of Merion East could sit in a club board meeting and completely lie to their board members about what they'd been doing for the last four months but what really is the chance of that happening in the real world? I realize that kind of analysis and assumption and conclusion might happen on here but I don't think I've ever heard of it happening in the real world and certainly not to a club like MCC and Merion.   



 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
It could just as easily be seen as PR, i.e., who the heck would say "Course X was designed by a noted in-expert"

[Bradley Anderson]

It has always amazed me in my career whenever I have built a feature on a golf course how valuable the golf professional's insight is when I bring him out for advice in layout. There is no question in my mind that the better players have a good innate sense for design. It will be really interesting to see what Tiger comes up with in his design. He sure has a prime piece of property to work with.

Part of being an expert is being confident and having that swagger. Travis must have been very confident in himself as an architect when he came back from being the first American to win the British Open. And who would question his opinion at that point?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The early accounts in newspapers and club histories commonly referred to "experts" as the ones responsible for course planning and design of courses.

Who were they generally referring to around the turn of the century and into the teens?

I submit in almost every case they were merely referring to what they considered to be good golfers.

TE,

I'd agree.

I believe that the term was one of "relativity" and probably refered to the most experienced golfers, which tended to be those golfers who were well traveled and competed in tournaments.

[TEPaul]

JimK:

I really don't know what you're saying or asking in that post.

[Mark_Fine]

Good golfers!

[TEPaul]

"TE,

I believe that the term was one of "relativity" and probably refered to the most experienced golfers, which tended to be those golfers who were well traveled and competed in tournaments."



Pat:

I think when we look at some of those "amateur/sportsmen" designers of the likes of Leeds, Fownes, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump et al etc who created such great courses over such extended projects, we can't just look at them through our on eyes today and what the alternatives are for us (if we could take it back to their times). We need to look at what their alternatives were in their eyes back then and it really wasn't much if one contracted with a professional back then as we do today.

None of the so-called professionals back then had done a thing in America of real qualty or note, and that's what they were looking at.

Who did the best work back then in the few courses that were any good say before NGLA got real notice? "Amateur/sportsmen" designers did like Leeds, Emmet, maybe Travis and the Fownses did and had and every single one of them was a good player and was called an "expert" because of just that. I don't even think Ross had gotten any real notice that early as a contract architect.

Not to mention that these guys mentioned were mostly pretty rich and powerful and well educated guys and with some pretty strong ideas and they obviously felt they could just do it themselves as well as anyone could. And of course we can overlook the fact that they were basically concentrating on single projects only---eg the ones that made them famous.

This seems to be pretty well borne out at the end of the teens and into the 1920s when the quality of professional architecture work had begun to ramp up in real quality and get notice----then it just wasn't that necessary for the likes of the Leedses, Emmets, Fownes, Wilsons and Crumps ("amateur/sportsmen designers all) to do what they once had in the decade or two before that.

In my opinion, this isn't just about understanding them better it's about understanding their particular time better.

Back then, if you were a really good player there seems to be no question most expected that you could design courses too. Ever bit of evidence---club records, newspapers and magazines of that time are just rife with that attitude back then and it is just not good for anyone today to try and say they were too inexperienced to do what they did, particularly when it is totally provable that they did do what they've been given credit for.

This isn't about glorifying what they did and making historically inaccurate legends out of them as a few on here just can't seem to stop thinking---it was the truth.

It's more about us figuring out how they did it and not so much about IF they did it.  

[Thomas MacWood]

I think when we look at some of those "amateur/sportsmen" designers of the likes of Leeds, Fownes, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump et al etc who created such great courses over such extended projects, we can't just look at them through our on eyes today and what the alternatives are for us (if we could take it back to their times). We need to look at what their alternatives were in their eyes back then and it really wasn't much if one contracted with a professional back then as we do today.

None of the so-called professionals back then had done a thing in America of real qualty or note, and that's what they were looking at.

Who did the best work back then in the few courses that were any good say before NGLA got real notice? "Amateur/sportsmen" designers did like Leeds, Emmet, maybe Travis and the Fownses did and had and every single one of them was a good player and was called an "expert" because of just that. I don't even think Ross had gotten any real notice that early as a contract architect.

Not to mention that these guys mentioned were mostly pretty rich and powerful and well educated guys and with some pretty strong ideas and they obviously felt they could just do it themselves as well as anyone could. And of course we can overlook the fact that they were basically concentrating on single projects only---eg the ones that made them famous.

This seems to be pretty well borne out at the end of the teens and into the 1920s when the quality of professional architecture work had begun to ramp up in real quality and get notice----then it just wasn't that necessary for the likes of the Leedses, Emmets, Fownes, Wilsons and Crumps ("amateur/sportsmen designers all) to do what they once had in the decade or two before that.

In my opinion, this isn't just about understanding them better it's about understanding their particular time better.

Back then, if you were a really good player there seems to be no question most expected that you could design courses too. Ever bit of evidence---club records, newspapers and magazines of that time are just rife with that attitude back then and it is just not good for anyone today to try and say they were too inexperienced to do what they did, particularly when it is totally provable that they did do what they've been given credit for.

This isn't about glorifying what they did and making historically inaccurate legends out of them as a few on here just can't seem to stop thinking---it was the truth.

It's more about us figuring out how they did it and not so much about IF they did it.  

TE
I think it might be misleading to throw all these guys under the same generalizations - each has a different story.

Leeds-Definitely one of the long term architects, tweeking and perfecting over many years. However he wasn't even a member of Myopia when the course was first laid out. A very good golfer.

Emmet-He is defintely responsible for the early form of GCGC along with George Hubbell (they also sought the advice of Alex Findlay) circa 1900, but wasn't the turning point at GCGC when Travis later overhauled the course? Went on to become one of the most prolific golf architects in American history. A good golfer.

Travis-His earliest design experiences came with JD Dunn at Ekwanock and other NE courses, also around the turn of the century. He was reponsible for overhauling GCGC from around 1908 to 1911, after that time his power at the club was diminished. Went on to become a full time golf architect. One of the premier golfers in the world. Unlike the others not independently wealthy.

H. Fownes & W.Fownes-I'm not sure it is accurate to lump these two men into the same catagory, as far as the roll in the design of Oakmont. I'd like to see more info on the development of Oakmont. Defintely a long term overseer. Both very good golfers, though W.Fownes was more accomplished.

Macdonald-Began designing in the 1890s in Chicago. He had no problem seeking the advice of others when laying out his ideal course in 1906. Another long term man, tweeking and perfecting over a period of years. Went on to become the premier golf architect in America. A very good golfer.

Crump-His project began in 1913 and the American design landscape was much more developed. Sought the advice of HS Colt among others. Good local golfer.

Wilson-Merion began in 1911, again the American landscape was different at that time than say 1900 or 1906. Colt had come over. William Watson and HH Barker were doing good work. Herbert Strong was starting to get going. NGLA, GCGC and Myopia were very good. Wilson headed a committee that sought the advice of experts. Good local golfer; not in the same income group as most of the others.

The time frames are all slightly different and the particulars are also unique. I'm not sure it is useful to lump them all under the term amateur/sportsmen as you define it. You also have to consider the fact that Emmet, Travis, and Macdoanld went onto become full fledged golf architects. You could probably include Wilson in that group as well (although he might be more part-time). Fownes and Leeds were really devoted to a single golf course. I'm also at loss why you think the term 'expert' is more closely tied to these men as opposed to HS Colt, Willie Park, Donald Ross, and other professional architects referred to as experts.

[Andy Hughes]

Is the point you're trying to make that you think Hugh Wilson was too inexperienced in 1911 to be able to route and design and create Merion East with his committee?

Tom, yes, that is exactly my point in a sense. He was clearly able to route/design/create the initial iteration of Merion in 1911, but notexperienced or skilled enough to create a course of much quality.  Is there really any doubt of that?  If we accept Mike Cirba's contention that almost anyone could have routed Merion initially as there weren't really any options with that land parcel, then what was the great strength of Wilson and committee's first go? It was a course devoid of hazards and therefore strategy that needed to be substantially reworked and remade over time to be considered great.

I suppose anyone could just assume that the committees responsible for the creation of Merion East could sit in a club board meeting and completely lie to their board members about what they'd been doing for the last four months but what really is the chance of that happening in the real world? I realize that kind of analysis and assumption and conclusion might happen on here but I don't think I've ever heard of it happening in the real world and certainly not to a club like MCC and Merion

Tom, I don't see what the board minutes have to do with Merion in 1912. Either the course Wilson and committee created was a good one or it was not. Or am I not getting your point?

Also, you said earlierI believe we all probably need to accept that despite the fact they had no previous experience in design, they most certainly had some very strong ideas about what golf and architecture should be
With Wilson as an example, what do you mean?  Is there any documentation about what his ideas may have been?