News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Peter Pallotta

Re: Robert White
« Reply #175 on: August 06, 2008, 10:57:02 AM »
Sean - thanks. Yes, Colt - I can well imagine how impressed all would be with Swinley. I've never been there and I don't know what was first there, but from the reading and pictures (including your good Swinley thread), what I'm so impressed by is the sophistication of it all, and by that I mean the simplicity and elegance of it all. To put it via analogy, it doesn't seem like a first novel (where the writer throws in everything and every trick he knows) but like the work of an old and supremely confident master.
And to think that, with that resource at his his disposal (I mean, Colt's help), Mr. Crump still kept working and working and striving for better on Pine Valley....in search of, I imagine, that elusive sense and feeling of perfection.

Peter  

Thomas MacWood

Re: Robert White
« Reply #176 on: August 06, 2008, 10:57:54 AM »
What were the best courses in 1899 based on the standards of 1899?

Mike_Cirba

Re: Robert White
« Reply #177 on: August 06, 2008, 11:03:39 AM »
TEPaul:

I wasn't so much making a point as I was posing a question, which I do not believe needs further elaboration. But, nevertheless I will try. 

Assume, if you will, that one of these amateur/sportsmen embarks on a design or redesign of a club's course, perhaps with the assistance of that club's professional.  Without knowing the precise respective divisions of labor or input, I think it is entirely plausible that the members of such club, and indeed the golfing public at large, which at that time was a fairly insular bunch, might be more inclined to give attribution, in some cases total attribution to the amateur-sportsman, at the expense of the professional, even if it isn't warranted. My point was, given the regard the professional was held in as compared to the amateur-sportsman, this isn't so farfetched.


Sean,

This is particularly interesting in light of the contention that Macdonald/Whigham's contributions were somehow downplayed at Merion.

Neither man was a professional; instead they were likely the two most highly respected amateurs in American golf at the time.

If anything, the nature of human promotion would indicate that Merion would have actually overplayed their contributions, and no way would they have underplayed them.

As far as Barker, it's pretty clear his 18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon drawing for Merion didn't merit much traction within the club.



Thomas MacWood

Re: Robert White
« Reply #178 on: August 06, 2008, 11:04:02 AM »
Sean - thanks. Yes, Colt - I can well imagine how impressed all would be with Swinley. I've never been there and I don't know what was first there, but from the reading and pictures (including your good Swinley thread), what I'm so impressed by is the sophistication of it all, and by that I mean the simplicity and elegance of it all. To put it via analogy, it doesn't seem like a first novel (where the writer throws in everything and every trick he knows) but like the work of an old and supremely confident master.
And to think that, with that resource at his his disposal (I mean, Colt's help), Mr. Crump still kept working and working and striving for better on Pine Valley....in search of, I imagine, that elusive sense and feeling of perfection.

Peter  

Peter
There is plenty of evidence that Crump kept working and working and striving to grow grass. Is that what you are referring to?

Mike_Cirba

Re: Robert White
« Reply #179 on: August 06, 2008, 11:09:29 AM »
Tom,

Besides Ekwanock,  which imo was more architecturally advanced than Chicago at that time (as well as Myopia & Garden City), I'd ask you which of the course you listed were somehow architecturally noteworthy or indicative of some architectural advancement that elevated the state of American golf before 1910?  Possibly Brookline or Oakmont?    I certainly don't see much else there.

NGLA didn't open until 1911, so even though it was the best course in America that no one had played prior to 1910, it shouldn't count for our purposes here.

Actually, I'd probably put Woodlands on there before a number of courses listed.


Myopia
Brookline
Chicago
Myopia
Ekwanock
NGLA
Garden City
Oakmont ?

Mike
They were playing at NGLA in 1909, so it should be included IMO. I don't know much about Woodland, was it highly regarded nationally? What about Baltusrol and Pinehurst? Was Oakmont considered one of the best courses in 1909?

Tom,

Who is "they" that were playing NGLA before 1910?   

In August of that year Macdonald had about a dozen buddies for a tournament and to provide their comments on the course and that was the first mention I've seen anyone playing it.   I'm sure prior to then some of Mac's visitors knocked a ball around a little bit, but that's a long way from actually opening, which didn't happen until 1911.

Both the pics and drawings I've seen of early Baltusrol are not impressive.   Pinehurst had flat sand greens, as you know.

I don't think the germane question involves what were the best courses in America in 1899-1909 compared to each other, but how compared to the fatherland?   By that measure most were abject faiulres.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Robert White
« Reply #180 on: August 06, 2008, 11:27:26 AM »
What were the best courses in 1899 based on the standards of 1899?


Tommy Mac

In The Vardon Invasion there are a few spots which list what Vardon thought were the best courses on his 1900 tour.  A short list would include

Atlantic City
Garden City
Oakland
Dyker Meadow
Philadelphia CC

Vardon cited  Wannamoisett, Oakland, Kebo & CC of Detroit as having fine greens.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

TEPaul

Re: Robert White
« Reply #181 on: August 06, 2008, 11:30:00 AM »
The last one looks like a semi-decent list to me and isn't it interesting that almost everyone of them is attributed to one of those so-called "amateur/sportsmen" designers of that interesting time and era in American architecture? Essentially that has been my point. I realize that a few on here are challenging those attributions and trying to come up with some mysterious heretofore "hidden from the record" "expert" who had to step in and show those "amateur/sportsmen" how to do what they've been given credit for doing but each and every time it seems like the accurate record and history trumps that theory and that speculation.

TEPaul

Re: Robert White
« Reply #182 on: August 06, 2008, 11:32:58 AM »
"By that measure most were abject faiulres."

MikeC:

What is a faiulre?

Is it French? If so I don't want to know about it.  ;)

TEPaul

Re: Robert White
« Reply #183 on: August 06, 2008, 11:37:11 AM »
Sean:

For a discussion like this one I'm not so sure what some of those guys back there then said about some courses should be something to exactly take to the bank. At least not unless they got into some detail about a particular course.

Haven't you noticed judging from his collected remarks about courses Bob Jones probably had about fifty of them he said were about the best one in the country.  ;)

The guy was just a gentleman. It's about as simple as that.  ;)

TEPaul

Re: Robert White
« Reply #184 on: August 06, 2008, 11:41:41 AM »
"Peter
There is plenty of evidence that Crump kept working and working and striving to grow grass. Is that what you are referring to?"


Mr. MacWood:

There sure is plenty of evidence of that and it sure didn't escape my notice that a few years ago you were under the impression that's about all he was doing at Pine Valley.

It also didn't escape my notice that about 2/3-3/4 of the letter (report) of Macdonald to MCC's search committee related in one way or another to growing grass.  ;)

Thomas MacWood

Re: Robert White
« Reply #185 on: August 06, 2008, 11:43:08 AM »
Mike
It was reported in American Golfer the National would be informally opened in June 1909. Baltusrol was very well respected in the Metropolitan district. In fact in 1909 I think one could easily make the case that Baltusrol was held in higher esteem than Oakmont. In 1915 Chick Evans rated both Pinehurst #2 and #3 on his short list of best courses.

I made the statement that the majority of the best courses in America in 1890s and 1900s were either designed by Scots or partially designed by Scots. TE's reponded by saying 'That remark, is just a massive factual inaccuracy in the history and evolution of golf architecture in America...' So the question is germain IMO.

One must judge an era relative to the standards of that era. Should we ignore George Mikan because he could not play in the NBA today? Certainly there were many failures, especially in comparison to our present standard or even in comparison to the height of the golden age. But you can not ignore an era in history because of future advancements, especailly when you consider golf architecture advanced incrementally and not over night. There were definitely courses that stood out in the 1890s, and we need to acknowledge them.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Robert White
« Reply #186 on: August 06, 2008, 12:04:07 PM »
Sean:

For a discussion like this one I'm not so sure what some of those guys back there then said about some courses should be something to exactly take to the bank. At least not unless they got into some detail about a particular course.

Haven't you noticed judging from his collected remarks about courses Bob Jones probably had about fifty of them he said were about the best one in the country.  ;)

The guy was just a gentleman. It's about as simple as that.  ;)

There is no doubt that Vardon would have held back with his true remarks about the vast majority of courses he saw.  Being used to playing the best in Britain I am sure Vardon was shocked at what passed for a course much of the time in the US.  Still, what is striking about the list is what is missing as much as what is included.  In any case, nearly everybody's comments about such and such are circumspect if we are to include what is likely to be held back out of respect for peers etc.

Ciao
« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 12:06:03 PM by Sean Arble »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

TEPaul

Re: Robert White
« Reply #187 on: August 06, 2008, 12:09:09 PM »
"One must judge an era relative to the standards of that era. Should we ignore George Mikan because he could not play in the NBA today? Certainly there were many failures, especially in comparison to our present standard or even in comparison to the height of the golden age. But you can not ignore an era in history because of future advancements, especailly when you consider golf architecture advanced incrementally and not over night. There were definitely courses that stood out in the 1890s, and we need to acknowledge them."


Mr. MacWood:

What are you talking about? Nobody is ignoring that era. What do you think these discussions on the best of these early courses has been about---the modern era?  ;)

The point is the very best of that era were designed by the so-called American "amateur/sportsman" architect which number perhaps six to eight, and their courses were famous then and they're still famous.

You seem to have been trying to imply that those "amateur/sportsmen" who those courses have been attributed to didn't really lay them out and design them because they were all too much the novice to know how to do it and that some journeyman immigrant Scot pro/greenkeeper/part time 1-2 day "layout" guy who you claim was one of the great architectural "experts" of the time did.

History proves that just wasn't the case. I realize that your tendency is when you find some lesser known name, you try to float the fact that his real contribution has been minimized somehow and that needs to be fixed. I think this is a result of your fixation on coming across as this expert researcher.

Only problem is you keep trying to stretch the truth big time. In the process you get into implying just about every time that the actual club board and meeting records and such are seriously flawed somehow.

No one falls for that specious logic and rationale time after time! The reason is obvious----it's just not true, Mr MacWood. ;)

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Robert White
« Reply #188 on: August 06, 2008, 12:14:11 PM »
On the flip side TomP, how much of the wealthy amateur pre 1910 stuff has stood the test of time?  I ask because I sincerely don't know.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Robert White
« Reply #189 on: August 06, 2008, 12:19:59 PM »
TEPaul:

I wasn't so much making a point as I was posing a question, which I do not believe needs further elaboration. But, nevertheless I will try. 

Assume, if you will, that one of these amateur/sportsmen embarks on a design or redesign of a club's course, perhaps with the assistance of that club's professional.  Without knowing the precise respective divisions of labor or input, I think it is entirely plausible that the members of such club, and indeed the golfing public at large, which at that time was a fairly insular bunch, might be more inclined to give attribution, in some cases total attribution to the amateur-sportsman, at the expense of the professional, even if it isn't warranted. My point was, given the regard the professional was held in as compared to the amateur-sportsman, this isn't so farfetched.


Sean,

This is particularly interesting in light of the contention that Macdonald/Whigham's contributions were somehow downplayed at Merion.

Neither man was a professional; instead they were likely the two most highly respected amateurs in American golf at the time.

If anything, the nature of human promotion would indicate that Merion would have actually overplayed their contributions, and no way would they have underplayed them.


TEPaul:

As far as the nature of human promotion is concerned (and without commenting on what actually happened), do you really think Merion would have overplayed the contribution of MacDonald and Whigham at the expense of one of its own?

Mike_Cirba

Re: Robert White
« Reply #190 on: August 06, 2008, 01:28:34 PM »
Sean,

Yes, absolutely.

I say that because although it wouldn't appear obvious in retrospect, these guys were needing the membership to buy into their plan/land scheme, and for it to succeed grandly, they needed buy-in.   Let's not forget that the real estate component had an offering for the membership, as well, so the whole thing had to be a bit of a risk.

If the course had in fact been designed by the most prominent and accomplished two men in American golf at that time, it is certain that much ado would have been made about it for that reason alone.

If you've ever read anything written by Hugh Wilson, or about him from those who knew him personally, the first words that come to mind are humble and self-effacing.  He certainly wasn't looking to elevate himself as an architect, and in some ways, he almost became the "accidental architect", because once Merion East was put in place it seemed all of the regional big-wigs wanted to utilize the new local "expert", whether it was Clarence Geist at Seaview, Ellis Gimble at Philmont, Robert Lesley for public golf ala Cobb's Creek, or just friends like Frank Meehan working on his course at North Hills.   I don't sense he ever said a self-promoting word in his life related to golf course architecture, his knowledge, or his achievements.

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Robert White
« Reply #191 on: August 06, 2008, 02:04:29 PM »
Mike,
I am not talking about marketing clout, nor did I claim that Hugh Wilson was self-promoting. That's not what any of my response was about.

TEPaul was talking about the "nature of human promotion."  I merely offered that I believed the nature of human promotion is for an institution to promote one of its own than an outsider.  If you divorce yourself from Merion for a minute, and disagree In the abstract, than I think you are just too emotionally caught up in whats transpired these past couple of months.

TEPaul

Re: Robert White
« Reply #192 on: August 06, 2008, 02:27:46 PM »
SPDB:

The "nature of human promotion"??

I don't believe I want to get into something hypothetical like that with Merion. I'm just interested in determining what actually happened. MCC and their various committees probably had enough else to think about with moving their course than to concern themselves with the "nature of human promotion" or promoting themselves at the expense of someone else like Macdonald or Whigam. I doubt the thought even crossed their minds. That kind of thing may be a factor in the revisionist charade of a few on here but I'm quite sure it was not an issue or a subject at MCC in 1910 and 1911. And frankly both the Wilson brothers as well as probably the others involved such as Lloyd and Griscom were men who seemed to shun credit rather than seek it out.

Thomas MacWood

Re: Robert White
« Reply #193 on: August 06, 2008, 02:32:26 PM »
Best of 1890s
Newport-Davis
Shinnecock Hills-Davis
Chicago-Macdonald, Foulis
Myopia-Campbell, Leeds
Glen View-Tweedie
Onwentsia-Foulis, Tweedie, Whigham
Brookline-Campbell

Best of 1900s
Myopia-Campbell, Leeds
Brookline-Campbell, Windeler
Chicago-Macdonald, Foulis
Ekwanok-Dunn, Travis
NGLA-Macdonald
Garden City-Emmet, Travis

TE
85% of the best courses of the 90s and 66% of the best courses of the 00s were either designed by Scots or partially designed by Scots.

« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 02:37:29 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re: Robert White
« Reply #194 on: August 06, 2008, 02:40:48 PM »
TEPaul:
As far as the nature of human promotion is concerned (and without commenting on what actually happened), do you really think Merion would have overplayed the contribution of MacDonald and Whigham at the expense of one of its own?"


SPDB:

I think they would be more likely to overplay his contribution rather than underplay it. I'm virtually convinced that George Crump right around the opening of Pine Valley consciously overplayed Colt's contribution and if one thinks about the circumstances of that time why wouldn't he? It isn't lost on me that a couple of his friends separately wrote articles that were a bit too similar not to think that.

If my club had done Ardrossan Farm do you think I would be inclined to underplay the participation of Bill Coore?  Hardly. The basic idea in my mind would be, "Who am I, and who is he?"  ;)

There are probably a few on here who will shortly claim that they are convinced I would underplay Coore to over play myself. Apparently they believe they know me better than I do!   ::)

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Robert White
« Reply #195 on: August 06, 2008, 02:43:41 PM »
SPDB:

The "nature of human promotion"??
TEPaul - look at your post above. I was just quoting you.

Quote

TEPaul

Re: Robert White
« Reply #196 on: August 06, 2008, 02:45:25 PM »
"TE
85% of the best courses of the 90s and 66% of the best courses of the 00s were either designed by Scots or partially designed by Scots."

Mr. MacWood:

Of course they were, if one wants to completely speculate on and completely exaggerate what they did.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Robert White
« Reply #197 on: August 06, 2008, 02:45:44 PM »
Tommy Mac

I am not sure many of the courses you list would have been considered good by 1910ish - a sort of cutoff date I use because by then Colt was firmly on the scene and folks in the know could get an idea of what proper inland courses were.  It strikes me as just a list of names with no value.  Jeepers, in most cases these courses don't exist in the form you celebrate - and often for good reasons. 

Peter, I do believe that the tuning point you are looking for in architecture, the point where form and function could go hand in hand was the emergence of Colt in 1910ish.  Really, Colt's completion of Swinley was his great calling card.  He was able to put it all together to great effect.  It was the first real big project he had.  Of course he did Stoke Poges before, but he had cleared land to work with in an established park.  The other courses he completed before 1910ish were of lesser note. 

It is no accident that both English and American architecture improved dramatically after the arrival of Colt - he can't really be given enough credit for what he accomplished in the field. 

Sean, with all due respect to Colt, I am not sure he had a big influence in the United States before he came over here and designed a few courses.   That was 1911, wasn't it?   And those courses did not open until 1912 or later, did they?  So while I agree with your timing, 1910ish,  I disagree with your causation.   While there were other influences (including Colt and long forgotten talented professionals like Barker)  it takes some extraordinary revisionism (see cga.com) to ignore Macdonald and Whigham's revolutionary impact on golf in America with the National, that is if we are talking about the introduction of conceptually and strategically great golf design to America. 


David M - only the "75 years" was Tom's point, I added the "100" years to bring us back to the time we're talking about, not thinking that there was a big difference and change (but as soon as you mentioned it I realized/remembered the difference).  But I still have trouble with this, i.e. if those earliest courses were so rudimentary, and if the goal was simply to create a place to play golf on, then we are talking about something quite different from the concept of "golf course architect" (i.e. his talents, goals, aspirations) that would emerge/develop 10 or 20 years later. Again, it seems to me that at some point the CREATIVE (as oppossed to merely 'functional') role became key, and it was those men who thought in those terms who designed the great golf courses. And by the same token, if the earliest courses were so rudimentary (and didn't involve the need to think about cart paths and earth-moving and irrigation), what was left for the golf professionals/experts to even bring to the table? In that scenario, it does seem very plausible to me that a few of the earliest professionals were skipping around to various places and 'laying out' a golf course in one day, and then moving on. But would we call that process, and them, golf course architects? Did they even call themselves that? And if their aspirations were so modest, they seem to me well worth remembering, but not necessarily in terms of granting them more credit for the creation/design of a golf course than was originally granted them.

Peter, as Sean says above it is a mistake to lump things together for convenience.  The was  a world of difference between 75 yrs ago and 100 years ago.   And I would argue an almost exponential change with each passing decade from 1880 to 1920 or maybe 1930.

As for whether to call these men were "golf architects" given that they were routing golf courses they were what we think of as "golf architects."   But I think there was some confusion as to what they were at the time, because of how quickly things were changing.   As far as I know there was not common term "golf architect."  In fact I think that Macdonald was commonly credited with creating the notion of "golf architecture."    But these men were without a doubt the experts in all things golf, and that included courses.     

But before Macdonald and Whigham came along, the men who built (or actually laid the course on the ground) were often given the lions share of the credit, while the person who planned the course was often ignored.   It should be of no surprise that the people doling out the credit were the same ones who built the courses-- the clubs themselves.   And it makes sense.   A pro comes in, sketches out a plan, and is gone, then one member spends months or years executing that plan.  It is easy to see why they focused on the clubman's role over the pro.
Also, as Sean and Bradley both suggest, the strong stench of classism (and I would add nationalism) in the air, and that surely did not help some of these pros from getting their due. 

One point of clarification.  As some courses like Myopia and the CC, where the talented and experienced professional (Willie Campbell) was on staff during the changes, it is hard to believe that he was not involved not only in the planning but the building.    If Willie Campbell was good enough that other prestigious clubs (Merion for example) were bringing him in to design their courses, would the clubs where he was employed entirely ignore his expertise?  Hard to believe.     Similarly one is left to wonder the extent of Barkers involvement with the changes at Garden City.   Surely Travis had some reason for touting and promoting Barker's design skill, didn't he?    Even if Barker was just assisting or if Travis was bouncing ideas off him, it is impossible to imagine no involvement whatsoever.

As for when the "creativity" came into play, certainly the clubmen made a contribution over the years as they learned and gained experience, but it is an injustice to ignore that oftentimes they were touching up and tweaking the work of someone else.   Frankly I put a lot of weight on the initial plan and routing for a course, and think it absurd to give full design credit (or even substantial design credit) when someone later comes in changes bunker style or even moves a green or two for practical reasons.   So a tee got moved a few yards?  Big deal.  Courses change over time, but so long as they retain their original personality and concepts, then they they are still the same course.
_______________________________

Mike Cirba,

On what basis do you conclude that they were not golfing at NGLA before 1911?

_______________________________

Best of 1890s
Newport-Davis
Shinnecock Hills-Davis
Chicago-Macdonald, Foulis
Myopia-Campbell, Leeds
Glen View-Tweedie
Onwentsia-Foulis, Tweedie, Whigham
Brookline-Campbell

Best of 1900s
Myopia-Campbell, Leeds
Brookline-Campbell, Windeler
Chicago-Macdonald, Foulis
Ekwanok-Dunn, Travis
NGLA-Macdonald
Garden City-Emmet, Travis

TE
85% of the best courses of the 90s and 66% of the best courses of the 00s were either designed by Scots or partially designed by Scots.

Not sure it is supposed to be, but Myopia is on their twice.     

While you can't count him as Scottish, CBM had vast experience in Scotland, and had Whigham and others. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Robert White
« Reply #198 on: August 06, 2008, 03:03:28 PM »
Tommy Mac

I am not sure many of the courses you list would have been considered good by 1910ish - a sort of cutoff date I use because by then Colt was firmly on the scene and folks in the know could get an idea of what proper inland courses were.  It strikes me as just a list of names with no value.  Jeepers, in most cases these courses don't exist in the form you celebrate - and often for good reasons. 

Peter, I do believe that the tuning point you are looking for in architecture, the point where form and function could go hand in hand was the emergence of Colt in 1910ish.  Really, Colt's completion of Swinley was his great calling card.  He was able to put it all together to great effect.  It was the first real big project he had.  Of course he did Stoke Poges before, but he had cleared land to work with in an established park.  The other courses he completed before 1910ish were of lesser note. 

It is no accident that both English and American architecture improved dramatically after the arrival of Colt - he can't really be given enough credit for what he accomplished in the field. 

Sean, with all due respect to Colt, I am not sure he had a big influence in the United States before he came over here and designed a few courses.   That was 1911, wasn't it?   And those courses did not open until 1912 or later, did they?  So while I agree with your timing, 1910ish,  I disagree with your causation.   While there were other influences (including Colt and long forgotten talented professionals like Barker)  it takes some extraordinary revisionism (see cga.com) to ignore Macdonald and Whigham's revolutionary impact on golf in America with the National, that is if we are talking about the introduction of conceptually and strategically great golf design to America. 


David M - only the "75 years" was Tom's point, I added the "100" years to bring us back to the time we're talking about, not thinking that there was a big difference and change (but as soon as you mentioned it I realized/remembered the difference).  But I still have trouble with this, i.e. if those earliest courses were so rudimentary, and if the goal was simply to create a place to play golf on, then we are talking about something quite different from the concept of "golf course architect" (i.e. his talents, goals, aspirations) that would emerge/develop 10 or 20 years later. Again, it seems to me that at some point the CREATIVE (as oppossed to merely 'functional') role became key, and it was those men who thought in those terms who designed the great golf courses. And by the same token, if the earliest courses were so rudimentary (and didn't involve the need to think about cart paths and earth-moving and irrigation), what was left for the golf professionals/experts to even bring to the table? In that scenario, it does seem very plausible to me that a few of the earliest professionals were skipping around to various places and 'laying out' a golf course in one day, and then moving on. But would we call that process, and them, golf course architects? Did they even call themselves that? And if their aspirations were so modest, they seem to me well worth remembering, but not necessarily in terms of granting them more credit for the creation/design of a golf course than was originally granted them.

Peter, as Sean says above it is a mistake to lump things together for convenience.  The was  a world of difference between 75 yrs ago and 100 years ago.   And I would argue an almost exponential change with each passing decade from 1880 to 1920 or maybe 1930.

As for whether to call these men were "golf architects" given that they were routing golf courses they were what we think of as "golf architects."   But I think there was some confusion as to what they were at the time, because of how quickly things were changing.   As far as I know there was not common term "golf architect."  In fact I think that Macdonald was commonly credited with creating the notion of "golf architecture."    But these men were without a doubt the experts in all things golf, and that included courses.     

But before Macdonald and Whigham came along, the men who built (or actually laid the course on the ground) were often given the lions share of the credit, while the person who planned the course was often ignored.   It should be of no surprise that the people doling out the credit were the same ones who built the courses-- the clubs themselves.   And it makes sense.   A pro comes in, sketches out a plan, and is gone, then one member spends months or years executing that plan.  It is easy to see why they focused on the clubman's role over the pro.
Also, as Sean and Bradley both suggest, the strong stench of classism (and I would add nationalism) in the air, and that surely did not help some of these pros from getting their due. 

One point of clarification.  As some courses like Myopia and the CC, where the talented and experienced professional (Willie Campbell) was on staff during the changes, it is hard to believe that he was not involved not only in the planning but the building.    If Willie Campbell was good enough that other prestigious clubs (Merion for example) were bringing him in to design their courses, would the clubs where he was employed entirely ignore his expertise?  Hard to believe.     Similarly one is left to wonder the extent of Barkers involvement with the changes at Garden City.   Surely Travis had some reason for touting and promoting Barker's design skill, didn't he?    Even if Barker was just assisting or if Travis was bouncing ideas off him, it is impossible to imagine no involvement whatsoever.

As for when the "creativity" came into play, certainly the clubmen made a contribution over the years as they learned and gained experience, but it is an injustice to ignore that oftentimes they were touching up and tweaking the work of someone else.   Frankly I put a lot of weight on the initial plan and routing for a course, and think it absurd to give full design credit (or even substantial design credit) when someone later comes in changes bunker style or even moves a green or two for practical reasons.   So a tee got moved a few yards?  Big deal.  Courses change over time, but so long as they retain their original personality and concepts, then they they are still the same course.
_______________________________

Mike Cirba,

On what basis do you conclude that they were not golfing at NGLA before 1911?

_______________________________

Best of 1890s
Newport-Davis
Shinnecock Hills-Davis
Chicago-Macdonald, Foulis
Myopia-Campbell, Leeds
Glen View-Tweedie
Onwentsia-Foulis, Tweedie, Whigham
Brookline-Campbell

Best of 1900s
Myopia-Campbell, Leeds
Brookline-Campbell, Windeler
Chicago-Macdonald, Foulis
Ekwanok-Dunn, Travis
NGLA-Macdonald
Garden City-Emmet, Travis

TE
85% of the best courses of the 90s and 66% of the best courses of the 00s were either designed by Scots or partially designed by Scots.

Not sure it is supposed to be, but Myopia is on their twice.     

While you can't count him as Scottish, CBM had vast experience in Scotland, and had Whigham and others. 

David

I completely agree that NGLA had it share of impact on architecture.  However, it was Colt who first successfully transferred ideas away from the seaside, while creating courses that drained well and looked pleasing to the eye.  Furthermore, Colt continued to create good course after good course and more or less became the bench mark for all archies to compare against - in some ways this is still the case.  I merely used 1910ish as a starting point for when things really clicked with Swinley and folks started to prick up their ears - even in the States - hence the invites to N America.  I can't say who influenced American architecture more, but I can say that far more courses emulate a Colt look than a Old Mac look. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mike_Cirba

Re: Robert White
« Reply #199 on: August 06, 2008, 03:11:07 PM »
TEPaul - look at your post above. I was just quoting you.


Sean,

I think you were quoting me, thinking Tom had responded.    

I was the one who interjected the fact that Macdonald/Whigham were the two most famous amateurs in America at the time, so hence the fact that there would have been no reason to diminish their efforts at Merion due to the issue of "professionalism" and how it was viewed by polite society.

As far as your point about the elevation of local favorites, I believe it's difficult to generalize and should be looked at case by case.   For instance, sticking with the Merion case there was nothing to lose and a LOT to gain by elevating the status of M&W as the creators of their new course.    These guys were rock stars in the golf world.

Also, they all knew each other.   If Merion was going to create the "big lie" about it being an inhouse job, certainly Macdonald and others would have called them out publicly about it.

Charlie was no shrinking violet, and seemingly didn't shrink from a public fight.  :)

In the case of the professionals, while I beileve it's possible that some good work by the Scottish emigrees might have been overlooked for the reasons you suggest, the flat bottom line is that most of the  work being done by the Davis, Dunns, et.al., at that time was pretty freaking  horrendous by our standards, and even (especially?)  in comparsion to their homeland courses.

Why should they do more?   They got paid a day's wages to provide a crude routing based on their expertise and it was as rudimentary as it sounds.  

Almost all of these courses were very crude at the start and only became better over time with lots of time and attention and money lavished therein.

« Last Edit: August 06, 2008, 03:12:45 PM by MikeCirba »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back