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.