[TEPaul]

.....who got any respect at all or any mileage at all out of laying out or designing golf course architecture who was not a good to very good golfer?

I don't think so. Just think what that means. Think what it really meant back then. It may've been just about everything. That's the way people thought about it back then, and like bigtime. I don't think many of us appreciate that and what it means historically with golf architecture back in that day.

And what are we talking about here? People who had a good idea how to CONCEIVE of golf architecture or actually build and construct it or both?

The difference may've been pretty much misunderstood back then but perhaps not as much as it is today amongst most of us who aren't in the business! 

[Sean_A]

Tom

You have limited the pool to a relatively small number of people.  I can't think of anyone pre 1910 that was well respected archie who didn't have some solid connection with playing the game.  However, I think the reasons for this are different depending on the situation.  In the UK design was left to pros because it was "their business".  This shouldn't be surprising though.  Anything to do with the game was left to the pros.  To be a pro was to be a jack of all trades where golf was concerned.  In the US it was slightly different as the big guns were amateurs, though still good players. 

What I find more interesting is the quick divide in the second generation of American archies.  These guys were proper archies with business plans etc.  They were in it to make money whereas many of the first generation either designed quickly to get things rolling or took an age to complete a job - either way, not very "professional".

I know Colt is often given credit for professionalizing architecture in the UK - though he ahd some stout backs to climb on!  Did the US have a counterpart to Colt?

Ciao

[Phil McDade]

Tom:

I suppose it depends on how you define "good to very good" golfer. Bendelow certainly played the game, although I don't think he was a player of the caliber of Braid or the Parks or Dunn, or even Macdonald. By 1910, Bendelow had redesigned Van Cortland, arguably the first true muni in the U.S.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Tom, West Cornwall was designed (apparently) by Rev RF Tyack and Royal Ashdown Forest was also designed by a cleric, I believe. We're having building work done and most of my reference books and materials are in store. Can't give more information than that. Mark.

[TEPaul]

"What I find more interesting is the quick divide in the second generation of American archies.  These guys were proper archies with business plans etc.  They were in it to make money whereas many of the first generation either designed quickly to get things rolling or took an age to complete a job - either way, not very "professional"."


Sean:

This is precisely what I'm getting at or am trying to get at to determine the historical accuracy of it.

You mention the 'second generation of American architects'. And what is that exactly?

A couple of months ago I put on this website the explanation that the early professional architects (before 1910) were either the "jack-of-all-trades" variety that had day jobs at particular clubs and did architecture for others on the side and extremely quickly like a basic stick routing in a day or so. Then they were gone and left the details of a course to others from the club to fill in the blanks later----bunkering and such because noone likely designed or built bunkers in a day or so, that's for damn sure.

The other early professional variety were the likes of Benedlow or Alex Findlay who were pretty rare and who did do architecture full time but who basically did "18 stakes on a Sunday Afternoon" lay outs and were on down the road to another one somewhere for a day or so. Why did they operate like that and so quickly? The most logical reason I can think of is because that was basically all they were asked to do by clubs and that was all clubs then were willing to pay them for or thought to pay them for.

I'm not trying to suggest that any of either type of early first generation professional architects didn't have talent, it's just that they never stayed anywhere long enough back then to really show it.

I think that is precisely why this fascinating group of really good player club members like Leeds, the Fowneses, Emmet, Travis, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump, Thomas stepped in and filled the void in that early time.

Don't you think it's interesting and extremely historically indicative that when the professionals got themselves organized and dedicated themselves solely to golf architecture (and not doing it part time or on the fly) probably during the teens that essentially that was the effective end of the startups of the types of projects that produced the likes of Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley by those so-called gentlemen "amateur/sportsmen" designers, pretty much very good players all, who did such wonderful work over extended time for their particular clubs? If that is not the case then just try to find me a project like those mentioned above that actually BEGAN after WW1.

The reason, in my opinion, those types of "amateur/sportsmen" designers never started another of those types of projects like that after about WW1 is basically because they didn't have to---they didn't have a void to fill after that as the professional "second generation" architects had begun to dedicate themselves solely to golf course architecture and not other things at the same time. They simply filled that void that so clearly existed amongst the early "first generation" professional in America.

Mr. MacWood keeps insinuating on here that this fascinating era of those so-called gentleman, good player, "amateur/sportsmen" designer is 'my invention'!

Bullshit it's my invention, it was real, they were real, what they did and how they did it is very much real and still there for the world to see just how great some of it really was and why both back then and today. If he can't see that historical reality, why it happened as well as why it likely ended, then in my opinion he is really blind to the realities of American architectural history and its evolution. Someone like this who completely misses something like this should not try to pass himself off as a competent golf architecture analyst, in my opinion.

On the other hand, I have always believed that he has a particular agenda in how he looks at that particular era, and probably most ironically to most everyone on here, I happen to believe it is a fascinating but almost completely hidden agenda and one that should definitely be developed and carefully analyzed. I have tried to pull him out on this but for years now he simply steadfastly refuses.

I truly wish he wouldn't continue to refuse to be brought out on this---I think there might be a ton of truly interesting stuff there even if it certainly could be extremely hard to document for a variety of historical and cultural reasons! 

[Thomas MacWood]

Bendelow is an interesting choice...come to think of it I don't recall him playing in any tournaments. The same is true with William Watson.

B. Hall Blyth was only average at best. H. Mallaby-Deeley is another one.

How good a golfer was Abercromby?

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

On this particular subject the old adage that the exception probably makes the rule is very likely completely true. However, since you didn't think of it I would certainly not expect you to agree with it or even understand the point of it. 

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
No worries, I was just answering the question...just like the others who responded. I don't believe any of us had any underlying hidden agenda or were trying to make some important historical point.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

MacKenzie started out in 1907 at Alwoodley. He wasn't much of a player - never won a match playing for Alwoodley against other clubs, or even in a competition at Alwoodley. He did win a couple (or was it three?) medals (including the second in the club's history), but that was all.

[Sean_A]

"What I find more interesting is the quick divide in the second generation of American archies.  These guys were proper archies with business plans etc.  They were in it to make money whereas many of the first generation either designed quickly to get things rolling or took an age to complete a job - either way, not very "professional"."


Sean:

This is precisely what I'm getting at or am trying to get at to determine the historical accuracy of it.

You mention the 'second generation of American architects'. And what is that exactly?

A couple of months ago I put on this website the explanation that the early professional architects (before 1910) were either the "jack-of-all-trades" variety that had day jobs at particular clubs and did architecture for others on the side and extremely quickly like a basic stick routing in a day or so. Then they were gone and left the details of a course to others from the club to fill in the blanks later----bunkering and such because noone likely designed or built bunkers in a day or so, that's for damn sure.

The other early professional variety were the likes of Benedlow or Alex Findlay who were pretty rare and who did do architecture full time but who basically did "18 stakes on a Sunday Afternoon" lay outs and were on down the road to another one somewhere for a day or so. Why did they operate like that and so quickly? The most logical reason I can think of is because that was basically all they were asked to do by clubs and that was all clubs then were willing to pay them for or thought to pay them for.

I'm not trying to suggest that any of either type of early first generation professional architects didn't have talent, it's just that they never stayed anywhere long enough back then to really show it.

I think that is precisely why this fascinating group of really good player club members like Leeds, the Fowneses, Emmet, Travis, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump, Thomas stepped in and filled the void in that early time.

Don't you think it's interesting and extremely historically indicative that when the professionals got themselves organized and dedicated themselves solely to golf architecture (and not doing it part time or on the fly) probably during the teens that essentially that was the effective end of the startups of the types of projects that produced the likes of Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley by those so-called gentlemen "amateur/sportsmen" designers, pretty much very good players all, who did such wonderful work over extended time for their particular clubs? If that is not the case then just try to find me a project like those mentioned above that actually BEGAN after WW1.

The reason, in my opinion, those types of "amateur/sportsmen" designers never started another of those types of projects like that after about WW1 is basically because they didn't have to---they didn't have a void to fill after that as the professional "second generation" architects had begun to dedicate themselves solely to golf course architecture and not other things at the same time. They simply filled that void that so clearly existed amongst the early "first generation" professional in America.

Mr. MacWood keeps insinuating on here that this fascinating era of those so-called gentleman, good player, "amateur/sportsmen" designer is 'my invention'!

Bullshit it's my invention, it was real, they were real, what they did and how they did it is very much real and still there for the world to see just how great some of it really was and why both back then and today. If he can't see that historical reality, why it happened as well as why it likely ended, then in my opinion he is really blind to the realities of American architectural history and its evolution. Someone like this who completely misses something like this should not try to pass himself off as a competent golf architecture analyst, in my opinion.

On the other hand, I have always believed that he has a particular agenda in how he looks at that particular era, and probably most ironically to most everyone on here, I happen to believe it is a fascinating but almost completely hidden agenda and one that should definitely be developed and carefully analyzed. I have tried to pull him out on this but for years now he simply steadfastly refuses.

I truly wish he wouldn't continue to refuse to be brought out on this---I think there might be a ton of truly interesting stuff there even if it certainly could be extremely hard to document for a variety of historical and cultural reasons! 

TomP

I spose what I mean by 2nd generation is when Ross, Flynn, Tillie, Thomas etc properly kicked into action lets say by ~1920 up to WWII.  Though a time isn't the only issue, its a shift in attitude and the concept of golf architect which is also important.  Of course an exact time can't be placed on when this happened so I picked 1920 - but I don't want to argue about it. 

I don't think there is any doubt that there was a void in architectural excellence before this 2nd generation.  As I say, perhaps the amateurs were good, but they were slow and made mistakes, plus, two of the all time greats needed proper professionals to help create the final project - Pine Valley & Merion.  Which brings me to Oakmont - this seems to be a very unusual setup even for unusual setups because I don't think they ever brought in what we would call a proper archie did they?

Ciao 

[Phil McDade]

Was H.J. Tweedie much of a golfer? There is little information about him that I can find, and he's credited with a number of solid, Midwestern courses -- Exmoor and Flossmor, in Chicago, along with Maple Bluff CC in Madison, WI. He was doing substantial work pre-1910.

[TEPaul]

"Which brings me to Oakmont - this seems to be a very unusual setup even for unusual setups because I don't think they ever brought in what we would call a proper archie did they?"


Sean:

Not that I can see and not that anything in Oakmont's history reflects. But that doesn't mean that a Tom MacWood won't try to find some peripheral professional and proceed to exaggerate the hell out of his contribution, if any.

Merion, by the way, never used a professional architect in the initial creation of the course. They are very specific about that. Neither Macdonald nor Whigam were professionals, they were very decidedly the gentlemen "amateur/sportsmen" type like Hugh Wilson and his committee. None of them were ever paid for what they did in architecture and either was George Thomas!

[Sean_A]

"Which brings me to Oakmont - this seems to be a very unusual setup even for unusual setups because I don't think they ever brought in what we would call a proper archie did they?"


Sean:

Not that I can see and not that anything in Oakmont's history reflects. But that doesn't mean that a Tom MacWood won't try to find some peripheral professional and proceed to exaggerate the hell out of his contribution, if any.

Merion, by the way, never used a professional architect in the initial creation of the course. They are very specific about that. Neither Macdonald nor Whigam were professionals, they were very decidedly the gentlemen "amateur/sportsmen" type like Hugh Wilson and his committee. None of them were ever paid for what they did in architecture and either was George Thomas!

Tomp

Ah yes, but I am talking about Merion, just the course, not all the other hullabaloo.  So far as I understand it, Flynn had a lot to do with the Merion that is heralded as a masterpiece and this is the course that I am concerned with.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"Bendelow is an interesting choice...come to think of it I don't recall him playing in any tournaments. The same is true with William Watson."


Mr. MacWood:

Are you saying that Bendelow and Willie Watson were not good players or just that they didn't play in many tournaments or perhaps both? 

[TEPaul]

"Ah yes, but I am talking about Merion, just the course, not all the other hullabaloo.  So far as I understand it, Flynn had a lot to do with the Merion that is heralded as a masterpiece and this is the course that I am concerned with."


Sean:

Flynn most certainly did have to do with the design of Merion's architecture but not for a couple of years after it was put into play. My point is when it was initially routed and designed no professional architect was involved in that. The club history is very specfic about that, hence, Alan Wilson's report:

"The course was "homemade" and no architect was used."

Apparently in Alan Wilson's mind an "architect" was somewhat synonymous with a professional at that time. I mean you and others can argue and parse that all you want to but it seems really clear that is what he meant or he obviously would not have said it that way.

[Sean_A]

"Ah yes, but I am talking about Merion, just the course, not all the other hullabaloo.  So far as I understand it, Flynn had a lot to do with the Merion that is heralded as a masterpiece and this is the course that I am concerned with."


Sean:

Flynn most certainly did have to do with the design of Merion's architecture but not for a couple of years after it was put into play. My point is when it was initially routed and designed no professional architect was involved in that. The club history is very specfic about that, hence, Alan Wilson's report:

"The course was "homemade" and no architect was used."

Apparently in Alan Wilson's mind an "architect" was somewhat synonymous with a professional at that time. I mean you and others can argue and parse that all you want to but it seems really clear that is what he meant or he obviously would not have said it that way.

TomP

I am not debating that point - I concede if it makes a difference.  I am speaking more to the point that the 2nd generation guys were better as gcas than the 1st generation because they treated it as a profession and probably because they were the right guys for the right times if that makes any sense.  The 2nd generationers were part of and followed an incredible period of architectural self reflection which I believe was as responsible for the golden age as anything.  This self reflection and professionalism was a huge advantage to have over the early guys, but to some degree, these 2nd generationers created that advantage.  These were clever blokes ya know.

Ciao

[JMorgan]

What fascinates me equally, if not potentially more, are the non-amateur/non-pro gentlemen who were exposed to golf for the first time on a trip overseas and became enraptured, returned to the US, and then decided to build a golf course because few venues for golf existed in the States.   

But we'll leave that one for another thread. 

[Phil_the_Author]

James,

Can you define what a "non-amateur/non-pro gentlemen" is?

[JMorgan]

James,

Can you define what a "non-amateur/non-pro gentlemen" is?

phil, someone who wasn't involved in golf, period, before a golf epiphany, then wanted to build a course

[Thomas MacWood]

Was H.J. Tweedie much of a golfer? There is little information about him that I can find, and he's credited with a number of solid, Midwestern courses -- Exmoor and Flossmor, in Chicago, along with Maple Bluff CC in Madison, WI. He was doing substantial work pre-1910.

At best I think Tweedie was a good golfer, average to above average might be more accurate. To my knowledge he never distinguished himself in any amateur events. Other potential average golfers among the amatuer/sportsmen: Windeler, Gillespie & Van Etten.

In the 1890s there were two kinds of Scottish professionals in the US. One group were full fledged professionals who had been trained as pros back home who were imported in. The other group were immigrants whose most important qualification was being born a Scot, who had played the game; they had no training at all and usually were involved in some other field before becoming pros. I believe Bendelow and Watson fall into the latter group. I could be wrong but I don't recall seeing either name in the field of any US or Western Open.

[Phil McDade]

Tom:

That's my sense of Bendelow as well -- born in Scotland, immigrated here, and developed his interest in the game into a career as an architect. I've always believed his 18-stakes-on-Sunday reputation derived largely from his sponsorship as a golf designer by AG Spaulding, a true sporting entrepreneuer who wanted to popularize the game, not necessarily create a lasting monument to golf architecture in the way that Macdonald and Fownes did with their courses.

[RSLivingston_III]

Jack Daray might be one to consider. I believe he is right on the 1910 bubble.

[Peter Pallotta]

At some point in the early 1900s in America (say between 1900 and 1910) I think two elements of good golf architecture came to the fore, i.e. the use of hazards that called on golfers to think their way around a course, and the design of undulating greens that better tested shot-making and judgement.  I know they moved earth back then too, but still, the ability to route a golf course over the existing terrain so as to best utilize/capture these two elements was probably an even more important talent then than it is now. I'm guessing that the 18-stakes-on-Sunday approach may have given way around that time to a more intense interest in and concentration on good and effective routing; and there's probably only two ways to get that kind of routing, i.e. either through a lot of talent or a lot of time.

Re-reading this, TE, I'm not sure if or how it relates to your question, but I thought I'd toss it out there....

Peter     

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()