"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!