The Evangelist of Golf - Read it!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Doak,

My post is referring to the quote of Macdonald's that Tom Dunne posted above;

"I know he [Horace Hutchinson] impressed on me that the human mind could not devise undulations superior to those of nature, saying that if I wished to make undulations on the greens to take a number of pebbles in my hand and drop them on a miniature space representing a putting green on a small scale and as they dropped on the diagram, place the undulations according to their fall. This I did for some of the National greens where I had no copies of the original undulations which nature had made on the great greens of the world." --Charles Blair Macdonald


Perhaps I'm reading too much into what Macdonald wrote, but it sounds to me that his/Emmett's sketches did not include details of green contour, at least on some of the great hole they tried to emulate.

I find this a bit remarkable.

Certainly, it seems that one could easily mentally recall the "macro" strategies of any given hole, or the major hazards and other features, but the fine details of things like green internals and green surrounds would be exactly the types of things that one would suspect that Macdonald and Emmett might be sketching and studying.

I would think a large part of what they'd need to try and understand from a very detailed perspective were things like scale, slope, and the measured relation of various features to each other, as well as overall themes and contours on a very micro level.

The fact that they didn't seem to have this part of their homework completed just seemed to me to be a very odd and unexpected omission.

[Tom_Doak]

I'm not sure if you are reading that correctly or not ... George B. should check in on that point.

I read it to mean that C.B. was saying he didn't have great natural contours to work with already laying on the ground, so he had to make up some contours that would feel natural, and sometimes the best way to do that is at random.  Also, it wasn't clear if he was talking about the Redan or Alps, or some of the "original" holes at National where he had "no copies of the original undulations which Nature had provided."

But, you should look at the sketches I did in 1982-83.  I did make SOME notes about greens contouring, but certainly not enough to reproduce a famous green anywhere near exactly ... because at the time I didn't know enough about golf course construction to know how detailed those notes would have to be.  And when Macdonald was over in Great Britain, he didn't have that experience to really know what he would need, either.  He had only built one golf course -- the original Chicago Golf Club -- and it wasn't that sophisticated.

[Tom Dunne]

Since I posted the original quote, maybe I should follow up with what Bahto writes immediately beforehand. Hope it clarifies things a bit.

"Macdonald had carefully recorded the size and contour of the best green sites in Britain, yet there was still a need for creating putting surfaces at the National to go with his original composite holes. Finding it difficult to achieve the natural look he sought, he turned to his close friend Horace Hutchinson." etc.

Afterward Macdonald made plasticine models for these greens. Those would be some collector's item, huh?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I completely understand what you're saying, but I think there's a difference between the contour drawings you did early on in trying to create new and original holes versus what Macdonald was doing in preparing to build his "ideal golf course" that was largely to be based on emulating the strategies of the best holes in the world at the time.

Also, from the start of your career it seems to me that you were mostly influenced by Pete Dye's modus operandi of really doing the design in the dirt and letting whimsy and trial and error have greater reign in the final design than perhaps many others who build stricly to plan.  

I would think that Macdonald, in trying to create a pretty close replica of the redan for example, would want to know what type of slope he'd need in the green and surrounds to actually move a ball 50 feet across a green diagonally with a perfect running shot.  

I guess if I were to summarize, Macdonald seems to me to have had a different purpose at NGLA than you did early on in your career.

You were looking to create something original, creative, and innovatively striking to make a name for yourself in your field of endeavor.  

He was trying to show Americans what good architecture looked like, and to do so, it seems he had to stick much closer to physical representations of holes already considered to be great.

[Mike_Cirba]

Since I posted the original quote, maybe I should follow up with what Bahto writes immediately beforehand. Hope it clarifies things a bit.

"Macdonald had carefully recorded the size and contour of the best green sites in Britain, yet there was still a need for creating putting surfaces at the National to go with his original composite holes. Finding it difficult to achieve the natural look he sought, he turned to his close friend Horace Hutchinson." etc.

Afterward Macdonald made plasticine models for these greens. Those would be some collector's item, huh?

Tom Dunne,

Oh...NOW you tell us! 

Ok...that makes a whole bunch more sense to me now.

Maybe I should just go back and re-read George's book! 

[George_Bahto]

I think CBM was unsure of what undulations he wanted to use on his new course and HH seemed to have given him an interesting idea on how to approach his “problem.”

On his composite holes is where I think he really struggled - where more often than not, he had no original green to use as a guide. I’d think that at this stage of the game (working on the green contours at NGLA) he might have been getting a bit more “sophisticated” and picky as to what contours he wanted on his new greens to add to the his hole strategies.

So you have great original sample green undulations for Redan, Eden, the Short (from possibly two different courses), the Road hole, the Alps for inspiration.

Some holes at National bear no resemblance to origin greens - the Long hole’s green comes to mind - the one at NGLA is just subtle.

Another hole comes to mind, the Hog’s Back - was it just a Hog’s Back fairway or originally thought of as also a Hog’s Back green also that Banks used so brilliantly used later (to me one of his finest greens). The Hog’s Back green at NGLA certainly is not a Hog’s Back.

But my main point is I think he was struggling a bit about the green contours and was using that HH pebble-throw example to help ...... but I’m sure there were more ideas floating around, too. I think he was flying blind a bit and was looking for any help he could find to add to his own ideas (to his credit - see, he my not have been as stubborn as most think he was).

Have you ever thrown the pebbles as HH spoke about?  I did - most of results looked like crap  :-)

We also have the situation where most of the greens were 2nd, 3rd (or more) versions of his first attempt.

[Ryan Farrow]

Michael Dugger, we are basically on the same page...

And this is not me making up phony criticism or taking a cheap shot, he wrote this stuff in his book!

-Did someone really create a poem for me? (I prefer haikus)

-I remember reading a thread a little while back (not sure the context) but someone comment that, "hey this would be a great redan hole" or something to that nature. And none other than Tom Doak himself struck down the remark "WITH GREAT VENGEANCE AND FURIOUS ANGER..." I hope Tom knows what I'm talking about here..... But I think the bottom line is that limiting ones design philosophy on template holes has a great affect on the final product. Think of how different the routing would be at Old MacDonald if Tom did not base his design on the MacDonald templates.

For better or worse it is what it is. But CB's courses are successful and have stood the test of time because he was a great architect who understood what made a great golf hole. He probably would have been better served to not base every golf course on a specific set of golf holes.




Now tree house answer this: would you want Tom Doak to base the rest of his golf courses on the CB templates?



I think progress has been made.

[Tom Naccarato]

Ryan,
I have seen more architects try to influence their thoughts on design, foregoing using ideas and emulations of others, which the ground of nature has given them...and they think that is always good. Whatever it takes to keep the ball active and rolling and creative when it comes to get the ball to the pin and into the hole; where it allows one to think of how they are going to do it, knowing that they have a gauntlet of strategy being thrown at them--that's good golf architecture.

Every architect should have his style. But it should be one ground in experience of what they deem successful.

I find it funny you still have yet to answer my question--and this isn't to embarass you in anyway. You know I wouldn't do that. Once again, what CBM courses have you and Michael Dugger had the opportunity to study or play? What Raynor courses? While I think its great to see some amount of discussion on this, you have to have an open mind to explain why--so the education for all continues.

So if Max Behr utilized a "Short" or a "Redan" or a "Knoll" or even a "Bottle," then it must not be good architecture then correct? Is that what your ultimately saying? You better brace yourself for this one if you do believe in what Behr has written and what he believed, because it has everything to do with admiration of the architecture of C.B. MacDonald.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ryan,

There is no question whatsoever that progress has been made...on some fronts.

There is also no question that architecture has regressed in some areas, due largely to forces outside direct architectural control.

However, I think what you may be neglecting to consider is a mistake many of us regularly make; and that is failing to understand the man in his own times.

Viewed through the prism of 21st century understanding, old CB might be seen as some type of Luddite, imprisoned within some ancient, stifled thinking that locked him into some antiquated, time-worn tradition of repeating the same hole concepts again and again and again.

However, if one considers what most US architecture really was like at the time that Macdonald decided to build an "IDEAL course", around 1904, and how far afield it had flown from the greatest of the British links courses, and how ultimately repulsive, repetitive, redundant, and ridiculous it was with 10 foot high elevated rampart greens, and cross bunker stretching end to end horizontally across the length of the fairway at regular 100 yard intervals, or tees built up on stilts, or bunkers fronted by 3 conical 8 foot mounds, then I think you might get some better sense of what Macdonald was revolting against.

Because, what he truly did here in the US was not reactionary, or reductionist, but instead was revolutinary and intended to broaden the scope of our understanding of the possible by a factor of a hundred-fold.

The fact that the bunch of us are sitting here having this conversation about his work at NGLA and other courses across binary representations of electrons over hundreds and thousands of miles a full century after he built those holes should implicity and explicitly give us both some idea of the magnitude of his lasting influence and accomplishments.

We should both hope to be so fortunate that in 2108 someone, somewhere is talking about something we've done.   

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I think your post #58 is pretty good and representative of the way we should look at Macdonald and his time. You said above:




“However, I think what you may be neglecting to consider is a mistake many of us regularly make; and that is failing to understand the man in his own times.

Viewed through the prism of 21st century understanding, old CB might be seen as some type of Luddite, imprisoned within some ancient, stifled thinking that locked him into some antiquated, time-worn tradition of repeating the same hole concepts again and again and again.

However, if one considers what most US architecture really was like at the time that Macdonald decided to build an "IDEAL course", around 1904, and how far afield it had flown from the greatest of the British links courses, and how ultimately repulsive, repetitive, redundant, and ridiculous it was with 10 foot high elevated rampart greens, and cross bunker stretching end to end horizontally across the length of the fairway at regular 100 yard intervals, or tees built up on stilts, or bunkers fronted by 3 conical 8 foot mounds, then I think you might get some better sense of what Macdonald was revolting against.”




With what Macdonald decided to do at NGLA was he being revolutionary or reactionary? Apparently some of  both. He certainly didn’t hesitate to say that he wanted to create a course that would be used as a representation of an ideal course and a model for excellence in American architecture to come. But he also complained mercilessly about what he saw in American architecture in the early years-----ie “The very soul of golf shrieks.”

[TEPaul]

A couple of other observations on the posts on this thread (from about #44 on down).

Apparently this is a quotation from "The Evangelist of Golf" quoted by Tom Dunne:


"Macdonald had carefully recorded the size and contour of the best green sites in Britain, yet there was still a need for creating putting surfaces at the National to go with his original composite holes. Finding it difficult to achieve the natural look he sought, he turned to his close friend Horace Hutchinson." etc.


I have no problem with viewing times in history and what really went on back then after the passage of time so as to get some other and considered impression of it as Tom Dunne suggested was a good thing to do. However, when doing that we certainly need to take care so as not to reinterpret it somehow by including things that may not have been said or may not have happened.

And so I would question how anyone today really knows if Macdonald 'carefully recorded the size and contour of the best green sites in Britain?'

Did Macdonald actually say that? Has anyone today seen examples of that? It seems to me there is the common story of Macdonald (or Emmet for him) making drawing and sketches of holes or particular parts of holes from abroad but as far as I know those drawings and sketches which Macdonald himself mentions in his own book in 1928 are long gone.  Did they include detailed drawings and sketches of green contours and shapes and sizes of famous holes abroad or is that just a bit of a stretchy interpretation from a century later?

We need to be very careful not to add details that may never have happened but which people in the future take as fact due to some interpretation that was generated a century later. This may've happened with Merion----eg there was a story that Hugh Wilson also came home with many drawing and sketches he made abroad but now it appears that interpretation may not have emerged until way over a half century after Merion East began.

These are probably just simple and innocent mistakes of interpretation but they can become the accepted part of history which in fact never really happened.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

First of all, some of us (particularly the USGA Architecture Archive) are trying to figure out when comprehensive architectural drawings were first done and as far as I can tell that has not exactly been established yet. Some think Colt may've been the first to generate comprehensive architectural drawings and if so it certainly would not be unusual if Macdonald never really did something like drawings of detailed internal green contours. Don't forget NGLA was essentially the first decade of the 20th century.

Furthermore, it should be noted that Macdonald himself explained that Horace Hutchinson taught him that trick of throwing pebbles on a small canvas and copying them with green contours at NGLA and Macdonald said he did that. It should also be noted that Hutchinson visited him in Long Island and NGLA in the summer of 1910 (after some on here claim the course was done). Obviously it wasn't as Macdonald would've done this following the summer of 1910. Is it any wonder then that the course could not have formally opened for play until Sep. 1911?

Actually, Macdonald said himself he moved a few greens quite substantially in the years to come adding a couple of hundreds yards to the course that way.

[Kyle Harris]

Farrow's mind so fresh
Discussion incite it did
Money talk be gone

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

I think Joe Bausch and later Tony Muldoon found evidence recently that Hugh Wilson did indeed make sketches during his trip abroad, if one can infer that "making copies" is what the author intended.

[Mike_Cirba]

Farrow's mind so fresh
Discussion incite it did
Money talk be gone

Farrow lit a match
In a gasoline filled room
Whigham's still a toady   

[TEPaul]

The first few posts after Rob Rigg's initial post about George Bahto's "The Evangelist of Golf" get into critiquing C.B. Macdonald's book "Scotland's Gift Golf."

In my opinion, Macdonald's book is actually a remarkable window for us into that world of golf he lived in and worked in back then. Unfortunately, to appreciate it fully one needs to get into those sections of his book that aren't about golf course architecture. They're about things such as the administration of the early USGA and a number of issues in that context from that time. And for most, even most of those on here who are really passionate about that time, about Macdonald and about NGLA, those other sections can be and actually are tremendously heavy sleding.

But there is an incredible tale of the tapestry of how and why American golf turned out the way it did in those sections, in my opinion. And there is an even more incredible tale of the way American golf may've turned out if C.B. Macdonald had gotten his way.

What was his way? Aaahh, that is a huge question and subject and it has a number of areas to consider that are not about golf course architecture.

Why didn't he get his way as he most likely felt he might or even should? Aaah, that's an even bigger story, in my opinion, and interestingly some of the answers to it are very much in his book but between the lines. To really tease it out, though, one needs to corroborate with other events and other people he dealt with over about 20-25 years.

The fact is, if any man probably should've been the president of the USGA and perhaps for an "ERA" or perhaps become the real "Father of American GOLF" it should've been Macdonald. But he wasn't. Why not? I think there is an enormous story in that which reflects on how American golf really did turn out and why over the years and over even the last century and more.

To understand it one needs to know more about Macdonald, the man, not just about Macdonald the golf architect. One needs to know more about his various opinions on things to do with golf other than architecture but mostly one really needs to understand the men who were there with him at that time who they were, how powerful they were in many ways and what they wanted which was, for sure, not always what Macdonald wanted or hoped for.

Personally, I think it took a real toll on Macdonald, perhaps depressing him, perhaps massively, and in a real way beginning in the late teens and into the 1920s he'd begun to withdraw from it all almost completely and he was done despite the occasional entreaties from some who really did want him to re-engage. But other than a few architectural projects in the 1920s generally with pretty much the same group of people who he knew well and who knew him well and all pretty much knew each other he was done.

It seems to me his years in golf were over then and his participation in architecture came to an end perhaps on Oct 26, 1926 in a meeting of the Green Committee of The Creek Club at the Links Club in New York City. He was 71 at that time and reading those minutes there was apparently a really big confrontation and explosion and a few weeks later Macdonald resigned from the club saying he wanted to go to his cottage in Bermuda and write a book.

That was "Scotland's Gift Golf" and it was published in 1928. For him he must have known all of it was all over then and it was the time to write his autobiography because there would really be nothing more for him to include even though he lived until 1939.

[Kyle Harris]

Farrow's mind so fresh
Discussion incite it did
Money talk be gone

Farrow lit a match
In a gasoline filled room
Whigham's still a toady   

My Bonnie lies over the gas tank
The height of its contents to see
I lit up a match to assist her...

...oh bring back my Bonnie to me!

[Bill_McBride]

The first few posts after Rob Rigg's initial post about George Bahto's "The Evangelist of Golf" get into critiquing C.B. Macdonald's book "Scotland's Gift Golf."

In my opinion, Macdonald's book is actually a remarkable window for us into that world of golf he lived in and worked in back then. Unfortunately, to appreciate it fully one needs to get into those sections of his book that aren't about golf course architecture. They're about things such as the administration of the early USGA and a number of issues in that context from that time.

I couldn't agree with you more, "Scotland's Gift" is indeed a window into early American golf, and also into St Andrews in the late 19th Century.  It's just fascinating.  Macdonald may have been a bit of an ass but he is never boring - other than some of that stuff you mentioned that can be skimmed!

It seems to me his years in golf were over then and his participation in architecture came to an end perhaps on Oct 26, 1926 in a meeting of the Green Committee of The Creek Club at the Links Club in New York City. He was 71 at that time and reading those minutes there was apparently a really big confrontation and explosion and a few weeks later Macdonald resigned from the club saying he wanted to go to his cottage in Bermuda and write a book.

If you've read those minutes and can recall what the specific issues were, it would be fascinating to hear about them.  Pretty please? 

That was "Scotland's Gift Golf" and it was published in 1928. For him he must have known all of it was all over then and it was the time to write his autobiography because there would really be nothing more for him to include even though he lived until 1939.

It's an incredible feeling to spend a day at NGLA and feel Macdonald's presence in that old clubhouse and on the golf course.  Two rounds with lobster soup in between, in the birdcage, is just a teaser that I felt so lucky to be able to experience.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Think of how different the routing would be at Old MacDonald if Tom did not base his design on the MacDonald templates. -Ryan Farrow

Are you saying that Tom Doak is compromising himself at OM?

[Tom Dunne]

Ryan: To answer your question, of course not. But on the other hand, would you say that it would be better if Tom Doak never employed a CBM template feature (leaving aside Old Macdonald itself) on any of his holes and opted for an original creation every time?

[Ryan Farrow]

Jim, not at all, you totally missed my point.


Tom, #4 at Riviera (the redan) is the best par 3 I have ever played... or seen.


As to your question, you might be better served asking Tom why he used a template hole here or there, whether it be a punchbowl or redan etc.... My guess would be that he found these features in the ground and used those to his advantage. If I found a perfect green site for a punchbowl or redan, it would be difficult not to use it, because those features make for interesting golf.

Tom Paul, your subject is much more interesting than mine. Thanks for your posts.

[jkinney]

The first few posts after Rob Rigg's initial post about George Bahto's "The Evangelist of Golf" get into critiquing C.B. Macdonald's book "Scotland's Gift Golf."

In my opinion, Macdonald's book is actually a remarkable window for us into that world of golf he lived in and worked in back then. Unfortunately, to appreciate it fully one needs to get into those sections of his book that aren't about golf course architecture. They're about things such as the administration of the early USGA and a number of issues in that context from that time.

I couldn't agree with you more, "Scotland's Gift" is indeed a window into early American golf, and also into St Andrews in the late 19th Century.  It's just fascinating.  Macdonald may have been a bit of an ass but he is never boring - other than some of that stuff you mentioned that can be skimmed!

It seems to me his years in golf were over then and his participation in architecture came to an end perhaps on Oct 26, 1926 in a meeting of the Green Committee of The Creek Club at the Links Club in New York City. He was 71 at that time and reading those minutes there was apparently a really big confrontation and explosion and a few weeks later Macdonald resigned from the club saying he wanted to go to his cottage in Bermuda and write a book.

If you've read those minutes and can recall what the specific issues were, it would be fascinating to hear about them.  Pretty please? 

That was "Scotland's Gift Golf" and it was published in 1928. For him he must have known all of it was all over then and it was the time to write his autobiography because there would really be nothing more for him to include even though he lived until 1939.

It's an incredible feeling to spend a day at NGLA and feel Macdonald's presence in that old clubhouse and on the golf course.  Two rounds with lobster soup in between, in the birdcage, is just a teaser that I felt so lucky to be able to experience.

The more time one spends in the NGLA clubhouse, the more one becomes overwhelmed by the enormous contribution to golf's initial foothold in the U.S. made by CBM and his fellow founders. Their statues, busts and portraits are everywhere looking down, and their scrapbooks fill the tables. Not only did they build the first great course; they made sure that the rooms in which they were memorialized would befit what they had accomplished for American golf. And they are revered by me.

One can quibble about CBM's copying holes from the UK all one wants, but one should never forget that these men really started the modern game here, and the holes they emulated were the only great holes in the world at the time. That CBM stormed out of a Creek Club Green Committee meeting in 1926 comes as no surprise.That he even attended to such minutia other than at his masterpiece, NGLA, at that stage in his life is what I find puzzling.

Did it take a monumental and often arrogant ego to build The National ? Of course. It never would have happened without those character traits, IMO.

[TEPaul]

"That CBM stormed out of a Creek Club Green Committee meeting in 1926 comes as no surprise.That he even attended to such minutia other than at his masterpiece, NGLA, at that stage in his life is what I find puzzling."

jkinney:

I didn't say he stormed out of that meeting. I have no idea about that. More likely was he was taking a ton of flack at that time from a man (or a few) who were trying to resolve some very serious problems on a section of the course. I just think things totally came to a head at that meeting---eg it's not hard to tell by what transpired afterwards.

I realize no one has ever mentioned this before but this was in 1926 and it just might not be a coincidence that Macdonald pertty much wrapped things up then because in 1926 Raynor died suddenly.

I realize the longterm relationship with Raynor on anything Macdonald did in architecture is somewhat nuancy (perhaps  not to well known) but it seems pretty clear that whatever Macdonald did (which probably wasn't as many courses as some think) Raynor was there.

Macdonald was a go to guy for those people from the clubs he was involved with but one has to think he was sort of the "General" type and any General  probably never would get involved in the necessary things a Raynor did to back him up and his projects.   

[jkinney]

"That CBM stormed out of a Creek Club Green Committee meeting in 1926 comes as no surprise.That he even attended to such minutia other than at his masterpiece, NGLA, at that stage in his life is what I find puzzling."

jkinney:

I didn't say he stormed out of that meeting. I have no idea about that. More likely was he was taking a ton of flack at that time from a man (or a few) who were trying to resolve some very serious problems on a section of the course. I just think things totally came to a head at that meeting---eg it's not hard to tell by what transpired afterwards.

I realize no one has ever mentioned this before but this was in 1926 and it just might not be a coincidence that Macdonald pertty much wrapped things up then because in 1926 Raynor died suddenly.

I realize the longterm relationship with Raynor on anything Macdonald did in architecture is somewhat nuancy (perhaps  not to well known) but it seems pretty clear that whatever Macdonald did (which probably wasn't as many courses as some think) Raynor was there.

Macdonald was a go to guy for those people from the clubs he was involved with but one has to think he was sort of the "General" type and any General  probably never would get involved in the necessary things a Raynor did to back him up and his projects.   

TEPaul - Stormed out was the wrong term to use on my part. Sorry. I hope you'll be able to show us the minutes of that Green Committee meeting at some point.

[TEPaul]

"I hope you'll be able to show us the minutes of that Green Committee meeting at some point."

jkinney;

We've done what could fairly be called a very comprehensive design evolution report on the course in the last year or so but it is the club's property and not exactly published for public consumption at this point.

It's probably OK for me to talk about the general circumstances but those kind of club meeting minutes are the club's, not mine, and it's probably not much different than the disposition of those MCC meeting minutes that were essentially demanded by some to be put on here. Those kinds of things are private club property, it's their call, and I wouldn't want to just put them on here without their permission.

I realize some on here don't seem to understand that very well but nevertheless that's the way it is. Some have even said if I don't put the raw material on here I shouldn't even mention it. If that's the way they really feel, then I'll be happy to comply----eg I won't even mention it.