[Jim_Kennedy]

Peter,
This isn't a modern question, you can find lots of articles by the other architects of the day in which they are ragging on CBM.

My take?, he had the pull and connections to get millionaires all over the country to heap loads of cash into building some of the most choice projects of the era, and he wasn't afraid to promote himself. Kind of a Donald Trump, with a better golfing plan. He surely earned the animosity of some, and their jealousy of him sometime came out in their writings.

Not much difference in modern tactics. 

[TEPaul]

"Until I had looked at some of the things written back in the day, I thought that CBM had discovered his ideal holes pretty much on his own."

Bob:

While a lot of people probably think that it was never the case. Not even close. Macdonald didn't even have anything to do with the competition started in GB probably in 1900 known as "Best hole Discussion" that was generated by London's Golf Illustrated, not to mention that their questionaire was sent out to only about thirty people (apparently considered to be the most knowledgeable at that time).

He did admit that it certainly interested him though and that was what got him thinking about something apparently no one else had ever thought of before---eg actually building a golf course where basically all the holes were considered to be "ideal" not just in and of themselves but in how they all worked together as an eighteen hole course apparently to produce a well rounded test for a golfer.

Macdonald apparently felt at that time that the best courses in the world were in GB but even about the best of them he also said none had more than approximately 4-5 really excellent holes.

And Macdonald seems not to have deviated much at all from the results of that London Illustrated "Best Hole Discussion" in 1900.  Those were the holes he went abroad to study even though he said he studied various features of up to thirty other holes that could be used somehow.

As opinionated as some believe him to be, in this case he seemed to rely almost completely on a consensus of opinion of other experts.

So it wasn't necessarily the holes individually but the idea of an "ideal course" that occured to him alone and frankly that had occured to him some years before the London Golf Illustrated "Best Hole Discussion" as his article in Outing magazine in December 1897 will attest.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Matter of fact, it is also not hard to see that because Macdonald first conceived of this kind of idea of creating an "ideal" golf course by actually working into a whole (an 18 hole course) some solid architectural principles taken from existing holes and also essentially recreating some holes that were recognized as the best or ideal he felt this actually made him the very first golf course architect ever. He actually says this in his book in no uncertain terms.

Obviously Macdonald was aware that plenty of other people had laid out golf courses for years before him but who had ever actually done it this way? I, for one, most certainly see what he meant. The way he conceived of going about it in many ways certainly was unique in the history of golf architecture.

[JMorgan]

Peter,
This isn't a modern question, you can find lots of articles by the other architects of the day in which they are ragging on CBM.

My take?, he had the pull and connections to get millionaires all over the country to heap loads of cash into building some of the most choice projects of the era, and he wasn't afraid to promote himself. Kind of a Donald Trump, with a better golfing plan. He surely earned the animosity of some, and their jealousy of him sometime came out in their writings.

Not much difference in modern tactics. 

That's why Travis suddenly disappears from the planning of NGLA.

[TEPaul]

"That's why Travis suddenly disappears from the planning of NGLA."

JMorgan:

What is why Travis suddenly disappears from the planning of NGLA?

[JMorgan]

Clashing personalities.  Plus Travis was a scratch player, CBM was a four or five. 

[TEPaul]

PeterP:

I like your post #42. Maybe it is a fine line and maybe it isn't. The point is Macdonald could've identified solid architectural principles in a number of ways but he chose to do it via a pretty well established consensus of opinion of recognized experts from the other side of the best and most famous long established golf holes.

He could've done that over here perhaps but it probably wouldn't have had the impact, at least certainly not abroad! 

Macdonald made a very interesting and seemingly valid point about all this, and that was that the holes from abroad that were selected in that London Golf Illustrated "Best Hole Discussion" in 1900 with which he had nothing at all to do, at least were tremendously "time-tested." Even if there were certainly enough excellent holes over here at that time to use to copy or take the valid architectural principles from to create an "ideal" golf course, they weren't exactly time tested and respected as much, probably for the simple reason not one of them over here had been in existence much more than a decade or half a decade.

This also gets into what some referred to back then as the "genius of locality" which seemed to be a concept that cut in various ways.

Get these remarks from someone from over there who seemingly was questioning Macdonald's idea but that he put in his book anyway:

         "A strange land of composite people is nothing if not revolutionary in its breaking away from sanctified tradition.
         " Of course, any person with refinement of feeling must know perfectly well that in constructing classical bunkers they could not carry with them the undefinable network or associations known as the 'genius of locality,' any more than they could take with them the memories of Holyrood or the Tower of London, assuming they could transfer these monuments bodily and put them down in Chicago or Manhattan Island. Sentiment in tradition and history counts for much in golf, and whether in the future the form of the ideal links is to loom across the golfing horizon from America, it is quite certain that playing upon them will neither induce the same amount of interest nor the same exhilertion of spirit as may still be gathered when treading one's crowded way to the first hole across the Swilcan."


So how does one answer something like that effectively? Well, in my opinion, Macdonald answered it just perfectly, and in perhaps the only truly legitimate way possible at that time or at any time. This was his reply to those remarks above:



"All very true when it was written, but how about to-morrow? The birth of a nation creates a new soul. As we gaze back we will reverence the past, but it is to the future we must look."



Macdonald's "future" is our today! 

[TEPaul]

"Clashing personalities.  Plus Travis was a scratch player, CBM was a four or five."


JMorgan:

Why do you say they had clashing presonalities? As for Travis being a scratch and CBM being a four or five I hardly think something like that is going to be of much concern to a couple of US Amateur Champions! 

If you study that time and the careers and involvements of those two men it seems crystal clear that the thing that created a rift between them completely revolved around the on-going Schnectedy Putter issue and if one looks carefully it seems like it was Travis and not Macdonald who probably massively over-reacted. The record of the deliberations between the R&A and the USGA that lasted some years about whether to ban the Schnectedy Putter or not will show that Macdonald never supported a ban of the Schnectedy Putter.

Travis' real issue with Macdonald seemed to have been that he was the only man who served on both the USGA AND R&A's Rules Committee. Travis took that to be a real conflict of interest on Macdonald's part even though Macdonald apparently never endorsed a ban on the Schnectedy Putter which was in effect supporting Travis and opposing much of the sentiment on the issue on the other side (R&A). 

[JMorgan]

Tom, I don't think it had anything to do with the Schenectady putter.  Travis was as strong willed as CBM, and others mediated their relationship; but I think it broke down when Travis started winning major tournaments, designing courses, and taking on the editorship of American Golf, while CBM was promoting the early hints of his "ideal golf course" to his associates and proselytizing on about the shortcomings of US golf architecture theretofore. 

Also I would not underestimate his own opinion of his playing ability in those early days.  CBM would maybe or maybe not enter a tournament, and everyone from the participants to the press would be left wondering what he would decide until the last minute.  In those early days, CBM competed against Douglas and Hicks, Travers and Travis, Emmet and Byers and Burton.  He did not have a monopoly on an understanding of course management and strategy or golf course architecture.

[Willie_Dow]

Looks like Salters Point in 1913, explore linkscounsellor@mailstation.com

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I don't think it had anything to do with the Schenectady putter.  Travis was as strong willed as CBM, and others mediated their relationship; but I think it broke down when Travis started winning major tournaments, designing courses, and taking on the editorship of American Golf, while CBM was promoting the early hints of his "ideal golf course" to his associates and proselytizing on about the shortcomings of US golf architecture theretofore."


JMorgan:

Really? You don't think it had anything to do with the Schnectedy Putter issue? Then it seems like you probably have a whole lot of reading to do of the old material from that time and certainly including Travis' opinions on that issue in his own magazine.

By the way, have you ever read Macdonald's book? If you have, have you ever read it in real detail? Many have read it but few have looked very carefully at those sections throughout the book that had to do with the interworkings of the USGA. I guess few on here are interested in those sections because they have nothing to do with golf course architecture. But they are truly fascinating to me because they very much complete some other parts of the tapestry of Macdonald's life and times in the other things he did in golf other than GCA. 

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I don't think it had ANYTHING to do with the Schenectady putter.  Travis was as strong willed as CBM, and others mediated their relationship; but I think it broke down when Travis started winning major tournaments, designing courses, and taking on the editorship of American Golf, while CBM was promoting the early hints of his "ideal golf course" to his associates and proselytizing on about the shortcomings of US golf architecture theretofore."


JMorgan:

Really? You don't think it had ANYTHING to do with the Schnectedy Putter issue? Then it seems like you probably have a whole lot of reading to do of the old material from that time and certainly including Travis' opinions on that issue in his own magazine.

By the way, have you ever read Macdonald's book? If you have, have you ever read it in real detail? Many have read it but few have looked very carefully at those sections throughout the book that had to do with the interworkings of the USGA. I guess few on here are interested in those sections because they have nothing to do with golf course architecture. But they are truly fascinating to me because they very much complete some other parts of the tapestry of Macdonald's life and times in the other things he did in golf other than GCA.

But if you still think that the rift between Macdonald and Travis had NOTHING to do with the Schnectedy Putter issue, that's cool, but in my opinion that would make you totally wrong!

Here's a trivia question for you, JMorgan. What was Macdonald's club or record before NGLA came on stream?

[JMorgan]

Tom, my commentary is not meant to take anything away from his zeal for golf in America.  Obviously there is no doubt that he was beyond passionate about his beliefs where golf was concerned.  The subtitle, How America Discovered Golf, is inaccurate, however. It describes his discovery more than America's.

There is an article in Golf Illustrated that details the whole Schenectady putter issue ... let me see if I can dig it up. 

Without looking into Scotland's Gift, I'll guess his record was set at either Newport or Wheaton. 

[TEPaul]

"Tom, my commentary is not meant to take anything away from his zeal for golf in America.  Obviously there is no doubt that he was beyond passionate about his beliefs where golf was concerned.  The subtitle, How America Discovered Golf, is inaccurate, however. It describes his discovery more than America's."


JMorgan:

I can certainly appreciate that your commentary, and mine, on C.B Macdonald's life and times on here is nothing much more than the both of us trying to figure out as precisely as we possibly can what went on back then in numerous ways and with many people. So don't worry about anything such as over-aching argumentation between us as it is not that; this is just a discussion.

Perhaps Macdonald's take on things back then and his roll in it is somewhat skewed because he probably was a big-ego guy but I wouldn't discount what he said/wrote too much as don't forget his writing, his articles, even his bio was read by those who certainly knew him and his life and times very well and not often is it that that is some complete 180 degree turn from reality (for pretty obvious reasons ). For that reason alone I think one can put more stock in what Macdonald himself said and chronicled than some on here may be inclined to do.

I do not know what you mean by that subtitle. Subtitle to what---his book? If so, I missed that.

I am particularly interested, these days, in Macdonald's life and times, because I am more familiar than most for sure, of who some of the people he surrounded himself with in his life in America including in golf. I find Macdonald to be a guy who certainly pushed the envelope in many ways but the thing that totally interests me is he seemed to be incredible intuitive about when and where to stop. To me that has to do with the fact that he realized, even he the over-arching ego and SOB in golf, that there were some people that no one pushed too far.

I'd be glad to name them for you and who they were, because they were within and without the USGA, the clubs he belonged to and formed. but I can tell you right now that nobody but NOBODY and certainly not Charlie Macdonald told people like some of them to f...off or just do things his way. They were bigger than he was in LIFE and by about a factor of about ten and it just fascinates me that he seemed to understand that and how to play it---which was to basically back off which is most certainly what he did over time, even if perhaps compounded because his own personal problems such as socially problematic alcoholism.



"There is an article in Golf Illustrated that details the whole Schenectady putter issue ... let me see if I can dig it up."

Thank you but I don't think that's necessary as at this point I believe I have read every single Golf Illustrated, American Golfer etc extant from that time and later. 



"Without looking into Scotland's Gift, I'll guess his record was set at either Newport or Wheaton."



Excuse me, in my last post I meant to ask you Macdonald's club OF record not OR record. Before NGLA came on-stream as a club, Macdonald's club OF record was GCGC, Travis' club which he had begun to redesign before NGLA was underway or completed. 

[BCrosby]

Jim - Nothing I wrote above is meant to suggest that CBM doesn't belong in the pantheon of gca. He clearly does.

Peter/Tom -

Yes, the nature of CBM's originality was not so much finding a set of ideal holes (almost all had been previously identified as such) but deciding to build a course consisting of only such holes. Which was one of those ideas that is so simple and so brilliant that it's hard to believe no one had come up with it sooner.

Bob
 

[TEPaul]

"Yes, the nature of CBM's originality was not so much finding a set of ideal holes (almost all had been previously identified as such) but deciding to build a course consisting of only such holes. Which was one of those ideas that is so simple and so brilliant that it's hard to believe no one had come up with it sooner."


Bob:

I agree with you. However, if one does a basic timeline it could get sort of hilarious. For example, if Charlie's "ideal course" brainstorm happened as early as December 1897 (that Outing Magazine article on an ideal course) and he went to New York to live from Chicago in 1900 that doesn't say a whole lot for his early (1895) Chicago GC course, does it---even if he said in his bio in 1928 it was one of only three good courses in America before NGLA! 

[Peter Pallotta]

TE -
thanks for post #31 - that "genius of locality" concept is new to me, and a very interesting one. I know I'm using/riffing on the concept incorrectly in saying this, but it strikes me that part of the greatness of NGLA lies in the fact that Macdonald a) referenced the 'locality' of the the British links courses in his choice of site, and b) referenced so many of the great holes all in ONE golf course -- that is, he created his own unique 'locality' comprised of 18 holes within which any and all of the individual holes fit in (with the genius of locality) as well as the whole of N Berwick fit in with its surroundings.

And now that I've typed that, I'm not sure if I've made myself clear or if it makes any sense.

Peter   

[TEPaul]

"And now that I've typed that, I'm not sure if I've made myself clear or if it makes any sense."

PeterP:

Probably not. I guess we always need to look at these terms used back then very carefully to determine if they are even remotely appropriate for the way we look at things and understand them today.

In this case the term "genius of locality" would probably be better understood by us with something like the "tradition of locality."

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah, of course, TE - the "tradition" part was right there in front of me, with CBM himself responding in specifically that context.  I simply overlooked that because I liked so much what the the genius of locality idea brought to mind today. But maybe there's still something worth saving, e.g. the way CBM conceived and executed NGLA -- referencing the sites and referencing so many of the holes from British links golf -- helped shroud and envelope the course in a tradition of locality from very early on...and until this day

Anyway, the main takeaway here is that I need to try curbing my anachronistic tendencies....even when it's getting late and past my bedtime

Peter

[Sean_A]

Jim - Nothing I wrote above is meant to suggest that CBM doesn't belong in the pantheon of gca. He clearly does.

Peter/Tom -

Yes, the nature of CBM's originality was not so much finding a set of ideal holes (almost all had been previously identified as such) but deciding to build a course consisting of only such holes. Which was one of those ideas that is so simple and so brilliant that it's hard to believe no one had come up with it sooner.

Bob
 

Bob

I never had the impression that Mac imported the idea of the template holes.  I had always assumed he went with expert consensus, but his going along with this consensus was probably more influential than anybody else doing so because Mac had the balls to act.  In addition to the idea of creating 18 ideal holes I always thought that the Brits were a bit outraged by Mac because he thought it possible to transfer the ideas of the templates without necessarily having the right land forms to pull it off.  In other words, come hell or high water Mac was gonna build these ideal holes, but the Brits didn't think it feasible he could pull it off successfully.  Some sort of notion that those holes were in that particular ground so they cannot be repeated.  Of course, both sides were right as Mac probably never had any intention of creating duplicates - he was interested recreating the ideas of the holes.  I have long had an issue with what many on this site call Redans because they are quite frankly not Redans, but that doesn't mean the influence (or idea) of the Redan isn't present in these "modern" Redans - it most clearly is.   

To drive the discussion forward, what do folks think about the Brit archies? Once it became clear that templates could work, do folks think, like American archies after Mac, that the Brit archies were just more subtle in their approach to templates?  Or perhaps were templates not really pursued?  I know there a few holes that are blatant templates, W-s-M's 15th (deigned by Dr Mac) is one example, but so far as I know, it never garnered any real fame for being a template.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"In addition to the idea of creating 18 ideal holes I always thought that the Brits were a bit outraged by Mac because he thought it possible to transfer the ideas of the templates without necessarily having the right land forms to pull it off.  In other words, come hell or high water Mac was gonna build these ideal holes, but the Brits didn't think it feasible he could pull it off successfully.  Some sort of notion that those holes were in that particular ground so they cannot be repeated.  Of course, both sides were right as Mac probably never had any intention of creating duplicates -"


Sean Arble:

A pretty interesting contradiction in there---I say interesting even though it seems to be the very same contradiction (more like confusion) that has been going on in the minds of some for over a century.

Even though I do understand some actually were , I don't see why the Brits were ever outraged (as you say) that Macdonald would think to actually create exact duplicates of famous holes from abroad over here particularly since he clearly said the ground could never be naturally identical and for primarily that reason he never said he was going to create duplicate holes over here. So what were they so outraged about if he never said he intended to do that?

And now you say both sides were right even though that was never anything he intended to do? Why don't you just call a spade a spade when it comes to what some thought about what he was doing and why they were outraged----ie they fundamentally misunderstood what he intended to do and probably still do a century later since some of them still complain that those holes should not be called what they are over here because they are not exact enough duplicates of those original holes on the other side!   

What this says, in my opinion, is that when a man like Macdonald explained he was utilizing various architectural "principles" of holes and particular features of holes (including  parts of holes) some people just didn't and don't get, and probably never will get, that this is just part of the essence of golf course architecture.

It probably wasn't that much different in the context of golf course architecture to what many British did when they took the famous "Grand Tour" of the artistic antiquities of Greece and Rome and then came home and applied artistically what they'd learned. They studied the essence and fundamental principles of it to better learn and understand the art of special times and places.

Did they actually try to dig some of it up and rip it off and take some of it home with them? Aaah, well yes they did some of that too or tried to and that probably explains why some low brain-wave Brits back then said (They said that even though a complete idiot understands that's not possible) Macdonald might actually dig up something like NB's redan and attempt to transport it in whole to some site on Long Island and if that proved a bit too big and heavy and cumbersome or whatever that he might try to absolutely and exactly duplicate it over here!

Some didn't understand what he was doing and I doubt they ever will understand it. I don't think it's ever been any more complicated than that.
 

[BCrosby]

Sean -

I don't get the sense that the Brits were outraged with CBM's project. I would say they were bemused, in the sense that only a nutty American would think of something like that.

CBM was paying great homage to British golf. My sense is that they appreciated that, but were also a bit flummoxed by MacD's notion of replicating holes rather than teasing out the design ideas behind ideal holes and applying those ideas in a way that best fit a given peice of land.

Bob

[TEPaul]

" I would say they were bemused, in the sense that only a nutty American would think of something like that."

Bob:

Call it what some of them called it and called him----eg "innovative" which to them was probably mostly a synonym for "revolutionary".

As Macdonald himself apparently very accurately said----even what were considered to be the finest courses on the British side only had 4-5 holes on them that an intelligent observer would call ideal or excellent (he actually described that a bit more poetically ) and so he figured why not build something where far more were considered to be excellent, like even all of them. 

But the overriding thing that Macdonald was trying to do did not exactly amount to creating 18 excellent holes in some individual vacuum. His idea, and it probably was both innovative and revolutionary, was how they all fitted together and worked to create an ideal balance and variety to accomplish something really important like ideally test golfers over an entire golf course---and not just on 4-5 seemingly excellent holes.

In that context, Macdonald even listed on paper an ideal golf course made up of holes that were not necessarily the same ones he used at NGLA. That paper list (or composite course) is included in his really significant article in Outing magazine in 1906 that was intended to explain what he planned to do at NGLA (with holes as the land allowed). That article is thanfully completely reprinted in his book and if anyone wants to understand what he was really up to they should completely familiarize themselves with ALL the details contained in that very important article!

Macdonald did mention a good deal that some holes over there had some excellent features and excellent architectural principles about them but that they were perhaps of the incorrect length or something in that vein of not be wholly ideal. And this is why he took many months over a few trips over there to study and draw and identify these ideal piece and parts of holes and go home and mix and match them into the compleat and Ideal 18 hole golf course. It wasn't so much about the individual holes as it was about the WHOLE!

[Joe Bausch]

Here's another interesting little nugget about the upcoming NGLA, here the purchase of the land announced (this being from the December 15, 1906 edition of the New York Tribune).  I think if you click on the jpg it will expand some to be easier to read.

I wonder if this plaster of paris model still exists?!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()