Was Charles Blair Macdonald really the father of Golf Architecture in America

[Jim_Kennedy]

.....and if any modern voices need to be added I would take the impressions of these two guys before a couple others I can think of.

Crenshaw:  "All of golf paused to marvel at Macdonald's magnificent creation."

Doak: "I do think that National was miles better than GCGC or Myopia.  My evidence is that no one in Britain spoke highly of them and no one in Britain was asking Darwin what he thought of those two".

[DMoriarty]

Great quotes Jim.

Here is one more, from the lead article in 1910 American Golfer, probably by Travis, who was the editor and at the event. (emphasis added)

Suffice it to say that nature has been exceedingly generous in providing ground which is admirably suited in every respect, in contour, quality of soil and situation, for a really first class links. . . . [T]he whole lay-out is as near perfect as can be, and Dame Nature has been most ably seconded by the infinite and painstaking care which has been bestowed on the arrangement of the holes, no two of which are alike, furnishing a most charming diversity of play.  . . . It is not too much to say that none of the most famous courses abroad have more than four or five holes at the outside which stand out as being pre-eminent —the others are more or less tinged with mediocrity. Here we have eighteen holes which constitute perfection, or as near thereto as it is possible to attain in any single course.
. . .
A great deal of credit is due to Mr. Macdonald for providing such a classical links, which will ever remain a monument unto himself, and much good will be done to the game as a whole in the way of furnishing such a magnificent object lesson of what a first-class course should be in suggesting ideas to those interested in the lay-out of new courses or the improvement of existing ones throughout the country. The name, The National Golf Links, is appropriate by reason of the fact that the sixty-seven founders, each of whom has put in $1,000, and in whom the ownership of the property is vested, reside in various parts of the country; while as to the term "Links" it is really about the only course on this side which is deserving of such a title.

[TEPaul]

Perhaps one should also post American Golfer's 1910 opinion of Horace Hutchinson's written opinion of American golf architecture (other than NGLA  ). The article is written under the pseudonym "Americus" (who is clearly Travis ).

It just might be one of the most scathing and detialed damnations of a supposedly well-known golf architectural critic from abroad I've ever seen in print!

I do admit if Americus was Travis which he clearly was there are probably some other historical reasons at that very time Travis was so highly critical of Hutchinson and the opinons of the other side on things to do with golf and American golf and architecture.

Among other things, Americus (Travis) criticized Hutchinson for criticizing Myopia for too many blind shots when in fact NGLA had more blind shots than Myopia! 

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

Garden City and Myopia were considered the best we had, but to those who knew courses across the ocean this was far from a compliment.   It was more like, Garden City and Myopia are the best they have, but the best they have falls well short of real links golf.      As Whigham put it in 1909, these courses were "nearly good," which seems a perfect description to me.   But NGLA was considered to be great. 

As for what you think of Myopia, it is irrelevant.  What matters is what those who knew golf at the time thought, and they thought NGLA was on an entirely different level; world class."


Moriarty:

Unfortunately, that's a premise I wouldn't even come close to accepting, certainly not from someone like you. To even begin to understand and appreciate what those who knew golf at that time thought (the first decade of the the 20th century), one pretty much needs to have a real familiarity with Myopia because frankly it has changed very little compared to almost any other course of that age. The fact is you have zero familiarity with Myopia or its architecture.

If you want to cover your opinion by quoting what Tom Doak said on here about Myopia compared to NGLA go ahead and do it. It would certainly not be the first time I've disagreed with Tom Doak on things to do with golf architecture as he knows just as well as I do! 

[DMoriarty]

"TEPaul,
Moriarty:

Unfortunately, that's a premise I wouldn't even come close to accepting, certainly not from someone like you. To even begin to understand and appreciate what those who knew golf at that time thought (the first decade of the the 20th century), one pretty much needs to have a real familiarity with Myopia because frankly it has changed very little compared to almost any other course of that age. The fact is you have zero familiarity with Myopia or its architecture.

If you want to cover your opinion by quoting what Tom Doak said on here about Myopia compared to NGLA go ahead and do it. It would certainly not be the first time I've disagreed with Tom Doak on things to do with golf architecture as he knows just as well as I do!  

I didnt quote Tom Doak.  Jim Kennedy did, and also quoted a number of other thinkers.   I quoted Darwin, Hutchinson, Whigham, Travis, and Ben Sayers, the golf professional from North Berwick.   Plus I don't think Tom Doak was relying on his own personal tastes like you are, but instead is relying on what experts thought at the time.    His is undoubtedly the more reasonable approach but that hasn't stopped you yet.

And by the way if you don't think Myopia was changed much since NGLA was in the ground, then it is you who needs to bone up on the history of the place.  While the likes of Travis and others protested the Hutchinson's criticisms, Myopia nonetheless made a number of substantial changes to the course to address the blindness issues.   Other changes were made over the years as well.

As for your tiresome shots at me for not having seen Myopia, I am not so foolish to think my personal opinion of the place would matter anyway.  Neither of us were there.  Yet you continue to rely on your bizarre and illogical I always know best because I have access mantra.   All the access in the world will not change the fact that NGLA was considered World Class while Myopia was merely "nearly good."

As for the backlash with "Americus" I think even you realize that it had as much to the Schenectady putter dispute and Travis' relationship with CBM than anything else.

[TEPaul]

Moriarty:

Believe me, I'm used to that same old mantra from you that's so apparent in your last post. Just like your complete revelation regarding Macdonald and NGLA after seeing NGLA once, I have no doubt at all you would have the same reaction exactly to Myopia and Leeds if and when you ever actually see it. I just got an IM from TomD who admits he only saw it once over twenty years ago and never played it. I told him if he finds himself in the area to let me or Gil know and we'll sure make it happen for him. The same goes for you. You really do need to experience this kind of thing with the great early American courses and architecture as you did once with NGLA. See how that one time seemed to transform you. The same will happen with Myopia.

Always remember "to try to know what you don't know!" 

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

Tom, did I write that I had only seen NGLA once, or are you just assuming it?    You might be surprised how much one can learn about a place in only a limited number of plays, if they put their mind to it.

NGLA was a revelation for me, but other "great" courses haven't had the same impact.   I learn from all of them, but some lessons hit home more than others. I don't doubt for a minute that I would very much enjoy Myopia, but then that wouldn't change what others thought of these courses 100 years ago, would it?   Likewise, it doesnt matter that Tom Doak had only seen the course once.   He wouldn't have had to see it at all to understand how it was viewed 100 years ago in comparison to NGLA.   

I don't mean to downplay the quality of Myopia or even to express any opinion on it whatsoever.   I suspect that there was plenty to Myopia and I would love.  But Myopia did not spark the kind of change that NGLA did.   Surely you realize that CBM and NGLA had a much larger and more lasting impact on gca in America than Myopia, don't you?   Myopia and Garden City had been around for years, but golf design in America still languished.   With CBM and NGLA that changed, and quick.  You need look no further than Merion to see the immediate and concrete impact CBM and NGLA had on golf design in America.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
Would you take this guys word for it?

"Even though there were many working on developing American golf and architecture in the early years (between the mid-1890s and perhaps the mid-teens) if one wants to pick out one person who probably had the largest and the most important and significant impact on golf architectural thinking in that time span I think it would have to be Macdonald. And if one thinks for that it's appropriate to label him the "Father of American Golf Architecture" I would agree with it and I have for years."

[TEPaul]

JimK:

Sure I would.

I'm not sure why anyone feels the need to include all the quotes about Macdonald and NGLA and his contribution to American architeture, at least on my account. I think I've been pretty explanatory over the years about how I feel about him and his architecture. After-all I'd have to say I arguably grew up around more Macdonald architecture than anyone else on this website and probably by a mile. If anyone on this website thinks I don't appreciate and admire Macdonald in many ways as well as his architecture that notion probably came from particularly Moriarty and perhaps MacWood who've implied a number of times on here I've tried to insult or minimize Macdonald or his architecture. Nothing could be further from the truth; neither of those two know what I think of Macdonald and his architecture, that's for sure. They're probably just over-reacting to some of the things they've said about him that I feel are just wrong and historically wrong such as that whole Merion thing those two fellows promoted.

All I've tried to stress on this thread is that he wasn't the only one doing some really good golf architecture back then and he wasn't the first either. He just generated a lot of more publicity over what he did at NGLA, and particularly the way he went about it compared to some of the others who did really good architecture such as Leeds, Emmet, Travis, the Fownses, Wilson, Crump, Thomas, Flynn et al. Those are just the ones I know well and some of them came before him with excellent architecture but there were others around the time of NGLA and just after it that were certainly not following Macdonald's model and even some of them very much on purpose.

[TEPaul]

"You might be surprised how much one can learn about a place in only a limited number of plays, if they put their mind to it."


Yes, I think that would be very true to say, at this point; I would be surprised. You might be surprised how much one continues to learn about some great architecture even after having known it like the back of their hand for a number of decades.

[TEPaul]

"I don't mean to downplay the quality of Myopia or even to express any opinion on it whatsoever."

I hope not. I think there's a ton about it any dedicated golf course historian/analyst can learn about the beginning of real quality golf architecture in America.

"I suspect that there was plenty to Myopia and I would love."

I would suspect as much as well.


"But Myopia did not spark the kind of change that NGLA did."


No, it didn't spark the same degree of interest NGLA did but there are some pretty obvious reasons for that which do not relate to its architecture.


"Surely you realize that CBM and NGLA had a much larger and more lasting impact on gca in America than Myopia, don't you?"


Yes, I do and I feel a lot of it had to do with how Macdonald went about NGLA compared to how Leeds went about Myopia or how Emmet and Travis went about GCGC.
   

"Myopia and Garden City had been around for years, but golf design in America still languished.   With CBM and NGLA that changed, and quick.  You need look no further than Merion to see the immediate and concrete impact CBM and NGLA had on golf design in America."


If you bother to really study Macdonald and his own outlook on American golf architecture it appears he felt American architecture continued to languish for many years following NGLA (with some notable exceptions). I think proof of that is it appears his famous remark of the state of America architecture----"It makes the very soul of golf shriek" was very likely penned by him around 1927-28, and even one of his specific descriptions of why would also seem to indicate that.

So, if you are trying to imply that American architecture would not have progressed in any way as it did had Macdonald never been a part of it I think I might have to say that might be a very debatable point! I don't believe that statement takes anything away from what he did do but I think there were a ton of other people and forces at play throughout those years (The Golden Age?) that could have and would have done what they did without him.

Apparently you don't see it that way at all and of course you are just as welcome to your opinion as I am to mine.

[David Stamm]

The role of CBM in golf in America is enormous to be sure. But I wonder if he had not produced NGLA if architects such as Colt, Fowler and Park would not have had the success anyway here. It's debatle to be sure, but eventually someone would've made that step. IMO, I see very little evidence to suggest that CBM's work heavily influenced the above mentioned architects and how they decided to design their courses here in America. I'm sure there was admiration and respect for the effort and passion of CBM, but I'm not aware of his work influencing them, especially Colt. He seemed to keep his own counsel in regards to course design.

[TEPaul]

Frankly, I think a great subject on here would be a complete review and discussion of the evolution of the so-called "National School" of golf architecture, particularly its popularity or lack of it, at any point in time over the last century.

There is no question at all that Macdonald's revolutionary idea of pretty much copying famous GB holes and/or their principles to produce comprehensively good eighteen hole golf courses and architecture in America created a huge splash when he developed it with his NGLA and continued to do it for a time.

We also know and can document it that a few others emulated his model (famous GB holes and architecture) for a time and even used the same famous names for those holes but it also seems historically documentable that that idea and model just ran out of steam and interest with a decade or so.

Why was that? It seems to me there are all kinds of good and historically factual reasons for it not the least being a large and vibrant and philosophically interested group of architects came to look at that model and modus operandi as perhaps a limited and stultifying way to go about design.

The whole idea of "naturalism" and what look and type and style that constituted was in the wind and running rampant and various architects came to develop and have their own individual and unique ways of interpreting that and applying it.

If someone on here actually thinks the world of American architecture completely stuck with Macdonald's model for the rest of time, I'd have to say they really aren't using their minds or their eyes well unless they actually think the National School's look and style is the same as Tillinghast's style or Flynn's style or MacKenzie's style over here, not to even mention the so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects, Leeds, Emmet, Travis, Fownes, Wilson, Crump etc and their unique and individual types and styles. And this isn't even going beyond the end of the so-called Golden Age-----YET! 

And then there is the evolution of types and styles on the other side. Does anyone really think Colt's style or Alison, Fowler, Simpson, Abercrombie, Park Jr's style etc were emulating Macdonald's model and his National School style?

If one does think that I feel they are definitely missing the REAL DEAL in the differences!

[TEPaul]

DavidS:

Regarding your last post the one who actually interests me more than even Colt is Mackenzie. If one is to say that Macdonald created something of a revolution in golf architecture with his GB famous or "classical" hole model or modus operandi for far better architecture one should also consider the potential design revolution Mackenzie may've created for architecture and its future with his revolutionary "camouflage" ideas and application.

I'm not saying Macdonald shouldn't be considered a superstar in the history and evolution of architecture, even American architecture, but for someone on here to imply he was somehow essentially the only superstar or even the greatest of them all or even the first of them, seems a bit of a misreading and mispresentation of golf architecture's history.

[David Stamm]

Tom, yes, of course MacKenzie played a role, especially in California where most of his work in this country was done. MacK was quite different in his approach to design compared to CBM. And I feel whatever CBM did at NGLA did not have much, if at all, of a bearing on how he approached his work here in California. Now, I do think there is work in California that was influenced to some degree by NGLA, namely Thomas and Behr's courses. And this would make sense knowing their backgrounds and history in golf on the east coast.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,

What are you talking about? Who 's even considering that CB's influence extended abroad? That's the most bass ackwards thought process I've seen on this whole thread.

No one has said that 'the world of American architecture completely stuck with Macdonald's model for the rest of time"', that is something you have made up and you are the only person to think it.

Once again you show yourself up for what you are, a Macdonald basher, which has nothing to do with history and everything to do with the reality that you are overly invested in the work of another.

Of course you are free to believe what you will, therefore you can continue to delude yourself into believing that you have a fair position.

[Sean_A]

TEPaul,

Once again you show yourself up for what you are, a Macdonald basher, which has nothing to do with history and everything to do with the reality that you are overly invested in the work of another.

Jim

Huh?  You can call Tom P a lot of things (and please do - tee hee), but a CBM basher is not at all accurate.  I have been on the site for 5 years and never, not even once, did I ever get the impression TomP was a CBM basher.  Where on earth did you get this idea from?  If anybody else has this idea, where did you get it from?  If anything, I would say Tom P is a huge fan of CBM. 

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
You, too, can believe whatever you choose.

Tom professes to be a 'fan', but he always ends up bashing Macdonald on threads like this. He consistently promotes the idea, mostly of his own creation, that CBM's influence was somehow lost on the other architects of the time. That's ridiculous.

He seems to think that the other architect's of the time kissed CB off because they didn't like his style, when it was more likely that their massive egos wouldn't let them feel subservient to CBM, in any way, shape or form. I think they were more worried that he was getting all the attention paid to him and he wasn't even taking any money to build courses. These guys were trying to tear him down back them because they were pissed, there are even articles written that chastise Macdonald for telling the general public where he got the inspiration for his ideas, the essence being that if you tell them you ruin it for the 'rest' of us.

No, if Tom wanted an unvarnished record of history he'd have to stop his incessant and worn-out technique of masking his attacks on CBM with praise. 

[TEPaul]

JimK

Your post #140 just shows me again that some of us look at various subjects differently and speak about various subjects in quite different ways. That post also reminds me why I don't believe it is worthwhile trying to discuss most any subject with you. I also don't think it is important to try to construct some opinion consensus on here and so you're just as welcome to whatever opinion you hold as I am, and one of my opinions is that you calling me a Macdonald basher for whatever I've said about him and his architecture on here shows a pretty good degree of pettiness or perhaps even stupidity, or both, on your part.

[TEPaul]

"These guys were trying to tear him down back them because they were pissed, there are even articles written that chastise Macdonald for telling the general public where he got the inspiration for his ideas, the essence being that if you tell them you ruin it for the 'rest' of us."


I frankly don't remember reading anything like that, at least not while Macdonald was still working in architecture. But if you know of a series of articles or accounts that show others trying to tear him down for any reason I would love to see them. Where are they?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
We do look at things differently, but that wouldn't encourage me to call you stupid, as you just did to me. I might think your position is bass-ackwards,  but that doesn't mean I think you're an idiot for holding it.
People form their own opinion's, all we are doing is debating. If you can't do that without taking it personally then so be it, but there already is a consensus opinion about this subject and it was established a long time before we've taken up arguing about it.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,

I will find it and post it, which is more than you did for me.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
We do look at things differently, but that wouldn't encourage me to call you stupid, as you just did to me. I might think your position is bass-ackwards,  but that doesn't mean I think you're an idiot for holding it."


Well, JimK, that's probably just another good example of how we look at things differently and express them differently. In that particular way it would seem I'm a whole lot more like Charles Blair Macdonald than you are, wouldn't you say? 

[TEPaul]

"I will find it and post it,......"

What do you mean post "it?" Do you mean it's one person's opinion back then or something written that says "they" (apparently meaning a lot of people back then) were tearing him down?

Whatever it is you're referring to I look forward to seeing it and considering it because I can't exactly remember people tearing him or his architecture down back when he was still working. In his obituary to him in 1939 Tillie did say they had had many difference of opinion on golf course architecture but that they had basically been pretty good-natured about their differences.

[DMoriarty]

The role of CBM in golf in America is enormous to be sure. But I wonder if he had not produced NGLA if architects such as Colt, Fowler and Park would not have had the success anyway here. It's debatle to be sure, but eventually someone would've made that step. IMO, I see very little evidence to suggest that CBM's work heavily influenced the above mentioned architects and how they decided to design their courses here in America. I'm sure there was admiration and respect for the effort and passion of CBM, but I'm not aware of his work influencing them, especially Colt. He seemed to keep his own counsel in regards to course design.

David Stamm,  

As for if and when Colt and/or Fowler would have had had the success here anyway, it is certainly arguable.   But we could just as easily argue about whether the United States would have eventually broken away from Great Britain, had the revolutionary war not gone as it did.   My point is that we cannot rewrite history with "what if's."   With CBM we don't need to speculate as to "would have" and "could have" because CBM did it.  And we cannot erase his influence from the landscape to give these guys a free shot at trying to accomplish what CBM accomplished.  

So while some of these guys who followed may not have been borrowing anything from CBM, they were preaching many of the same ideas and/or utilizing many of the same concepts, and CBM set the stage for these guys here.  He started the ball rolling and they (and others) took it all sorts of places.

Tom, yes, of course MacKenzie played a role, especially in California where most of his work in this country was done. MacK was quite different in his approach to design compared to CBM. And I feel whatever CBM did at NGLA did not have much, if at all, of a bearing on how he approached his work here in California. Now, I do think there is work in California that was influenced to some degree by NGLA, namely Thomas and Behr's courses. And this would make sense knowing their backgrounds and history in golf on the east coast.

When you say that AM's approach was much different than CBM's just what exactly do you mean?   There are differences obviously, but there are plenty of remarkable similarities as well.  AM was espousing many of the same fundamental principles as CBM, and building many golf holes with very similar strategic underpinnings.   Diagonal hazards, undulating and interesting greens, undulating fairways, multiple routes to the hole, equally challenging and interesting to the scratch and the duffer, every hole different in character, undulations but no hill climbing, dislike of high rough, as natural appearance as possible, minimization of blind approaches (CBM obviously had a few exceptions to this, but preached minimum blindness nonetheless while noting these exceptions.)    The both shared a deep affection for the Old Course, and both had very similar views on the purpose of hazards, they both even praised the same holes from overseas.   They differed on trees, but only to a degree.  

MacKenzie was quite fond of NGLA.  From The Spirit of St. Andrews:

North America is rapidly becoming a greater golf center than even the home of golf, Scotland.  The average American golf course is vastly superior to the average Scottish golf course, but I still think the best courses in Scotland, such as the Old Course at St. Andrews ,are superior to any in the World.   In the East, the National and Pine Valley are outstanding, and the excellence of many other courses may be traced to their shining example.   My personal preference is for the National.   Although not so spectacular as Pine Valley, it has a greater resemblance to real links land than any course in the East.

It is also essentially a strategic course; every hole sets a problem.   At the National there are excellent copies of classic holes, but I think the holes, like the 14th and 17th, which C. B. Macdonald has evolved, so to speak, out of his own head, are superior to any of them.  

As an example of how similarly they thought on architecture, recall that CBM had Raynor build AM's "ideal two-shot hole" at the Lido.   From the caption of the photograph of his winning plan (SoSA):

"The ideal two shot hole that launched my golf architecture career.  C.B. Macdonald and Bernard Darwin awarded this design first place in Country Life magazine.  July 25, 1914."

One thing I found fascinating is when Gib in his usual off-the-cuff, less than serious manner recently went around CPC naming the Raynor holes.  While he was joking (I think,) one could easily go right around CPC and find quite a few holes with similar strategic concepts to those at NGLA.  Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this was done intentionally or that AM was working off of Raynor's plan. But I am saying that CBM and AM viewed many things similarly and so it should be of no surprise that their courses end up presenting some very similar strategic problems.

So I am curious as to what you meant when you wrote that AM's approach was much different than CBM's?