next »

[TEPaul]

"TEP
He was explaining and contrasting the differences between the two countries relative to golf course development. He emphasizes the natural advantages Britain has over America - the sandy undulating ground - which results in better turf, more interesting undulating ground and courses that are generally better bunkered. He does not mention anything about copying famous holes. Another point Travis makes in the article: better courses result in better play and better golfers."


Tom MacWood:

Of course he was contrasting the differences of golf courses between the two countries but is that all you think his point was in that Nov. 1901 British Golf Illustrated article? My God, Man, do you think he meant to suggest that golf architecture on this side should remain of the kindergarten order and be created in the future with only mediocrity in mind?   

I think he is definitely suggesting we could do better and should do bette3r and he even mentioned a few examples of doing it better over here at that date. He is definitely suggesting not only that we could do better but that we should, hence, the following in the same article----

"It is high time we awoke to a proper and appreciative realization of what real golf is, and constructed our courses accordingly."

[Tom MacWood]

"If so, what gave you the impression he was referring to templates?"


I get that impression from what I quoted from Travis from that Nov, 1901 British Golf Illustrated article.


"By the way the Best Holes Discussion series in Golf Illustrated began 2.15.1901."


Thanks for that info. Obviously that would probably mean Travis didn't start that GBI "Best Hole Discussion" by what he said in the article in BGI in Nov, 1901. I wonder if he was the first who had the idea of doing copies of the holes in America that he mentioned in that article. Do you have any idea when or where Macdonald first wrote he wanted to do GB template holes in America, OR, do you have any idea who first mentioned doing template holes in America before Travis appeared to suggest it in that article in BGI in Oct-Nov 1901? Do you know if anyone suggested doing famous hole copies in GB or abroad around that time (1901)?

TEP
Where do you see Travis advocating the copying of famous holes?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Where do you see Travis advocating the copying of famous holes?"


Tom MacWood:

I see it in his 1901 article in British Golf Illustrated where he names numerous holes he admires abroad------

"Where have we any holes comparable with the 7th, 11th and 13th at St. Andrews, the 7th and 10th at Troon, the 5th and 17th at Prestwick, the 7th, 8th, 11th and 12th at Formby, the 2nd and 15th at Carnoustie, the 3rd, 7th and 14th at Prestwick St. Nicholas, the 7th, 14th and 15th at North Berwick, the proposed new 12th and 13th at Blundellsands, the 5th 11th, 12th and 18th at Muirfield, the 11th, 13th and 14th at Hoylake, the 3rd, 6th, 8th and 17th at Sandwich, the 3rd and 8th at Mid-Surrey, the 7th and 14th at Deal, or the 3rd, 4th and 10th at Huntercombe? -- to say nothing of many others."  


-----and then goes on to say the following in the same article----

"It is high time we awoke to a proper and appreciative realization of what real golf is, and constructed our courses accordingly."

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
So when you read Travis say we don't have any holes like X, Y, and Z, you take that to mean he is advocating the reproduction of copies of X, Y and Z in the States?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

When I read Travis ask in that article IN 1901 where over here we have holes like some over there (and then he goes on to list about forty of them from abroad he obviously admires as really good holes)-----

-----and then goes on to say the following in the same 1901 article in British Golf Illustrated----

"It is high time we awoke to a proper and appreciative realization of what real golf is, and constructed our courses accordingly"

Yes, I think Travis was advocating IN 1901 for the emulation of the architectural concepts and principles of those holes abroad (and as he mentioned, 'and many others' from GB) in America, just as Macdonald did about half a decade later at NGLA. That is probably why GCGC gave Travis the liberty beginning around 1901 to begin rebunkering GCGC and creating more interesting green surfaces.

That probably wasn’t lost on Macdonald as Macdonald’s golf club was GCGC apparently after he moved from Chicago to New York in 1900.

You would agree, wouldn't you, that the first of Macdonald's three extended architectural study trips abroad took place in 1902? The other two according to Macdonald took place in 1904 and 1906.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
First you tried to make the case that Travis inspired the Best Hole Discussion, then you tried to make the case he was the first to advocate templates, now you seem to be claiming Travis was the first to advocate the adoption of British architectural principals...a decade prior to CBM no less.

It appears you are just trying to throw anything you can against the wall in the hopes something sticks. That is very poor way to approach history IMO.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
First you tried to make the case that Travis inspired the Best Hole Discussion,"


Tom MacWood:

No sir, I did not try to make that case at all. I only asked a question if perhaps he did because I did not know before asking the question when that "Best Hole Discussion" began. You informed me that it began 2/15/01, and if that is the case I responded to that it is then not likely Travis inspired the "Best Hole Discussion" in the British Golf Illustrated magazine as Travis' article in GBI magazine appeared about nine months later.


"then you tried to make the case he was the first to advocate templates,"


I suppose that depends on how one defines the meaning of templates. If it means using the concepts and featuring and the architectural principles of famous holes abroad (bunkering and greens contours and configuration and such) Travis seems to be advocating their use in America when he mentioned in that Nov, 1901 article in GBI all those holes he admired and then said later in that same article-----"It is high time we awoke to a proper and appreciative realization of what real golf is, and constructed our courses accordingly." Obviously by 'we' he was referring to Americans and America and American golf course architecture!

 

"now you seem to be claiming Travis was the first to advocate the adoption of British architectural principals...a decade prior to CBM no less."


Yes, that looks like a distinct possiblity unless one can find Macdonald, or someone else, mentioning the use of British architectural hole principles in America (or anywhere else for that matter) before Travis did in 1901. BTW, I did not say Travis advocated the adopition of British architectural principles a decade prior to CBM either----you just did. The next thing I know you will probably be quoting me saying a decade earlier which I never said.

I said Travis said this in 1901 and as we all know Macdonald essentially began his NGLA in 1906----that's 5 years which amounts to HALF a decade, and not a whole decade, wouldn't you agree?

But the more interesting point seems to be that it does not appear Macdonald ever mentioned using GB hole concepts and features and principles prior to Nov, 1901. If he did I would very much like to know where and when. Can you find something that shows us where and when prior to Nov. 1901? Was that because he hadn't thought of that idea yet for his ideal course in America? The other interesting point is he began the first of his three dedicated architectural study trips abroad in 1902 (again, the other two were in 1904 and 1906). Why would he spend so much time abroad AFTER 1901 studying courses and holes and principles if he'd already been well aware of all that and ready to go with his ideal golf course idea using GB templates and other GB hole concepts and principles?

"It appears you are just trying to throw anything you can against the wall in the hopes something sticks. That is very poor way to approach history IMO."


I don't think so. This is a real article from Travis and the question should be asked if he had that idea about using admired holes abroad over here before Macdonald did. I think that's pretty important, particularly in the context of American architectural evolution and history and in the context of this thread's subject. Wouldn't you agree, and if not, why not?

Can you show me or quote me when and where Macdonald first talked about actually using admired golf holes from abroad here in America, and if not why not? Show me where he said that specifically before Travis did. If you can I will be more than happy to concede the point and drop the question.

After-all, this is just a discussion group where any or all of us can learn all kinds of things about the history of golf course architecture, and this may be one of them.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Is there some reason you have chosen to ignore what CBM wrote in Scotland's Gift? Might I suggest you ask Wayne to allow you to borrow the book.

"Living in Chicago, I wrote an article. published in December, 1897, saying, in part:

'The ideal first-class golf links has yet to be selected and the course laid out in America. No course can be called first-class with less than eighteen holes. A sandy soil sufficiently rich to make turf is the best. Long Island is a natural links. A first-class course can only be made in time. It must develop. The proper distance between the holes, the shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfecting of putting greens, all must be evolved by a process of growth and it requires study and patience.'"

Macdonald goes on to explain how the Best Holes discussion inspired him to build the NGLA.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

One of the things that has always fascinated me about NGLA is the bunker placement scheme.

It's amazing how some of those bunkers, seemingly out of play, come into play when you hit an errant shot and find yourself in the dilema of having to avoid them on your next shot.

# 18 is one of my all time favorites.

A view from Google Earth is quite interesting even though it loses much of the elevation changes.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Is there some reason you have chosen to ignore what CBM wrote in Scotland's Gift? Might I suggest you ask Wayne to allow you to borrow the book.

"Living in Chicago, I wrote an article. published in December, 1897, saying, in part:

'The ideal first-class golf links has yet to be selected and the course laid out in America. No course can be called first-class with less than eighteen holes. A sandy soil sufficiently rich to make turf is the best. Long Island is a natural links. A first-class course can only be made in time. It must develop. The proper distance between the holes, the shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfecting of putting greens, all must be evolved by a process of growth and it requires study and patience.'"

Macdonald goes on to explain how the Best Holes discussion inspired him to build the NGLA."


Tom MacWood:

Thanks for the suggestion about reading "Scotland's Gift Golf" but apparently you missed the fact that I mentioned on here a number of times over the years that Pat gave me that book about seven years ago and I have read it conservatively 30 times---AND not just the parts of it about golf course architecture but the rest of it including the convoluted sections about USGA administration back then!! Why did I read those sections so diligently??

Because I have spent perhaps 25 years myself in golf administration as Macdonald did. My interest in GCA post dates that. So don't you dare talk to me about not knowing "Scotland's Gift Golf" and what-all is in it you overarching intellectual SNOB!! I know more about Macdonald's ENTIRE life and times with architecture and OTHERWISE than you do arguably by a factor of about TWENTY OR MORE!

So tell me you Putz since you just refused to answer it on THIS THREAD in the last day or two-----WHEN and WHERE did Macdonald mention the use of GB template holes or GB architectural concepts or features or principle BEFORE 1901? You avoided that question I asked you on here a number of times, didn't you?

Why is that?  

Do you want to have an intelligent conversation on Macdonald and the history of golf course architecture or don't you? I'm willing but you are just as evasive as you've always been.

DO you want to do better on here and have an intelligent conversation and discussion on Macdonald and the history and evolution of American golf course architecture-----if so, just answer this really simple question-----YES OR NO?  

[Tom MacWood]

Because I have spent perhaps 25 years myself in golf administration as Macdonald did. My interest in GCA post dates that. So don't you dare talk to me about not knowing "Scotland's Gift Golf" and what-all is in it you overarching intellectual SNOB!! I know more about Macdonald's ENTIRE life and times with architecture and OTHERWISE than you do arguably by a factor of about TWENTY OR MORE!

TEP
Yes, I often associate you with CBM.

The first mention I know of anyone proposing to build a course made up of famous holes was CBM June 1905 in British Golf Illustrated, although apparently he proposed to his friends and associates the idea the year before (according to Scotland's Gift).

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

One of the things that has always fascinated me about NGLA is the bunker placement scheme.

It's amazing how some of those bunkers, seemingly out of play, come into play when you hit an errant shot and find yourself in the dilema of having to avoid them on your next shot.

# 18 is one of my all time favorites.

A view from Google Earth is quite interesting even though it loses much of the elevation changes.

That is pretty amazing when consider when the course was built and how the game has changed since then. TOC withstood a number technical advancements too, John Low referred to TOC's ability to remain great in the face of equipment advancements 'Indestructibility'.

[TEPaul]

"The first mention I know of anyone proposing to build a course made up of famous holes was CBM June 1905 in British Golf Illustrated, although apparently he proposed to his friends and associates the idea the year before (according to Scotland's Gift)."



Tom MacWood:

Thank you very much for that straight-forward answer. I would say, then, that you apparently agree that puts some potentially interesting historical meaning  and significance into Travis' Nov 1901 GBI article in which he suggests or implies using admirable GB holes and their concepts, features, principles, bunkers etc to make American golf course arhitecture more than on a kindergarten order or mediocrity going into the future. 
 
 
 

[Tom MacWood]

CBM criticism predated Travis's by four years, and Travis never proposed template holes. I think you and Wayne may be the only two who read Travis advocating template holes. By the way does Wayne also associate you with CBM? If so, I'd suggest you stay on your toes.

[Rich Goodale]

Sorry to disappoint you, Tom MacW, but I also read Travis' 1901 paragraph reproduced above to advocate "template" holes, both the first time it was posted, and after several re-reads just to make sure.  "Templates" are simply exemplars of "best practice" that can be imitated, and that is what Travis is saying about those holes and features developed by their British brethren that he believed US architects should focus on.  That Macdonald developed a similar idea (and more importantly, acted on it) a few years later does not detract from the incontrovertible fact of Travis' statement.

[TEPaul]

"CBM criticism predated Travis's by four years, and Travis never proposed template holes."

Tom MacWood:

Who was the first to offer criticism of American architecture has never been the question or point on this thread----but who was the father of golf architecture in America is. In that area, the first to offer the idea to use architectural concepts, features, principles etc of admirable holes abroad to make American architecture better certainly is important in determing some of the answers to that question! Thanks for admitting that you now believe Macdonald's ideas on that came after Travis', as you did on Post # 185. I rest my case with the significance of Travis's Nov. 1901 British Golf Illustrated magazine.

Thank you.  

[Tom MacWood]

Rich
You don't disappoint me. You must have an expectation in order to be disappointed. Do you read the Best Holes Discussion from earlier in 1901 as also advocating template holes too?

[Tom MacWood]

"CBM criticism predated Travis's by four years, and Travis never proposed template holes."

Tom MacWood:

Who was the first to offer criticism of American architecture has never been the question or point on this thread----but who was the father of golf architecture in America is. In that area, the first to offer the idea to use architectural concepts, features, principles etc of admirable holes abroad to make American architecture better certainly is important in determing some of the answers to that question! Thanks for admitting that you now believe Travis' ideas on that came before Macdonald's, as you did on Post # 185.  

I don't believe that is what I said but you're welcome anyway -- I try to be objective. I follow the facts wherever they take me, I don't manipulate or distort the facts in order to prove a theory (or multiple theories in your case).

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Thank you for that last post (or the majority of #192 or before you changed it to avoid admitting the obvious ). It seems we finally agree on something significant about the history and evolution of golf course architecture. I always felt that Walter Travis was a whole lot more central in this than most realized, and now you seem to understand that too.

[Tom MacWood]

I'm a big fan of Travis as well, and his associate HH Barker.

[TEPaul]

"I big fan of Travis as well, and his associate HH Barker."


I BIG FAN of Travis too!   

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

This question is neither here nor there but do you think Travis thought he was a better architect than who you say was his associate, HH Barker? if you think so that is pretty heady stuff since you proclaimed or supported the super revisionist Moriarty's statement in his remarkably ridiculous essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion," that HH Barker was the second best architecture in America, right behind C.B. Macdonald? Would you like me to quote him mentioning you thought that in his ridiculously revisionist essay? Would you say, then, that it's fair to say that back then Macdonald was the #1 architect in American and Travis 2a and Barker 2b?

[Rich Goodale]

Rich Goodale,

That's a good point except for one thing.

As an architect, CBM was a nobody in the latter part of the 19th century and early years of the 20th century, so, I don't know if he'd get that much press.

But, I would like to know which courses he studied and which courses he didn't study.

Interesting, Pat.  Even his arch enemy Travis acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago (Wheaton).  Was he the only one?

If CBM was really a "nobody" in 1902-1906, how did he get access to the great courses and the great thinkers in his study-trips abroad?  Or are you implying that maybe he didn't?

[TEPaul]

Richard the Clairvoyant:

Do not forget that in 1901 and perhaps up to 1908 or so Travis and Macdonald were asshole buddies of the highest order but after that they were seemingly asshole enemies of the highest order. Do you remember why that seemed to be the case?

Ricardo, my good buddy, are you just getting up or are you just going to bed? If you're just going to bed what do the sheep say about that?  

I'm going to bed, good buddy, because frankly I'm elated after finally getting MacWood to agree after about a day's dialetic that Travis probably thought of the idea of emulating the concepts, features and principles of GB holes before Macdonald. Well, he agreed for a few minutes at least until he apparently reread what he wrote and realized it looked like it agreed with me and so he altered it! 

[DMoriarty]

As for the Travis article, it is wishful thinking to find any sort of reference to using British holes as templates in America or copying the strategic concepts, or anything else remotely similar to what CBM had begun working on in 1901.

1.  Travis contrasted GB's abundance of quality golf holes with the dearth of quality golf holes in the US.  

2.  Why list the holes to make this point?   How better to demonstrate the contrast?   Plus, consider the context.  Travis was writing for a British audience shortly after the well-publicized discussions about the best and most difficult golf holes, and was writing for the same magazine that had served as the epicenter of that discussion/debate.   So it should come as no surprise that Travis listed out many of the same golf holes that Golf Illustrated had been discussing.   The best and most difficult golf holes were a hot topic, and he weighed in or glommed on (depending on whether he had actually played all these holes.)   To read any more into it than this is a leap beyond logic, and not supported by the articles.  

3.  His description of the problems with American holes and courses has nothing to do with fundamental strategic principles, or usable hole concepts, or anything resembling CBM’s critique.  Rather , he complained that American holes were too easy; (“of the Kindergarten order” . . . “too easy” . . .  laid out along the same lines “to suit the game of the average player” where “a premium is placed on mediocrity.”)     He also said British soil was better, and the undulations were better.    Nothing about the arrangement of the features.  Nothing about the transferability or the universality of the fundamental strategic principles of the great holes.   No coherent plan or concept whatsoever, beyond improving American courses by  making them harder.

4.  Ironically, there isn’t even anything original in the article that I can see.   If discussing the fact that the golf courses were better abroad was all it took to preempt CBM, then many others preempted CBM (including CBM himself!)   Same goes for noting that the soil was worse in America, and the undulations weren’t as ideal.  

5.  In fact, most of the ideas in the Travis article could have been cribbed from Whigham’s  writings from 1897.  The difference is that, unlike Travis, Whigham actually does contemplate that American Clubs should model thier courses after the best courses abroad, and not just is soil or undulations, but it detail.   So if you are looking for someone that was talking about these things first, then here is your man (or one of them.)   But then crediting Whigham won’t quite serve your purposes in this discussion, will it?    

6.  And crediting Whigham isn’t quite accurate either, because while he was leaps and bounds closer than Travis, his ideas were a far cry from what CBM was starting to work on.    Not only that, but CBM’s weren’t just ideas.  He did it.  

___________________________________________________

Rich Goodale,

That's a good point except for one thing.

As an architect, CBM was a nobody in the latter part of the 19th century and early years of the 20th century, so, I don't know if he'd get that much press.

But, I would like to know which courses he studied and which courses he didn't study.

Interesting, Pat.  Even his arch enemy Travis acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago (Wheaton).  Was he the only one?

If CBM was really a "nobody" in 1902-1906, how did he get access to the great courses and the great thinkers in his study-trips abroad?  Or are you implying that maybe he didn't?

Patrick,  

I am not sure I agree.   CBM was very well known in golf circles during that time period, and I don't think they made any sort of "as an architect" distinction, but had they he still would have been very well known, as Chicago was widely considered the best course pre-1900.  

Along with H.J. Whigham and probably a few others, CMB seems to have been considered one of the foremost experts in America on all things golf, including golf courses.    In 1897 Caspar Whitney described him as "so expert a golfer and so accurate an observer as Charles B. Macdonald" and "Mr. Macdonald should know whereof lie speaks, since he is as familiar with the courses of Scotland and England as he is with those of America."

Rich,

As you can see above, CBM was considered an expert on golf courses in America and Abroad long before his trips in preparation abroad.  That doesn't specifically answer your question, though.  I don't have a list of courses seen by CBM, although that would be interesting.  I imagine that he could have seen quite a few courses on his three trips abroad to study courses, and that is on top of his time in St. Andrews and whatever other trips he may have taken between the two periods.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Sorry to disappoint you, Tom MacW, but I also read Travis' 1901 paragraph reproduced above to advocate "template" holes, both the first time it was posted, and after several re-reads just to make sure.  "Templates" are simply exemplars of "best practice" that can be imitated, and that is what Travis is saying about those holes and features developed by their British brethren that he believed US architects should focus on.  That Macdonald developed a similar idea (and more importantly, acted on it) a few years later does not detract from the incontrovertible fact of Travis' statement.

Rich,   it seems you have stripped much of the substance out of the concept of a "template" at least when it comes to golf holes, and even still the Travis article cannot fit.  You say he "advocate[d] template holes."   Which template holes did he advocate, and what was it particularly that he advocated using from these holes?     Where exactly does he say anything about "imitating" these exemplars, and how, and to what degree?  What exactly is it that the "US architects should focus on?"      

It is not enough to say they were "exemplars" or "best practice."  (Not sure this term applies because of the way those holes came about.)     Sure they were exemplars, but exemplars of what, specifically?   If these were indeed exemplars or templates, then please tell us just what exactly was exemplified, and to what degree, and how?

Generally, I think they were "examplars" of an abundance of quality golf holes.  That's it.  Nothing more specific than that, but lets try to break it down: At best Travis thought these holes were . . .
1.  Built on better soil and have better turf.
2.  Had better natural undulations.
3.  Built to be difficult, so that the could challenge the top quality golfer.

That's it, isn't it?   If not, then what more is there?   And the Travis plan to apply the "best practice" here?   Make courses more difficult.  Nothing else that I see.   Hell, if all it takes to be a template advocate was that you wanted good soil, undulations, and difficulty, then about everyone was an advocate for templates.

By the way, CBM did not come up with this idea a few years later.   He was contemplating an "ideal" golf course on the east coast since 1897 or before.  He just did not know that that he would be the person to build it.  Was the plan fully formed then?   Surely not, but it was more formed than anything Travis writes in this article.  He began working on the actual project about in 1901, not a few years after the Travis article which was published in November of that same year.  

One more thing Rich, given your curiosity above about whether or not CBM actually knew a wide range of British holes, then you must really be curious about Travis.   Do you have a record of what holes he played, because he doesn't even say he'd played those holes, did he?   What holes had he seen at this point?  

[Rich Goodale]

One more thing Rich, given your curiosity above about whether or not CBM actually knew a wide range of British holes, then you must really be curious about Travis.   Do you have a record of what holes he played, because he doesn't even say he'd played those holes, did he?   What holes had he seen at this point?  

Based on the evidence I've seen, David, my guess is that in 1901 Travis had a more contemporaneous view of the great holes, based on his trips to the UK in 1895-6 (no post-St. Andrews/pre 1902 trips for Macdonald that I know of).  I suspect, however, that both of them at that time were relying mostly on Hutchinson's magnum opus of 1897(?) which laid out those "template" holes for any and all to see and study.

[Tom MacWood]

Based on the evidence I've seen, David, my guess is that in 1901 Travis had a more contemporaneous view of the great holes, based on his trips to the UK in 1895-6 (no post-St. Andrews/pre 1902 trips for Macdonald that I know of).  I suspect, however, that both of them at that time were relying mostly on Hutchinson's magnum opus of 1897(?) which laid out those "template" holes for any and all to see and study.

Rich
Travis did not play golf in 1896, literally, he did not learn the game until he retuned to the US. His visit in 1901 was his first experience golfing in the UK.

If you have any interest in CBM Scotland's Gift is a great resource; George Bahto's book is very good too. In those books you would learn Macdonald's father was a Scot and that CBM was educated at St. Andrews (I thought that was pretty much common knowledge). Beyond the years commuting to the U. of St. Andrews in the early 1870s I have found he made trips to the UK in 1879, 1881, 1884, 1886, 1888, 1890 (twice)...at that point I stopped looking.

Half the holes Travis listed were not in Hutchinson's book.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

This question is neither here nor there but do you think Travis thought he was a better architect than who you say was his associate, HH Barker? if you think so that is pretty heady stuff since you proclaimed or supported the super revisionist Moriarty's statement in his remarkably ridiculous essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion," that HH Barker was the second best architecture in America, right behind C.B. Macdonald? Would you like me to quote him mentioning you thought that in his ridiculously revisionist essay? Would you say, then, that it's fair to say that back then Macdonald was the #1 architect in American and Travis 2a and Barker 2b?

TEP
I don't understand your question. Are you familiar the Travis's architectural career? If you study their respective careers you will find Barker and Travis's career's did not overlap, with one exception, the GCGC redesign (a collaboration)....which you incorrectly dated on this thread to around 1901. Its very difficult to have a debate or an intelligent conversation with someone who does not have a basic understanding of golf architecture history.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Regarding the last part of your question. I said Travis and Macdonald were by far the most respected architectural authorities at the time (circa 1910) - based largely upon the redesign of GCGC and the creation of the NGLA, the two cutting edge designs in America. Travis was not actively designing golf courses at the time, so if you wanted Travis's ideas you got Barker instead, his associate at GCGC. That is my assumption based on the relatively unknown Barker getting a good number of premier commissions from coast to coast; it is also based on the fact that Travis himself later took some credit for Barker becoming a golf architect.

As far as Barker being on the two top practicing architects at the time, I don't know an architect practicing in America between 1908 and 1910 who had more impressive resume than Barker's....do you? My contention has been out there for a while now and no one has made the case for others, feel free to present the case for another golf architect or golf architects.

By the way, please do not turn this thread into another Merion thread (even though we all know Wayne and your participation in this thread and your odd interpretations have everything to do with Merion)

[Rich Goodale]

Based on the evidence I've seen, David, my guess is that in 1901 Travis had a more contemporaneous view of the great holes, based on his trips to the UK in 1895-6 (no post-St. Andrews/pre 1902 trips for Macdonald that I know of).  I suspect, however, that both of them at that time were relying mostly on Hutchinson's magnum opus of 1897(?) which laid out those "template" holes for any and all to see and study.

Rich
Travis did not play golf in 1896, literally, he did not learn the game until he retuned to the US. His visit in 1901 was his first experience golfing in the UK.

Thanks for that, Tom.  I knew about Travis' early golfing history, but not about the 1901 trip.  Can we assume that this was where he learned about (and then probably saw and even played) the holes he wrote about?  Did Macdonald ever write about playing golf on any of those trips that you discovered he took to the UK?

PS--I have read Scotland's Gift, and was not impressed, as I have said many times on this forum.  I don't remember a lot of interesting factual information in that book.  If and when I get more interested in Macdonald, I'll read the Bahto/Papazian book.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich Goodale,

That's a good point except for one thing.

As an architect, CBM was a nobody in the latter part of the 19th century and early years of the 20th century, so, I don't know if he'd get that much press.

But, I would like to know which courses he studied and which courses he didn't study.

Interesting, Pat.  Even his arch enemy Travis acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago (Wheaton).  Was he the only one?


Rich, WHEN did Travis acknowledge the architectural quality of Chicago ?
Was it pre or post 1902 and/or 1904 ?
In 1895 what other 18 hole courses existed in America that Travis could compare Chicago to ?

Travis didn't take up golf until 1897 and didn't design his first golf course until 1907, so I'm curious to know when he acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago, especially in terms of how it relates to CBM's trips to the UK in 1902 and 1904, and, in terms of his ability to discern quality golf course architecture.

Was 1904 the first year that he played golf in the UK ?

If CBM was really a "nobody" in 1902-1906, how did he get access to the great courses and the great thinkers in his study-trips abroad? 
Or are you implying that maybe he didn't?

CBM wasn't a "nobody" in terms of golf, but, he wasn't a "rock star" in terms of architecture in 1902-1906.
However, he was well connected in the social and business world in Chicago, New York and beyond.

TEPaul is not an "architect" of note, or even an architect of ill repute, but, I'll wager you that he could gain access to the great courses and the great thinkers in the UK.  CBM was probably better positioned to gain access than any practicing architect of his time.

Does that make TEPaul the equal of CBM ?

[TEPaul]

")....which you incorrectly dated on this thread to around 1901. Its very difficult to have a debate or an intelligent conversation with someone who does not have a basic understanding of golf architecture history."


Tom MacWood:

Following his use of the Haskell ball (that he referred to as "The Bounding Billy") in the 1901 US Amateur Travis returned to GCGC and was involved in the lengthening of the course from  6070 to 6400 yards thereby apparently making it the longest course in America at the time. He suggested the rebunkering of the course at that time. It is certainly understandable that Travis would be given the liberty of doing architectural work on GCGC in 1901-02 since he had already designed Ekwanok golf course in Vermont with John Duncan Dunn in the fall of 1899 and of course he had been the US Amateur champion in 1900. So much for having a conversation with someone who does not have a basic understanding of the subject. 

[Rich Goodale]

Interesting, Pat.  Even his arch enemy Travis acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago (Wheaton).  Was he the only one?


Rich, WHEN did Travis acknowledge the architectural quality of Chicago ?
Was it pre or post 1902 and/or 1904 ?
In 1895 what other 18 hole courses existed in America that Travis could compare Chicago to ?

Travis didn't take up golf until 1897 and didn't design his first golf course until 1907, so I'm curious to know when he acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago, especially in terms of how it relates to CBM's trips to the UK in 1902 and 1904, and, in terms of his ability to discern quality golf course architecture.

Was 1904 the first year that he played golf in the UK ?

Pat

That was from his 1901 article (see above)

According to Tom MacW, he 1st played golf in the UK in 1901.

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich:

In answer to your question about Macdonald and his time and experience with architecture abroad----according to Macdonald he actually only PLAYED golf three times between his departure from St. Andrews in 1874 and the beginning of Chicago Golf Club in 1893! When he said those were his "Dark Years" he wasn't kidding, huh?

He played twice at Hoylake, once in 1878 and again in 1884. The only other time he actually played golf in those nineteen years was in some field at Camp Douglass in Chicago in 1875 with some friend of his after they pushed a few cans they found on the property into the ground as cups. But he claimed that wasn't a very gratifying experience as some hooligans harrassed the hell outta them apparently because they thought they were a couple of crazy people swinging clubs at a ball in some field!  

Macdonald did mention he was called abroad on business in those early years quite frequently but nevertheless he said he only played golf twice abroad in those nineteen years and both times apparently at Hoylake. I don't know if he went abroad again for golf after the beginning of Chicago Golf Club (1893) and before his first dedicated architectural study trip abroad in 1902 but if not then I guess we can assume that TOC and Hoylake were the only courses he knew abroad before that time (1902).

Travis, on the other hand, made a "golfing pilgramage" (Macdonald's phrase) abroad in July 1901 with the current USGA president, R.H. Roberston (a man Macdonald was definitely not fond of as a USGA president). So obviously all the courses and holes (about forty holes) that Travis mentioned in that British Golf Illustrated article in Nov, 1901 that he admired, he had played and was familiar with.

[TEPaul]

"By the way, please do not turn this thread into another Merion thread (even though we all know Wayne and your participation in this thread and your odd interpretations have everything to do with Merion)."


Tom MacWood:

This thread and the question of Walter Travis' knowledge and architectural ideas in 1901 with golf courses and golf holes abroad and how to emulate their architectural concepts and ideas in America to make golf, golfers and golf architecture better over here has nothing whatsoever to do with Merion, so I fail to see why you even bothered to mention it unless YOU are trying to use it to deflect discussing THIS subject. That (Merion) was a far different time and place (about a decade later).

But if you don't want to deal with or discuss the facts of Walter Travis' golf architectural knowledge and ideas in 1901 (including the significance of that Nov 1901 British Golf Illustrated article in that particular vein) because you might think it is too controversial or something then that is your prerogative!