next »

[JNC_Lyon]

"I was saving post # 1000 for an appropriate topic!"


Too bad BillB; you hit the 1000 mark with that one. Now proceed directly to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's hat check girl-----she has your prize for hitting 1,000 posts. I think it's still a gross of bananas.

And frankly I don't think Charlie was the father of VERY GOOD architecture in America because Devie and Walter beat him to it and Herbie Leeds beat them all to it.

What is the timeline on the construction of Garden City?  Emmet certainly did the original routing prior to the construction of NGLA, but my understanding is that Travis made the course what it is today through years of revision.

Leatherstocking is my favorite course that is credited solely to Emmet.  Here, however, the timeline is even more fuzzy.  Emmet constructed some of the golf course in the pre-NGLA period, but how much of that comprises today's great layout is very debatable.

How many of Emmet's contributions to American GCA were made before NGLA, and how many were made after?

All of that being said, Travis and Leeds did great work before NGLA.  They were the pioneers in REALLY GOOD American golf course architecture.  My final question is: how influential was their work?

JNC

Yes, how influential were Travis, Leeds and CBM?  At least from an aesthetic perspective it must be fairly easy to conclude that their style(s) of design didn't really carry on too long before a more natural parkland style (for lack of a better descriptor) and more blatantly of "championship" calibre took hold and has essentially ruled the roost since.  

Ciao

Sean,

Have you played Garden City?  It is the most natural-looking golf course I seen in my limited experience.  This is particularly dramatic because Garden City is built on a very flat piece of property.  It would have been easy to manufacture golf holes with the given land, but Emmet and Travis routed a golf course that made great use of limited natural features.  The bunkering, while deep at times, is never at odds with the land features.  Garden City is a prototype for a "natural parkland style."   There may not be other courses that are entirely similar, but I think many Golden Age architects drew upon GCGC's principles and features.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Wayne's points were lost because he was a poor translator. Where his argument failed, and where I think your's also fails, is that you fellows believe it reflects badly on CB's style because other architects went on their own search. I think it's ridiculous to believe that  any of those thinking architects, all with huge egos and/or artistic tempermants, was ever going to tow CB's line.
Wayne failed to see that CBM's ideal golf course was the American catalyst for the top notch architecture that was to follow. This doesn't mean that others weren't completely capable, it just means that he got the ball rolling with NGLA. None of the courses Macdonald mentioned, or you are championing, stirred enough passion to make that happen, and none of the other men in the field at the time of NGLA were building anything to rival it.  I refer you to HWW's words describing NGLA that I posted earlier.

It took Macdonald and his pursuit of an ideal links to do that, and he prevailed.  He also used engineering and agronomy along with artistry, vision, and salemanship to do it. No other architect of the time even had an inkling of taking that approach. CBM created the field of golf course architecture just as Robert Trent Jones Sr. and Bruce Matthews created their own field of study at their respective colleges. Modern architects owe those two just as those two owed Macdonald, and so on, and so on.

He earned  the moniker, plain and simple.

[JNC_Lyon]

"Is the construction of NGLA correlated with subsequent improvements to GCGC and Hunt by Travis and Leeds that made them into the layouts they are today?  In other words, did NGLA influence Travis and Leeds to make major changes to those two layouts?  Or were they already solidified as examples of great architecture?"


JNC:

Man, that is a truly fascinating question! I've never heard it before or thought of it. Give me some time to consider it. At first blush, I would say that, no, NGLA was not a correlation on the subsequent improvements of GCGC or Myopia or any influence on the architecture of either GCGC or Myopia in any way even though the converse might be a consideration even if CBM never chose to admit it (others such as Crump sure did though in an architectural example or so).

JNC, that is a wonderful question; it sort of reminds me of the way this website used to be in the old days of its beginning before some of us became so jaded and perhaps adverserial and petty.

Who are you anyway?  Are you still that kid in upstate New York who I've heard is so damn smart and bright? If you are I'm gonna redouble my efforts to make you a star, kid. 

Kid? Upstate New York?  I don't know anything about that. 

Seriously though, thanks for the compliment.  Having played Garden City, there are a couple of holes that stick out as being highly original for that era.  In particular, I am thinking of the First and Eighteenth holes.  For the 18th Hole, it is a clear replica of the Eden Hole that was also used at NGLA.  The question is, which one came first?  Who was responsible for the Eden 18th at Garden City?  Whether it was Emmet or Travis, the hole is a hell of a par three and a totally original finishing hole.  I cannot imagine there were too many one-shotters as finishing holes before Garden City.

As for the first, when and by whom was the double fairway constructed?  This is another hole whose strategies cross over with those at NGLA. The timeline of these two holes will shed some serious light on this debate.

[V. Kmetz]

My answer:

In all the ways "father" can be taken to mean: co-creator, co-author, steward, financier, planner, protector, friend, loving parent, protective muscle, living link to the dead ancestors, authority figure...

Charles Blair MacDonald is the Father of GCA in America.

Just like George Washington didn't do everything himself - but did so much - and is given the unquestioned title, Father of Our Country, so is the parallel apt with CBM.

I think "Scotland's Gift..." is an amazing volume, not just for the detail to which he devotes to his development of courses - but for the Spirit of the Game that drips through its pages.  It's only my opinion, but I think his entire shift in contemporary deeds and our later recognition to GCA was only a way to scratch that itch - he was just jonesin' to have great golf available to him.  He refers to the period after youth in Scotland as the Dark Ages, which it must have been for him. 

Can you imagine what that was like - to spend an intense period in that rustic era of golf, at the foot of Old Tom, Willie Park, David Kidd and so forth?  Can you imagine playing three on one best-ball matches with your  well-heeled college buddies from America against Davy Strath, gathering to watch another great golfers trying to break 100 by moonlight, and then 90 when they mastered that?  Sneaking onto the old second green in violation of sunday prohibitions? Can you imagine the disappointment when no practical means of digging into this whole new treasure trove of culture and delight was available upon his return. 

No wonder he started building rudimentary courses and organizing people for the purpose of making golf available.  I mean would you look at the picture on pg 87 of Scotlland's Gift...that's not golf, that's five silly men in a hay-field, but damn it CBM was not going to be denied. But of course it didn't satisfy.  And after other men like Reid, Forbes, Havemeyer, Douglas, Travis and their groups and the importing of Scots to serve their burgeoning interests would play an integral role and they get their place in history as well.

But when it comes to GCA, or more specifically everything that channels through GCA both from and to the golfer, CBM's zest for his own play and his dissatisfaction with the comparative quality of courses as to the experience of British/European golf was such that he was driven and compelled to bring something of similar fine quality to America, for himself and for the potency of the seed.  Somehow, someway CBM was more rightfully fixated that quality courses would do as much to plant this great game in American cullture as 

The quote G. Bahto's signature uses says it best, though forgive me for the paraphrase:  "to pass on the great game as I found it."

For these many reasons, though it is futile to argue the merits of a non-factual title, he is the father.

cheers

vk

[Bill Brightly]

Sean,

First of all, the "number" of courses is irrelevant. As much as using template features gets you well on the way to building a great playing field for golf, there is a limit to how may such courses you can have. I really likeTom Paul's "Big World" theory. One style does NOT dominate the other.  I believe that the fact that Banks and Raynor, etal. built a significant number such courses  helps to contrast the naturalist style. Each style would be less if the other did not exist. Does that make sense?

Secondly, you seem to ignore the great use of natural features that Raynor used, it is as if your eye (and memory) is drawn to one engineered steep green-side shoulder and thats all you saw on the hole. Please review the recent Fishers island pictures and get back to us...

Third, i think it is a gross exageration to say that the naturalist style gets it sole motivation from the archy's you list.

Lastly, did you go to the Wayne Morrison school of knife twisting? I like yours better, btw, much more subtle

[Mac Plumart]

Vinnie...

After reading your post, I am satisfied.  CB Macdonald is the Father of Golf Architecture in America.

Nice work.

[JC Urbina]

Thank you for your thoughts.  I see that some people maybe seeing what I believe.

Paul,
I understand that you don't want to debate the issue I just want to point out to you that the golf design Business is very cyclic and over the past 100 years I believe that we have gone through about three cycles of golf design.  You are a part of that cycle with your new layout in Mexico.

The reason I asked the question is I have been reading a lot of articles, scanning a lot of aerials and spending some time in Scotland this summer looking at a few of the ideal holes C.B brought to America to expose to the new world.

I have always been an admirer of The National way back when I saw it in the middle 80s and realized now more then ever what a special place this was.  After discussing with others about the influence of design C.B gave to the world both by word of mouth when the National first opened up and the  print media flowering over the new style of golf brought to the Eastern Seaboard.  The National was truly one of a kind.

I now more then ever realized that Macdonald influenced a lot of other golf designers of that era. I want to lead into something else regarding the wide influence that The National played back in it's era. 

My next question, Do you think Macdonald in his influence on the great players of that time  building some of the most fascinating layouts ( The Lido) influence people like Thomas, Tillinghast and other East Coast designers who spread the ideas out west?

Who would have had a bigger impact on design ideas other the Macdonald

[Jeff Taylor]

Someone is making the case. Is it a case worth making?

What is the Father of anything. A child, an event, a sport, a country?
There are actually two ways of looking at this word “Father”. One could be the biological father of a child, he may have had limited activity though, with the up-bringing of that child. Perhaps when the child is growing up the biological father may never have had any dealings with his child. It may even be he left when the child was growing up, or maybe even before the birth. On the other hand the child might have been adopted by a responsible parent who reared that child, who loved him from the heart and in every way demonstrated the attributes of a real father. When that child grows up he recognizes who the parent was that loved him and cared for him all through his life.

When history says that George Washington was the "Father of the United States" we know that he didn't discover America, however, he was a member of the citizenry of this country. We do know that George Washington was the first person to politically represent this country in it's new form of government as the it's first President. Hence the deserved title that is given George Washington is "The Father of the United States"

When we speak of the United States citizenry of golf, like Washington there were many participants. However, Alexander Findlay was the first of these people in America to design a golf course and the first to promote this great game in the expanse of capacity that he did. He reared this child called golf from it's infancy through adolesence down to maturity, where it could stand on it's own. Years later the Sports writers of America bestowed the title of "The Father of American Golf", Subsequently, as Washington will forever be know as the "Father of the United States", so also Alexander Hamburg Findlay holds the title as "The Father of American Golf."

With that being said, some have attempted to assume this title such as David Deas. In 1743 he purchased 96 golf clubs and 432 golf balls and had them delivered from Leith Scotland to Charleston, South Carolina. But that is the end of that story as little has been recorded in history since.

A man by the name of Joseph Oil Fox in 1887 is said to have played golf in western Pennsylvania, subsequently, building a golf course that carries the title as the countries oldest course. But Joseph Fox appears to have had more interest in oil then in building, playing and promoting the game of golf in America.

A man by the name of John Reed wrote a autobiography in the mid 1930’s describing himself as the Father of American Golf, but did little to promote the game outside of his local area. How did he happen to come across that idea? When he returned home to Scotland he noticed that people were playing the game of golf. He purchased some clubs, brought them back to Yonkers, NY and hit a ball between three golf holes on a makeshift course. Does that make John Reed “The Father of American Golf?” Because he had a tennis racket from England before the game was played here, does that make him the Father of American Tennis? What about his friend Robert Lockhart, each of them are claiming to be “The Father of American Golf”. It is of interest that few sports writers if any give any credence to his claims of being the Father of American Golf or Tennis for that matter.

Then there is Charles Blair Macdonald, a Canadian born native (November 14, 1855 – April 21, 1939) was a major figure in early American golf. He built the first 18-hole course in the United States, was a driving force in the founding of the United States Golf Association, won the first U.S. Amateur championship, and later built some of the most influential golf courses in the United States, to the point he is considered the father of American golf course architecture. He is a member of the World Golf Hall of Fame. Probably the most serious contender for the title, but history prefers to wrap the title of “The Father of American Golf Course Architecture”. It appears his influence to the game was dwarfed by his interest in the stock market and being a money broker. He could have had a tremendous impact on the game, but again he abandoned his golf child to only return in the child’s young years wanting to be known as it’s father.

This brings us up to Francis Ouimet being touted as the Father of American Golf. The title really does not fit Francis. He was born in 1894 and by 1913, at 20 years of age, as an Amateur golfer won the US Open. Note what the reasoning used would be to recommend him for the title. His legacy transcends tournament victories. In 1913 it is estimated only 350,000 Americans played golf. Ten years later, fueled by Ouimet's heroics, that number was up to 2,000,000. On this basis Ouimet claimed the title The Father of American Golf.

Donald Ross is also named as “The Father of American Golf” but more so for his golf course design as he really did not come to the United States until 1899.

The question remains, who used their energies, resources, knowledge and abilities to promote the game from it’s infancy. Who had the credentials to go with the game. Who knew how to play the game from the highest levels. Who competed in US Opens, nearly winning more then once, as an amateur. Who built golf courses, not one but hundreds. Who enticed every President of the United States to play the game and who played with those presidents? Who enticed the current world champion, Harry Vardon to come to the United States to promote the game. Who tirelessly promoted this game mostly at his own expense? Who helped start women playing this game by bringing Joyce Wethered from England to promote the game for women? Who built golf courses from Europe to Canada to the Bahamas and from Maine to Florida to Texas to Montana? Who had the first Sports column on teaching the game in the newspapers. Who had a radio program devoted to the game of golf? Who met with Pope Pius XI to endeavor the pope to build a golf course on the Vatican grounds? Who played golf on over 2,400 courses, breaking par, establishing course records throughout the world? Who established the first score of 72 in the world for 18 holes, a mark that spans the ages and is still considered the basis for a round of golf? Who shot the first 71 in the United States? Who shot his age up to the week he died?

Who really fathered the game, who does the game say was it’s father? Let the record be known that there is only one individual who qualifies to be mentioned as “The Father of American Golf”, Alexander H. Findlay.

[JC Urbina]

Jeff,

I enjoyed the read and understand why you believe that Findlay is the father of golf. 

My favorite golf designer is Perry Maxwell.  He designed many of the really good golf courses in the midwest and ushered in an era of fantastic greens and semi native bunkers to his layouts.  But my reason for the question was did Maxwell create a string of guys wanting to use his designs for inspiration and for that reason did a lot of designers of Findlay's era use ideas from his designs?  Did each of these men inspire others to take what they created and take it to the next level?  Did they promote a different level of thinking furthering the advancement of creative design? 

I guess that is where I am going with the thread.

[DMoriarty]

Jeff,

I enjoyed the read and understand why you believe that Findlay is the father of golf.  

My favorite golf designer is Perry Maxwell.  He designed many of the really good golf courses in the midwest and ushered in an era of fantastic greens and semi native bunkers to his layouts.  But my reason for the question was did Maxwell create a string of guys wanting to use his designs for inspiration and for that reason did a lot of designers of Findlay's era use ideas from his designs?  Did each of these men inspire others to take what they created and take it to the next level?  Did they promote a different level of thinking furthering the advancement of creative design?  

I guess that is where I am going with the thread.

Jim,  

As you may know, Perry Maxwell began golfing and designing golf courses after he and his wife read H.J. Whigham's article, "The Ideal Golf Links," in Scribner's Magazine (May 1909.)  The article was largely about CBM's National Golf Links and provided descriptions of every hole. Maxwell was a non-golfer living in rural Oklahoma and had suffered from tuberculosis.  His wife (who appreciated the fantastic F. Booth sketches in the article) thought golf might be good for Perry and wondered if they could build a course like that on their Ardmore, Oklahoma property.   He took up golf, studied agronomy, studied NGLA and some other courses, and then designed Dornich Hills and a few others.

Looking at Maxwell, it sure seems like CBM was the father of Golf Architecture in America.    

Imagine, an article on the design of a golf course being covered in Scribner's, a general subject magazine with wide distribution.  And not just a blurb, but a long feature article with original artwork by a prominent artist.  And by the way the course was not yet open.  That might give people some idea of the importance of NGLA at the time.  

[Brian Phillips]

Rich
I don't think so. He had his hand in golf architectural issues throughout that time. An article or series of article or a book can be as impactful as a design IMO.

Tom,

I totally disagree with that statement.  Only one book in the history of GCA has had as much influence as a well designed golf course and that is Golf Architecture by Mackenzie.  Even CBM's book is read by very few GCAs as it often feels like a rambling about himself not the profession.

If you are not designing then you cannot claim to have much to do GCA.  Even Ron Whitten or Bradley Klein have little or no influence on GCA even these days of super fast travel of information.

The biggest influence on GCA are the golf courses themselves.

[Sean Arble]

"I was saving post # 1000 for an appropriate topic!"


Too bad BillB; you hit the 1000 mark with that one. Now proceed directly to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's hat check girl-----she has your prize for hitting 1,000 posts. I think it's still a gross of bananas.

And frankly I don't think Charlie was the father of VERY GOOD architecture in America because Devie and Walter beat him to it and Herbie Leeds beat them all to it.

What is the timeline on the construction of Garden City?  Emmet certainly did the original routing prior to the construction of NGLA, but my understanding is that Travis made the course what it is today through years of revision.

Leatherstocking is my favorite course that is credited solely to Emmet.  Here, however, the timeline is even more fuzzy.  Emmet constructed some of the golf course in the pre-NGLA period, but how much of that comprises today's great layout is very debatable.

How many of Emmet's contributions to American GCA were made before NGLA, and how many were made after?

All of that being said, Travis and Leeds did great work before NGLA.  They were the pioneers in REALLY GOOD American golf course architecture.  My final question is: how influential was their work?

JNC

Yes, how influential were Travis, Leeds and CBM?  At least from an aesthetic perspective it must be fairly easy to conclude that their style(s) of design didn't really carry on too long before a more natural parkland style (for lack of a better descriptor) and more blatantly of "championship" calibre took hold and has essentially ruled the roost since.  

Ciao

Sean,

Have you played Garden City?  It is the most natural-looking golf course I seen in my limited experience.  This is particularly dramatic because Garden City is built on a very flat piece of property.  It would have been easy to manufacture golf holes with the given land, but Emmet and Travis routed a golf course that made great use of limited natural features.  The bunkering, while deep at times, is never at odds with the land features.  Garden City is a prototype for a "natural parkland style."   There may not be other courses that are entirely similar, but I think many Golden Age architects drew upon GCGC's principles and features.

JNC

You are getting hung up on my terminology.  Forget it.  Describe the aesthetic styles after the first blush of American architects anyway you like.  My point is that those subsequent aesthetic styles are what dominant the landscape now.  I am making no judgement of good, bad or on difference, just stating what I believe to be the case.  So from an aesthetic PoV, I couldn't say CBM has been nearly as influential as the second wave of American designers who mainly worked on parkland/farmland sites.  I also believe an argument could be made that the championship style of difficulty from guys like Tillie and Flynn introduced has been incredibly influential on design today.  The bottom line is that I am promoting the vast melting pot theory of fatherhood.  No man can or should claim fatherhood over what has become a vast sea of golf architecture - especially if that man made studied what came before him.

BTW - No, I haven't played Garden City, but from descriptions it sounds to be a ground hugging masterpiece which would suit me just fine.   I have seen pix of the bunkering and I do like the varying styles quite a bit regardless of whether look natural or not.  This is one area of design I have changed my mind on these past few years.  I don't mind the highly and obviously manufactured look so long as variety and fun are the results.      

Ciao  

[TEPaul]

JC:

As far as the influences or inspirations for the likes of Tillinghast, Thomas, Maxwell et al that you asked about, or even including Mackenzie or some of the west coast guys like a Robert Hunter or Max Behr, most all those guys wrote (or had some pretty good biographers) and in those one can find what, who, where etc inspired and influenced them. In most cases it was in their own words so I guess we should be able to take them to the bank, so to speak!  

Not every one of them mentioned Macdonald but if we are looking for one guy who probably came in contact somehow in this general architectural way with the largest number of the up and coming architects of that time it would probably be Macdonald.

However, there is a pretty interesting sidebar in all this, and that seems to be by around the late teens or early 1920s he had sort of pulled out altogether it seems and had become pretty unapproachable. It's interesting where one finds evidence of this (sort of in places one may not ordinarily expect to find it). Viz---in some private letters from the early 1920s between Alan Wilson and C. Piper (US Dept of Ag agronomist and chairman of the USGA Green Section) this interesting exchange after Piper visited Macdonald and NGLA presumably on a turf/agronomy visit:

Alan Wilson:
"Did Charlie try to take you head off?"

Piper:
"No, he didn't try to take my head off but he did allow as he thought everyone was an idiot."

[TEPaul]

JC:

I'll throw in a couple of other architects who in their own words say they were influenced by Macdonald (Raynor) and their architecture.

Davis and Mark Love. Apparently after first seeing and playing Chicago GC they were massively influenced and inspired seemingly leading them to label their own style as "Rossnor." Maybe they should relabel it "MacRossnor."

Bill Coore. He was seen just sitting somewhere out on NGLA for a long time taking the whole thing in (around the time they were doing nearby Friars Head). I asked him what he thought about NGLA and he just said: "I can't believe those guys had the guts to do something like this."

Pete Dye: I asked him once if Macdonald/Raynor influenced him and in his highly voluble manner his answer was: "Yes."

[Jeff Taylor]

Thanks for the reply Jim.
Actually, I don't believe that Mr. Findlay is the father of golf. I posted because I have recently become aware of him and thought that your discussion thread was a good place to start educating myself.
The history that you folks are sharing in very beneficial.
Thanks.

[TEPaul]

As to Alex Findlay, it really does look like he might have been the first sort of actual practicing golf architect to get to this land. I think we are talking about something like 1888 and that is pretty amazing to think about!

[JNC_Lyon]

"I was saving post # 1000 for an appropriate topic!"


Too bad BillB; you hit the 1000 mark with that one. Now proceed directly to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's hat check girl-----she has your prize for hitting 1,000 posts. I think it's still a gross of bananas.

And frankly I don't think Charlie was the father of VERY GOOD architecture in America because Devie and Walter beat him to it and Herbie Leeds beat them all to it.

What is the timeline on the construction of Garden City?  Emmet certainly did the original routing prior to the construction of NGLA, but my understanding is that Travis made the course what it is today through years of revision.

Leatherstocking is my favorite course that is credited solely to Emmet.  Here, however, the timeline is even more fuzzy.  Emmet constructed some of the golf course in the pre-NGLA period, but how much of that comprises today's great layout is very debatable.

How many of Emmet's contributions to American GCA were made before NGLA, and how many were made after?

All of that being said, Travis and Leeds did great work before NGLA.  They were the pioneers in REALLY GOOD American golf course architecture.  My final question is: how influential was their work?

JNC

Yes, how influential were Travis, Leeds and CBM?  At least from an aesthetic perspective it must be fairly easy to conclude that their style(s) of design didn't really carry on too long before a more natural parkland style (for lack of a better descriptor) and more blatantly of "championship" calibre took hold and has essentially ruled the roost since.  

Ciao

Sean,

Have you played Garden City?  It is the most natural-looking golf course I seen in my limited experience.  This is particularly dramatic because Garden City is built on a very flat piece of property.  It would have been easy to manufacture golf holes with the given land, but Emmet and Travis routed a golf course that made great use of limited natural features.  The bunkering, while deep at times, is never at odds with the land features.  Garden City is a prototype for a "natural parkland style."   There may not be other courses that are entirely similar, but I think many Golden Age architects drew upon GCGC's principles and features.

JNC

You are getting hung up on my terminology.  Forget it.  Describe the aesthetic styles after the first blush of American architects anyway you like.  My point is that those subsequent aesthetic styles are what dominant the landscape now.  I am making no judgement of good, bad or on difference, just stating what I believe to be the case.  So from an aesthetic PoV, I couldn't say CBM has been nearly as influential as the second wave of American designers who mainly worked on parkland/farmland sites.  I also believe an argument could be made that the championship style of difficulty from guys like Tillie and Flynn introduced has been incredibly influential on design today.  The bottom line is that I am promoting the vast melting pot theory of fatherhood.  No man can or should claim fatherhood over what has become a vast sea of golf architecture - especially if that man made studied what came before him.

BTW - No, I haven't played Garden City, but from descriptions it sounds to be a ground hugging masterpiece which would suit me just fine.   I have seen pix of the bunkering and I do like the varying styles quite a bit regardless of whether look natural or not.  This is one area of design I have changed my mind on these past few years.  I don't mind the highly and obviously manufactured look so long as variety and fun are the results.      

Ciao  

Aesthetic styles aside, while the later Golden Age architects like Tillinghast or Flynn may be responsible for today's parkland style, they were significantly influenced by the strategies and holes laid out at places like Garden City or National Golf Links.  The "Father" of American GCA is not designer who has the broadest influence.  In my mind, it is the person who was the first architect to put strategic designs on the ground in America that influenced subsequent architects.  Tillinghast and Flynn draw from the American architecture that was in place before them at Garden City, Myopia Hunt, and NGLA.  Of course, they have their own styles and strategies too, but I don't think would have been what they were without the courses of the 1900s and 1910s.  By extension, the American parkland style would not be what it is without Leeds, Travis, Emmet, and MacDonald.

A side note about the American parkland style.  I think people's perception of parkland golf courses today are very different the 1920s and 1930s version of parkland golf.  Specifically, I am thinking of bunker style and the prominence of trees in strategy.

[TEPaul]

JNC:

I don't know whether you got your answer on your timeline question about the construction of GCGC compared to NGLA. GCGC by Emmet was a number of years before NGLA. By the way, Macdonald belonged to GCGC before he got involved with creating NGLA.

[TEPaul]

"In my mind, it is the person who was the first architect to put strategic designs on the ground in America that influenced subsequent architects."


JNC:

Well then, one should probably start considering how often architects said the following: "I can do a course as good as Myopia."

Matter of fact, Merion has just such a letter in their files from GCGC's HH Barker to a Philadelphia real estate developer in 1910 who was in the process of trying to sell Merion the land that is now Merion's East course.

It seems to me that it was not uncommon back then for folks to consider that Herbert Leeds' Myopia was the course to emulate. An interesting remark coming from the head professional at GCGC (HH Barker), don't you think?  

[JNC_Lyon]

JNC:

I don't know whether you got your answer on your timeline question about the construction of GCGC compared to NGLA. GCGC by Emmet was a number of years before NGLA. By the way, Macdonald belonged to GCGC before he got involved with creating NGLA.

I knew Emmet routed Garden City well before the construction of NGLA.  However, most sources maintain that Travis made the course what it is today.  Although I know he made the changes over a number of years, I would be interested to know if he made the majority of his changes before or after the construction of NGLA.  When were the First and Eighteenth at GCGC brought into their finished form?

If Macdonald was a member at GCGC, it is plausible that Garden City, Emmet, and possibly Travis had some influence on his work at NGLA.

[JNC_Lyon]

"In my mind, it is the person who was the first architect to put strategic designs on the ground in America that influenced subsequent architects."


JNC:

Well then, one should probably start considering how often architects said the following: "I can do a course as good as Myopia."

Matter of fact, Merion has just such a letter in their files from GCGC's HH Barker to a Philadelphia real estate developer in 1910 who was in the process of trying to sell Merion the land that is now Merion's East course.

It seems to me that it was not uncommon back then for folks to consider that Herbert Leeds' Myopia was the course to emulate. An interesting remark coming from the head professional at GCGC (HH Barker), don't you think?  

One reason that Myopia Hunt was more nationally significant at the time because it held four US Open Championships.  It brings up the question, was Emmet's and Travis's work influenced by Myopia Hunt Club more than anything else?  Leeds and Fownes were the first two architects to spend years revising their golf courses as Travis did at GCGC and Macdonald did at NGLA.  Were they all looking up to Myopia Hunt as the standard for championship golf and great architecture?

I believe HH Barker was an architect himself.  He built the original golf course at Druid Hills in Atlanta, GA in 1911 or 1912.

[TEPaul]

"If Macdonald was a member at GCGC, it is plausible that Garden City, Emmet, and possibly Travis had some influence on his work at NGLA. "


JNC:

Emmet was one of the people consulitng with Macdonald in the creation of NGLA and Travis was one of two Macdonald appointed as his "associates" in the formation of a committee of three to design NGLA. The other was his son-in-law H.J Whigam. Eventually Macdonald let Travis go, apparently over their on-going dispute or misunderstanding over the legality of Travis's famous Schnectedy putter.
 
 
 

[TEPaul]

"I believe HH Barker was an architect himself."


JNC:

Yes he was indeed. There are even a couple of people on this website who have claimed HH Barker was the second best architect in America in 1910, right behind C.B. Macdonald (even though Barker was still the head professional at GCGC).

That kind of makes one wonder what those same couple of people thought about Emmet and Leeds at that time, don't you think?

Well, let me help you out some if you're considering an answer to that last question. One of those couple of people who said HH Barker was the second best architect in America in 1910 has also said on here that he doesn't think Herbert Leeds was the architect of Myopia; he thinks Willie Campbell was.

[Tom Walsh]

The "Uncles of American Golf"-- the Foulis Brothers

at least in the Midwest 

[JNC_Lyon]

"I believe HH Barker was an architect himself."


JNC:

Yes he was indeed. There are even a couple of people on this website who have claimed HH Barker was the second best architect in America in 1910, right behind C.B. Macdonald (even though Barker was still the head professional at GCGC).

That kind of makes one wonder what those same couple of people thought about Emmet and Leeds at that time, don't you think?

Well, let me help you out some if you're considering an answer to that last question. One of those couple of people who said HH Barker was the second best architect in America in 1910 has also said on here that he doesn't think Herbert Leeds was the architect of Myopia; he thinks Willie Campbell was.

Since Willie Campbell was the original architect of The Country Club, a course where many people believe modern American GOLF was born, then that might make him the most influential architect of the early period.  What sort of influence did The Country Club have on American GCA?  More importantly, what evidence exists to say that Campbell was involved at Myopia?

[Sean Arble]

"I was saving post # 1000 for an appropriate topic!"


Too bad BillB; you hit the 1000 mark with that one. Now proceed directly to GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's hat check girl-----she has your prize for hitting 1,000 posts. I think it's still a gross of bananas.

And frankly I don't think Charlie was the father of VERY GOOD architecture in America because Devie and Walter beat him to it and Herbie Leeds beat them all to it.

What is the timeline on the construction of Garden City?  Emmet certainly did the original routing prior to the construction of NGLA, but my understanding is that Travis made the course what it is today through years of revision.

Leatherstocking is my favorite course that is credited solely to Emmet.  Here, however, the timeline is even more fuzzy.  Emmet constructed some of the golf course in the pre-NGLA period, but how much of that comprises today's great layout is very debatable.

How many of Emmet's contributions to American GCA were made before NGLA, and how many were made after?

All of that being said, Travis and Leeds did great work before NGLA.  They were the pioneers in REALLY GOOD American golf course architecture.  My final question is: how influential was their work?

JNC

Yes, how influential were Travis, Leeds and CBM?  At least from an aesthetic perspective it must be fairly easy to conclude that their style(s) of design didn't really carry on too long before a more natural parkland style (for lack of a better descriptor) and more blatantly of "championship" calibre took hold and has essentially ruled the roost since.  

Ciao

Sean,

Have you played Garden City?  It is the most natural-looking golf course I seen in my limited experience.  This is particularly dramatic because Garden City is built on a very flat piece of property.  It would have been easy to manufacture golf holes with the given land, but Emmet and Travis routed a golf course that made great use of limited natural features.  The bunkering, while deep at times, is never at odds with the land features.  Garden City is a prototype for a "natural parkland style."   There may not be other courses that are entirely similar, but I think many Golden Age architects drew upon GCGC's principles and features.

JNC

You are getting hung up on my terminology.  Forget it.  Describe the aesthetic styles after the first blush of American architects anyway you like.  My point is that those subsequent aesthetic styles are what dominant the landscape now.  I am making no judgement of good, bad or on difference, just stating what I believe to be the case.  So from an aesthetic PoV, I couldn't say CBM has been nearly as influential as the second wave of American designers who mainly worked on parkland/farmland sites.  I also believe an argument could be made that the championship style of difficulty from guys like Tillie and Flynn introduced has been incredibly influential on design today.  The bottom line is that I am promoting the vast melting pot theory of fatherhood.  No man can or should claim fatherhood over what has become a vast sea of golf architecture - especially if that man made studied what came before him.

BTW - No, I haven't played Garden City, but from descriptions it sounds to be a ground hugging masterpiece which would suit me just fine.   I have seen pix of the bunkering and I do like the varying styles quite a bit regardless of whether look natural or not.  This is one area of design I have changed my mind on these past few years.  I don't mind the highly and obviously manufactured look so long as variety and fun are the results.      

Ciao  

Aesthetic styles aside, while the later Golden Age architects like Tillinghast or Flynn may be responsible for today's parkland style, they were significantly influenced by the strategies and holes laid out at places like Garden City or National Golf Links.  The "Father" of American GCA is not designer who has the broadest influence.  In my mind, it is the person who was the first architect to put strategic designs on the ground in America that influenced subsequent architects.  Tillinghast and Flynn draw from the American architecture that was in place before them at Garden City, Myopia Hunt, and NGLA.  Of course, they have their own styles and strategies too, but I don't think would have been what they were without the courses of the 1900s and 1910s.  By extension, the American parkland style would not be what it is without Leeds, Travis, Emmet, and MacDonald.

A side note about the American parkland style.  I think people's perception of parkland golf courses today are very different the 1920s and 1930s version of parkland golf.  Specifically, I am thinking of bunker style and the prominence of trees in strategy.

JNC

I can't disagree with anything you wrote in the last post.  However, if one is take your argument to its logical conclusion, the father of US golf was much more likely to be Fowler, Park Jr and any and all who came before them.  Reasonable people can disagree. You can have CBM and I will take the Melting Pot. 

Ciao

[JNC_Lyon]

Sean,

Yes, and then the father of all Golf course architecture, and by extension American golf course architecture, is the Old Course at St. Andrews.

To be the father of American GCA, you needed to have built courses IN THE US in the early stages that provided significant influence for the future of American golf course architecture and architects.  The premise behind that is that there is something distinctly different between courses built in America and those built in Europe.  Since you have lots of experience with golf on both sides of the Atlantic and I do not, you could probably give me a better indication of whether or not that is true.

[Sean Arble]

Sean,

Yes, and then the father of all Golf course architecture, and by extension American golf course architecture, is the Old Course at St. Andrews.

To be the father of American GCA, you needed to have built courses IN THE US in the early stages that provided significant influence for the future of American golf course architecture and architects.  The premise behind that is that there is something distinctly different between courses built in America and those built in Europe.  Since you have lots of experience with golf on both sides of the Atlantic and I do not, you could probably give me a better indication of whether or not that is true.

JNC

To be honest, I don't think there is anything distinctly different (other than in small degrees) about US and GB&I architecture and thus I don't really buy into a father of US architecture idea.  Consequently, I stand by the melting pot/stand on the shoulders theory.  I think the biggest difference between the best of each side of the pond are the sites and what they could offer in terms playablity styles.  For the past 30 or 40 years those differences have been slowly merging to become more similar.  Hopefully, that trend is coming to an end with recent attitude changes on both sides of the pond.  

Ciao  

[TEPaul]

"More importantly, what evidence exists to say that Campbell was involved at Myopia?"


JNC:

That entire issue got pretty adverserial on here a while back so are you sure you want to know or ask? If you really want to know I'll tell you though. It's a little complex because the original nine holes was not done by Leeds, he hadn't even joined the club at that point (1894). When he came over from TCC Brookline in 1896 he set about fairly comprehensively changing that original nine into what became known as "The Long Nine" on which the 1898 US Open was held and then by 1900 he added nine more holes that created the eighteen that's there today and on which three more US Opens were held by 1908. Leeds just kept on constantly working on the course bascially bunkering it up more and more and making some revisions for over twenty years.
 

[Tom MacWood]

JNC
If you are interested in Campbell and his connection with Myopia there's a lot of good info on this old thread:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40810.0/

[Tom MacWood]

Sean has a good point there. It is really difficult to separate the development of golf architecture in America from Britain, in fact, these was so much crossover its nearly impossible. CB Macdonald for example was greatly influenced by developments in the UK and by individuals in the UK. Tweedie was English, Whigham was a Scot, Campbell was a Scot, Bendelow was a Scot, Findlay was a Scot, the Dunns were Scots, the Fouliss were Scots, Watson was a Scot, Ross was a Scot, Emmet and Leeds travelled abroad often...  Developments in America were an extension of developments in the UK.

[TEPaul]

"Sean has a good point there. It is really difficult to separate the development of golf architecture in America from Britain, in fact, these was so much crossover its nearly impossible. CB Macdonald for example was greatly influenced by developments in the UK and by individuals in the UK. Tweedie was English, Whigham was a Scot, Campbell was a Scot, Bendelow was a Scot, Findlay was a Scot, the Dunns were Scots, the Fouliss were Scots, Watson was a Scot, Ross was a Scot, Emmet and Leeds travelled abroad often...  Developments in America were an extension of developments in the UK."



I think that statement is really significant on here. Here's why:

It essentially boils down to how one wants to or tries to look at a massive subject----say golf course architecture generally no matter where it is VERSUS say golf course architecture in two distinctly different places, in this case in America in the early days in relation to golf course architecture in GB.

This basically boils down to the old "compare" or "contrast" or more efficiently in the way most of us were taught in school "Compare AND Contrast."

I completely subscribe to Sean's idea of the melting pot point if that's the way one wants to look at it but if one does they tend to either ignore or avoid any differences which of course may be extremely interesting when one gets into the "Contrast" analysis.

In MacWood's last post he mentions in those early years Tweedie was English, Whigam was a Scot, Campbell was a Scot, Bendelow was a Scot, Findlay was a Scot, the Dunns were Scots, The Foulis brothers were Scot, Watson was a Scot, Ross was a Scot----but Herbert Leeds was an American, The Fownes, Hugh Wilson, George Crump, Albert Tillinghast, Walter Travis, Dev Emmet, William Flynn, Max Behr, Robert Hunter, George Thomas etc, etc, etc et al were all Americans. Even if most all of them had an interest in the architecture of the old world they still very much had some new ideas on and about architecture that probably did not emanate from abroad and frankly that makes the need to "contrast" what was going on over here versus abroad a most interesing study and inquiry rather than just trying to "compare" it all by just throwing it into one bigy "melting pot" and leaving it at that.

If one really wants to understand some of the differences and the dynamics in architecture between what was going on over there versus over here with many of the architects of either side and nationality and what they were thinking and saying differently throughout those early years (from around the turn of the century well into the late 1920s) one should start by reading some of the ideas and opinion rich articles of A.W. Tillinghast, a really prolific writer and opinion provider throughout! He certainly had a lot to say about some of the differences (particularly from around the mid-teens on) between American architects and architecture in relation to what was going on with foreign architects and architecture abroad
 

[Jim_Kennedy]

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to any theory of GCA that ignores the spectacular moments, like the one in which NGLA was conceived.  I do believe in the continuum, or the standing on the shoulders theory, but even in that I believe there were many who were already heads (and I guess shoulders) above the crowd and, when boosted up, saw a much bigger picture then did their brethren. 

The line of progression running through the history of GCA has dips and spikes, and one of those highest spikes is NGLA. It represented something that as yet had not been put into a cohesive form in the USA.  It was the point-of-no-return for American GCA, and when someone creates something of that magnitude he usually gets the same type of recognition that CBM received.

[Sean Arble]

I'm sorry, but I don't subscribe to any theory of GCA that ignores the spectacular moments, like the one in which NGLA was conceived.  I do believe in the continuum, or the standing on the shoulders theory, but even in that I believe there were many who were already heads (and I guess shoulders) above the crowd and, when boosted up, saw a much bigger picture then did their brethren.  

The line of progression running through the history of GCA has dips and spikes, and one of those highest spikes is NGLA. It represented something that as yet had not been put into a cohesive form in the USA.  It was the point-of-no-return for American GCA, and when someone creates something of that magnitude he usually gets the same type of recognition that CBM received.

Jim

I never meant to imply that the melting pot concept of GCA development ignores spectacular moments of architecture - and I am not sure where you got that impression.  Nor was it ever my intention that CBM's reputation should somehow be reduced.  My point is that one heck of a lot was going on before and after CBM that was and is significant for all sorts of reasons.  To pick one guy out of a crowd and proclaim him the father seems pointless.  CBM was part of progression, a spike in the progression for sure, but none the less, part of a progression which relied very heavily on a many talented people.

One of the greatest things CBM contributed was the continued knowledge brought over from the UK that the property and its playabilty possibilities is critical in creating first class golf.  This, I think was at least as important as the gathering of architectural strategies as a way of designing (in other words - the wheel doesn't have to be re-invented).

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"The line of progression running through the history of GCA has dips and spikes, and one of those highest spikes is NGLA. It represented something that as yet had not been put into a cohesive form in the USA.  It was the point-of-no-return for American GCA, and when someone creates something of that magnitude he usually gets the same type of recognition that CBM received."


JimK:

Do you really believe it was just NGLA itself that was of such magnitude (architecturally) above anything else that came before it (or perhaps just after it like Merion East and Pine Valley) to be labeled "the point-of-no-return for Amercian GCA" or do you think a good part of it was also the way Macdonald went about it (highly public) compared to the others who produced truly significant architecture before him and just after him?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying NGLA is not and was not a real watershed, pace-setting golf course and architecture over here but let's not sell some of the others short before it and just after it in comparision just because their architects went about their seminal and highlly significant projects in the history of American GCA a whole lot more quietly than Macdonald went about NGLA.