next »

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

What exactly is that last post of yours meant to indicate or prove? We're talking about golf course architecture and its history here aren't we? Look Pat, don't get like Moriarty and MacWood and when you get challenged and essentially disproved try to avoid it by changing the subject or the question.

You are the guy who has claimed on here for ever that to really know a course and its architecture you have to do what Macdonald said in his book----eg you have to know the course in every variable of wind and weather, right?

So don't ask me irrelevent questions about Myopia as you just did on that last post! If you want answers about Myopia you are going to have to hold yourself to the same standard you do with others about NGLA and GCGC----you are going to have to get to know Myopia about as well as you do those two others!  

Don't worry about it Patrick, if you even remotely act the hypocrite at this point with me you know damn well I'll call you on it just as you would call me on it.

Who on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com has known NGLA, GCGC and MYOPIA for around fifty years? With Long Island who on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com remembers Piping Rock, Creek, Links, Shinnecock and Maidstone over a period of about fifty years?  

[Bill Brightly]

Sean,

Yes, I think we agree. We are simply defining Macdonald's influence on golf in the US. It was huge, but not all-encompassing. Leading, if not dominant.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
You are awfully good at changing the question when it suits you. No one is asking you which one, NGLA or Myopia, is better and no one is asking you to debate it. The question is not about what course remains unchanged or how many times you've played or walked either one or how well you think you know theses courses. That information is relevant to another set of questions, but not the oneI asked you.

The question is, where in all the supposed archives of golf information in your possession are the written words giving Myopia the same significance as NGLA during the period in question?

If you don't want to answer I'll understand and just take it as a 'no', you don't have the info I asked about because it doesn't exist, and as a 'yes'  for the accolade of FoGCAiA that's been paid to CBM.

Thanks Tom   

[TEPaul]

First of all, I have very little idea what you are saying or asking. What is that odd acronym supposed to mean?  

Secondly, I don't mind trying to understand what question you are asking now but the question on this thread is in its title and that is essentially some of what I am responding to by mentioning Leeds and Myopia. I'm talking about who it was over here who produced the first really good architecture but you now want to know who generated the greatest publicity, apparently. Macdonald sure did that a lot better than Leeds did apparently because he wanted to and Leeds frankly didn't or just didn't exactly care about that with his Myopia. But maybe that's just a thought and idea and fact you can't seem to understand for some reason.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Please Tom, there's no need to feign stupidity. 

As you are smart enough to know, there's a big difference between publicity and articles written by the critics and other assorted professionals of the day. They all seem to have placed NGLA at a level far above any the competition, they recognized a game changer.

They were there, no one that still has the ability to type was.

[TEPaul]

JimK:

Whatever you say; everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but apparently you must not know that much about Myopia's reputation back then.

[Jim_Kennedy]

No Tom, I'm not 'saying' it, but I await your post to see who did.

This should be easy for you.
 
If the question posed by this thread is 'no', then you should be able to show that the writers, critics, and 'those-in-the-know' of the day viewed the other courses you mention in the same game changing category as NGLA.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

What exactly is that last post of yours meant to indicate or prove? We're talking about golf course architecture and its history here aren't we? Look Pat, don't get like Moriarty and MacWood and when you get challenged and essentially disproved try to avoid it by changing the subject or the question.

You are the guy who has claimed on here for ever that to really know a course and its architecture you have to do what Macdonald said in his book----eg you have to know the course in every variable of wind and weather, right?

So don't ask me irrelevent questions about Myopia as you just did on that last post!

My question was far from irrelevant, it was germane, even central to the core issue.
That you were unable to answer it, or chose not to answer it, would seem to reaffirm the premise that NGLA. not any course that preceeded it, was the signal event in American golf course architecture.

Myopia, and to a lesser degree GCGC had their stature in American golf course architecture diminished, with the advent of NGLA.[/size]

If you want answers about Myopia you are going to have to hold yourself to the same standard you do with others about NGLA and GCGC----
you are going to have to get to know Myopia about as well as you do those two others!  

I'd certainly like to do that, but, I'm not discussing the merits of the holes nor the playability of any course, I'm discussing the position each course maintained, pre and post NGLA, and, which course prevailed in terms of maintaining its architectural stature.

Don't forget that other courses weren't the product of a single effort, but multiple efforts over time.
NGLA was/is a single effort, created over a relatively short time frame, not decades like others.

Hence NGLA's impact was singular, it was one event, not a series of events, modifications or evolution as others were.

Don't worry about it Patrick, if you even remotely act the hypocrite at this point with me you know damn well I'll call you on it just as you would call me on it.

I always appreciate your vigilance and your oversight, but, in this case there's nothing hypocritical about my posts.

Who on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com has known NGLA, GCGC and MYOPIA for around fifty years?
With Long Island who on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com remembers Piping Rock, Creek, Links, Shinnecock and Maidstone over a period of about fifty years?  


Your experience in playing these clubs is unmatched.
However, by your own admission, you didn't begin studying and appreciating the architecture until recently.

I liken Myopia to Prestwick.
At one time they WERE amongst the gold standards, but subsequently, others took their place.

[TEPaul]

"Your experience in playing these clubs is unmatched.
However, by your own admission, you didn't begin studying and appreciating the architecture until recently."

Pat:

You are probably right on the first point and your are definitely right on the second. I did not even begin to pay attention to golf course architecture before maybe 12-15 years ago despite knowing a lot of these old east coast famous clubs and courses my whole life. But I didn't even start playing serious golf until I was in my early thirties.

"I liken Myopia to Prestwick.
At one time they WERE amongst the gold standards, but subsequently, others took their place."

That could be but it's hard for me to say because I've never seen Prestwick even if I am familiar with its early tournament history and the fact that it later got dropped out of "The Championship" rota.

Pat, I would be fascinated to see what you think of Myopia and hear what you say about it and its architeture. All I can say, at this point, is, in my opinion, it is inherently great golf course architecture, it is incrediblly old for great golf architecture in America (more than ten years older than NGLA), it is very different from NGLA in many ways but nevertheless it is amazing for other reasons than NGLA.

One of the quirks or funk about Myopia are the two par 4s which are like pretty inscrutable holes for very good players as both are eminently driveable but with some ineffable risk. Did Leeds design those holes for that? Of course not and that's what's so cool about some of the really old American architecture like Myopia's!

The other thing I think Myopia tops NGLA for is Myopia has some of the most beautiful (what I call) "natural landform" greens I've ever seen.

[DMoriarty]

Its ironic you choose the apt term "Evangelist".  

"The Evangelist" was the title of CBM's obituary, written by H. J. Whigham, and published in Country Life.  

What exactly was CBM evangelizing about other than sticking to the imported aspects of the game and architecture as he learned them in the UK?  

Sean it seems you have no concept of what golf course design was like in America in the first decade of last century.  "Sticking to the imported aspects of the . . . architecture?"   For the vast majority of American golf, there was NOTHING to "stick to" until CBM taught them about excellent golf course design!   Whigham described golf in America at this time as "the ideal sport for incompetence" and described the courses as follows:

The links in those days were laid out rather like race courses.   Each hole was a fairly wide, straight strip of turf with narrow trenches dug across it at right angtles to trap a poor shot.   The fairway between trenches was as smooth and level as possible so as to make every shot an easy one.   The greens were flat and slow.  

With courses like these, just what do you suppose they ought to have stuck to?  

CBM would have been one of the last guys to think architecture in America needed a radical turn of events.

You are absolutely WRONG about this.   Again from Whigham:

During the rather dreary years of this period Macdonald was planning the rebirth of American golf. . . . Pondering the grievous depths to which American golf had sunk, Macdonald conceived the idea of building a truly great links which would so change the minds of golfers that they would never again put up with the miserable game to which they were accustomed.

What could be a more radical change than a "rebirth of American golf?"   What could be more radical that countering "the grievous depths to which American golf had sunk" with "a truly great links?"     Again, it boils down to your lack of understanding what golf courses were really like.

I also agree that with NGLA came new standards of excellence in design, design methods and a furthering of the understanding of the importance of the playing surface.  But, what CBM accomplished could only have been the case with many, many great people from whom CBM learned from.

This is true of absolutely everyone who ever accomplished anything great ever, and no one had ever denied it.   Old Tom was important to CBM.  Hutchinson was very helpful.   The Whighams obviously contributed immensely, as did Emmet and Raynor.  But in America it was CBM who had the audacity to take golf course design to an entirely different level, and to do it on a grand stage with the World watching.  More importantly, it was CBM who convinced the American golfing establishment that they could do it too.  


In short, your assumption that there was some sort of a "linear progression" in American golf design is just not supported by the facts.  

_______________________________________________

TEPaul,

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

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

[Sean Arble]

Its ironic you choose the apt term "Evangelist".  

"The Evangelist" was the title of CBM's obituary, written by H. J. Whigham, and published in Country Life.  

What exactly was CBM evangelizing about other than sticking to the imported aspects of the game and architecture as he learned them in the UK?  

Sean it seems you have no concept of what golf course design was like in America in the first decade of last century.  "Sticking to the imported aspects of the . . . architecture?"   For the vast majority of American golf, there was NOTHING to "stick to" until CBM taught them about excellent golf course design!   Whigham described golf in America at this time as "the ideal sport for incompetence" and described the courses as follows:

The links in those days were laid out rather like race courses.   Each hole was a fairly wide, straight strip of turf with narrow trenches dug across it at right angtles to trap a poor shot.   The fairway between trenches was as smooth and level as possible so as to make every shot an easy one.   The greens were flat and slow.  

With courses like these, just what do you suppose they ought to have stuck to?  

CBM would have been one of the last guys to think architecture in America needed a radical turn of events.

You are absolutely WRONG about this.   Again from Whigham:

During the rather dreary years of this period Macdonald was planning the rebirth of American golf. . . . Pondering the grievous depths to which American golf had sunk, Macdonald conceived the idea of building a truly great links which would so change the minds of golfers that they would never again put up with the miserable game to which they were accustomed.

What could be a more radical change than a "rebirth of American golf?"   What could be more radical that countering "the grievous depths to which American golf had sunk" with "a truly great links?"     Again, it boils down to your lack of understanding what golf courses were really like.

I also agree that with NGLA came new standards of excellence in design, design methods and a furthering of the understanding of the importance of the playing surface.  But, what CBM accomplished could only have been the case with many, many great people from whom CBM learned from.

This is true of absolutely everyone who ever accomplished anything great ever, and no one had ever denied it.   Old Tom was important to CBM.  Hutchinson was very helpful.   The Whighams obviously contributed immensely, as did Emmet and Raynor.  But in America it was CBM who had the audacity to take golf course design to an entirely different level, and to do it on a grand stage with the World watching.  More importantly, it was CBM who convinced the American golfing establishment that they could do it too.  


In short, your assumption that there was some sort of a "linear progression" in American golf design is just not supported by the facts.  

_______________________________________________

TEPaul,

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

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

David

You are at least the second person to point out the obvious to me.  I have been reading George's superb book for many years. 

When I said CBM stuck to the imported architecture it was with the meaning that HE imported it.  That was the whole idea no?  He wanted to continue all aspects of British golf in the State  and I suspect the more American golf drifted from these idealized goals the more CBM drifted from the scene - probably in disgust. 

Again, CBM didn't think American architecture needed a radical turn of events from the British model. You are stuck on the idea of American architecture.  If there is such a thing, it would have come well after CBM and he would not have liked it.

The reason why we differ on this issue is precisely because I view architecture from a broader perspective and in that context CBM was a DIRECT extension of what was begun with the widening of TOC, something CBM would have been cognizant of aware of.   I would suggest getting off your high horse with pronouncements of me being wrong and instead open your mind up to the bigger picture of how CBM and American architecture fits into things.  I know exactly where you are coming from, but I don't believe that angle of approach which creates some sort of artificial dividing line between the US and UK is all that helpful when looking at CBM and NGLA. 

Ciao

 

[DMoriarty]

 David

You are at least the second person to point out the obvious to me.  I have been reading George's superb book for many years.

The first person credited George's book, I was correcting the record.    

When I said CBM stuck to the imported architecture it was with the meaning that HE imported it.  That was the whole idea no?  He wanted to continue all aspects of British golf in the State  and I suspect the more American golf drifted from these idealized goals the more CBM drifted from the scene - probably in disgust.

When it came to golf courses they couldn't have drifted ant further than before NGLA.  As for the rest of your speculation, I don't think there is a factual basis to support it.

Again, CBM didn't think American architecture needed a radical turn of events from the British model. You are stuck on the idea of American architecture.  If there is such a thing, it would have come well after CBM and he would not have liked it.

.

Your position changes with every post.   Didn't need a radical change from the British model?   Wouldn't we have to have embraced it first?

And American courses were  very different than the British links courses!  That was the problem as CBM saw it.  The radical departure was away from the horrible dark ages courses and toward the British links.

Your world view fails you here because it neither acknowledges nor addresses the state of golf courses in America during the first decade of last century.  And it does not explain the radical changes which took place.    

The reason why we differ on this issue is precisely because I view architecture from a broader perspective and in that context CBM was a DIRECT extension of what was begun with the widening of TOC, something CBM would have been cognizant of aware of.   I would suggest getting off your high horse with pronouncements of me being wrong and instead open your mind up to the bigger picture of how CBM and American architecture fits into things.  I know exactly where you are coming from, but I don't believe that angle of approach which creates some sort of artificial dividing line between the US and UK is all that helpful when looking at CBM and NGLA.  

My high horse?  I'm not the one rewriting the history of golf in America to make it fit nicely with my World view.   This thread is about CBM's impact on golf course architecture in America so please pardon me if I address that topic.     As to the topic,  CBM was the maincatalyst in bringing about a radical transformation  in golf course architecture  in America.

CBM was aware of the widening at St. Andrews, but I won't bother to tell you what he thought of it.  From your posts above, you obviously think you know better what CBM was thinking than did CBM himself.  
  
[/quote]

[Sean Arble]

 David

You are at least the second person to point out the obvious to me.  I have been reading George's superb book for many years.

The first person credited George's book, I was correcting the record.    

When I said CBM stuck to the imported architecture it was with the meaning that HE imported it.  That was the whole idea no?  He wanted to continue all aspects of British golf in the State  and I suspect the more American golf drifted from these idealized goals the more CBM drifted from the scene - probably in disgust.

When it came to golf courses they couldn't have drifted ant further than before NGLA.  As for the rest of your speculation, I don't think there is a factual basis to support it.

Again, CBM didn't think American architecture needed a radical turn of events from the British model. You are stuck on the idea of American architecture.  If there is such a thing, it would have come well after CBM and he would not have liked it.

.

Your position changes with every post.   Didn't need a radical change from the British model?   Wouldn't we have to have embraced it first?

And American courses were  very different than the British links courses!  That was the problem as CBM saw it.  The radical departure was away from the horrible dark ages courses and toward the British links.

Your world view fails you here because it neither acknowledges nor addresses the state of golf courses in America during the first decade of last century.  And it does not explain the radical changes which took place.    

The reason why we differ on this issue is precisely because I view architecture from a broader perspective and in that context CBM was a DIRECT extension of what was begun with the widening of TOC, something CBM would have been cognizant of aware of.   I would suggest getting off your high horse with pronouncements of me being wrong and instead open your mind up to the bigger picture of how CBM and American architecture fits into things.  I know exactly where you are coming from, but I don't believe that angle of approach which creates some sort of artificial dividing line between the US and UK is all that helpful when looking at CBM and NGLA.  

My high horse?  I'm not the one rewriting the history of golf in America to make it fit nicely with my World view.   This thread is about CBM's impact on golf course architecture in America so please pardon me if I address that topic.     As to the topic,  CBM was the maincatalyst in bringing about a radical transformation  in golf course architecture  in America.

CBM was aware of the widening at St. Andrews, but I won't bother to tell you what he thought of it.  From your posts above, you obviously think you know better what CBM was thinking than did CBM himself.  
  

[/quote]

David

I can't be bothered to discuss this issue with you anymore.  Its damn difficult.  I am kicking on. 

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

That is fine Sean, but you are leaving the conversation without ever having addressed two crucial questions:
1.  Just who were the others cooking away in this melting pot and how did they directly impact golf design in America?
2.  How does your "linear progression" theory account for the state of architecture in America in the first decade of the last century?

Also, Sean I've gone back and looked at your posts on this thread, you started out arguing aesthetics but your position has evolved into a broad based refusal to even address the question asked, even criticizing me for focusing on the issue of the thread instead of  "opening my mind" to your ambiguous and ill-defined world view of golf course architecture. Dare I say that, reading your posts as a whole, you seem pretty intent on refusing to acknowledge CBM's tremendous impact on golf design, despite the facts? 

Even the top British thinkers and writers on course design thought that NGLA was an extraordinary leap the the quality of American course design. Who are you to second guess them?  

[Rich Goodale]

David

Above you made the statement that  "America now had a golf course that was widely considered to be among the very best in the world"  based on a single quote by Darwin.  In your reply to Sean you stated "Even the top British thinkers and writers on course design thought that NGLA was an extraordinary leap..."

Other than Darwin's comments can you support either or even both of these two statements with any another direct contemporary (i.e. ~1911-1915) references from any, if not all (since you used the definite article), of the "top British thinkers and writers on course design"?

Thanks in advance.

Rich

[Slag Bandoon]

          IF          CB Macdonald is Father of Golf in America
         
          THEN     National Golf Links is "The Immaculate Construction"

[Sean Arble]

That is fine Sean, but you are leaving the conversation without ever having addressed two crucial questions:
1.  Just who were the others cooking away in this melting pot and how did they directly impact golf design in America?
2.  How does your "linear progression" theory account for the state of architecture in America in the first decade of the last century?

Also, Sean I've gone back and looked at your posts on this thread, you started out arguing aesthetics but your position has evolved into a broad based refusal to even address the question asked, even criticizing me for focusing on the issue of the thread instead of  "opening my mind" to your ambiguous and ill-defined world view of golf course architecture. Dare I say that, reading your posts as a whole, you seem pretty intent on refusing to acknowledge CBM's tremendous impact on golf design, despite the facts?  

Even the top British thinkers and writers on course design thought that NGLA was an extraordinary leap the the quality of American course design. Who are you to second guess them?  

Ok David, despite my better judgment I will give this one more go.  

My argument was never about aesthetics.  I raised this issue as an area in which CBM's ideals didn't last long and thus questioned how influential he was in this area.    

1. The melting pot was anybody creating anything worthwhile before and during the creation of NGLA.  We know the CBM essentially borrowed parts of British design, added a bit of his know how and determination, looked for a site in which he could house these borrowed ideas (I think this was the part he should be given tons of credit for) and created an "ideal" course which by many accounts was acclaimed one of the very finest in all the world upon its opening.  So, this is a melting pot which includes CBM.  Crazily, you give CBM all the credit of an American design because it happened to be built on American soil.  That is like calling a car American because its built in America when much of the concept of the car and many of its parts are imported.

2. Much of the reason the course was likely better than anything known in the US up until that time is because archies didn't use the best design aspects from the UK. CBM thought it was silly to try and reinvent the wheel when it could be transported across an ocean, rolled off the ship and across the right landscape with ease and grace.  You know what, he was right!

3. I never denied or reduced CBM's impact on architecture.  I merely stated that he was one of many who had a tremendous impact on architecture.  For instance, I think Colt had a big impact because he laid the ground work for what we now consider good parkland courses.  And if this is the case, then Park Jr and Fowler have to have some credit in this melting pot evolution.  That doesn't mean by any stretch that CBM wasn't important, he was terribly important.  

4. Finally, I don't think its terribly valuable to try and separate out American architecture at this time because I don't see it as distinctly American.  CBM was a direct product of the UK and he would be the first to say that British ideals of the game and architecture should hold strong.  That is why he built NGLA from the mould of the British.  CBM wanted to continue the British ideal of the game both in terms of how it was played and the sort of course it should be played over.  

5. Finally, finally, this entire thing we call golf architecture and what we deem as the best and worst of it is completely subjective. Never lose sight of that.  To rely on so called expert opinion too much is a game I not interested in.  To some degree, I should be challenging that sacred cow wisdom because no one is infallible.  

If this post doesn't make sense, nothing  else I can write will help.   

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

          IF          CB Macdonald is Father of Golf in America
         
          THEN     National Golf Links is "The Immaculate Construction"

How do you know that NGLA was a virgin at the time, Slagbert?  Maybe she was the Daddy and CBM the Mommy...........

[DMoriarty]

Rich,

I could have said the British experts of which I am aware, but I thought that was obvious.  But really in both quotes I am speaking about those who were knowledgeable about the British links and who had seen NGLA and perhaps some of the other "nearly good" courses in America.   In addition to the quotes by Darwin, see the various quotes by Whigham, who may have seen a wider variety of courses across the world than anyone.    Also you must have missed this quote by Ben Sayers, who I am sure you would agree knew something of the quality of golf courses in Scotland . . .

I had three days golf over the National course, and I was very highly impressed indeed. I came to the conclusion that the National course is the best course I have ever seen, in fact, I was sorry that I went to see it, because I always thought that St. Andrews was the very best test of golf in the world. But after seeing the National my opinion was altered: I cannot now say that Scotland possesses the best course. Not only is every hole on the National course perfect, but every shot is perfect, and has to be played with great judgment. The architecture of the course is so good and the formation of the greens so natural that the whole place looks as if it was a hundred years old. The course is full of what I call Scotch golf: thinking golf is required for every shot, even more so than at St. Andrews, and I have not played a course where I had to use so many different kinds of clubs, which of course only goes to show what a grand test of golf it must be.

Horace Hutchinson also sang the praises of the course:  

My own opinion of the qualities of this course is so high that I am almost afraid of stating it to strongly. . . . [W]hen the National Links is opened next year it will be far and away the best in the United States. . . . It has no weak point.

Who of the British experts did not see NGLA as head and shoulders above what else was in America?

_______________________________________

Sean,

Thanks for the attempted clarification.  

My argument was never about aesthetics.  I raised this issue as an area in which CBM's ideals didn't last long and thus questioned how influential he was in this area.

Not sure I understand the difference between your argument and an issue you raised, but whatever.  Your argument/issue on aesthetics fell short because of a lack of understanding of what came before and even NGLA's aesthetic style at the time.      

1. The melting pot was anybody creating anything worthwhile before and during the creation of NGLA.

So in America, who were these anybodies?   We know that numerous changes at Myopia and Garden City and made them "nearly good."  But who else?

We know the CBM essentially borrowed parts of British design, added a bit of his know how and determination, looked for a site in which he could house these borrowed ideas (I think this was the part he should be given tons of credit for) and created an "ideal" course which by many accounts was acclaimed one of the very finest in all the world upon its opening.  So, this is a melting pot which includes CBM.

We agree on all this, but you do neglect the importance of CBM's intellect in being able to discern what it was that made these British holes great, and the incredible artistry of putting these things together in a single course that worked.

Crazily, you give CBM all the credit of an American design because it happened to be built on American soil.  That is like calling a car American because its built in America when much of the concept of the car and many of its parts are imported.

I do what? No way.  As far as I know, I give CBM all of the credit for building was was essentially a Scottish links-like course on American soil.  That is the entire point.  You seem to be caught up on this notion that CBM got his ideas from elsewhere as if this diminishes what he did.  To the contrary, it was the application of the Scottish links ideals that made him great.    

Arguably, Henry Ford didn't have too many original ideas concerning the automobile, with at least some of the major design and engineering concepts being borrowed from the French.   However, can there be any doubt that he revolutionized automobile design and production by discerning what worked and figuring out how to produce automobiles quickly, efficiently, and inexpensively?  

2. Much of the reason the course was likely better than anything known in the US up until that time is because archies didn't use the best design aspects from the UK. CBM thought it was silly to try and reinvent the wheel when it could be transported across an ocean, rolled off the ship and across the right landscape with ease and grace.  You know what, he was right!

Yes, he was right, and him realizing this and pulling it off significantly changed golf course design in America from that point on.  Thus the revolutionary nature of his work and words.

3. I never denied or reduced CBM's impact on architecture.  I merely stated that he was one of many who had a tremendous impact on architecture.  For instance, I think Colt had a big impact because he laid the ground work for what we now consider good parkland courses.  And if this is the case, then Park Jr and Fowler have to have some credit in this melting pot evolution.  That doesn't mean by any stretch that CBM wasn't important, he was terribly important.  

You are backtracking here.  You did deny or reduce his impact by your strange focus on aesthetics.  You also diminish his importance when you label him as just one more person in the melting pot.   Park Jr. and Fowler do deserve some credit, but for whatever reason they did not change the way Americans approached golf design in America.  CBM did.  And that was an incredible accomplishment and when combined with the excellence of NGLA, CBMy went well beyond building nearly good but not great golf courses.   As for Colt, his impact in America came AFTER and at least in part as a result of CBM changing the way Americans looked at golf design.  

4. Finally, I don't think its terribly valuable to try and separate out American architecture at this time because I don't see it as distinctly American.  CBM was a direct product of the UK and he would be the first to say that British ideals of the game and architecture should hold strong.  That is why he built NGLA from the mould of the British.  CBM wanted to continue the British ideal of the game both in terms of how it was played and the sort of course it should be played over.  

You confuse CBM's experiences with American golf course architecture.   CBM was a product of the Scottish ideals, but for the most part American golf course was NOT.   Therein was the problem as CBM saw it, and that was what he set out to change.  

5. Finally, finally, this entire thing we call golf architecture and what we deem as the best and worst of it is completely subjective. Never lose sight of that.  To rely on so called expert opinion too much is a game I not interested in.  To some degree, I should be challenging that sacred cow wisdom because no one is infallible.  

Huh?   Just because something is subjective does not mean it cannot have real world impact.   I happen to like some of the dark ages stuff, but my subjective opinion of it doesn't change the fact that CBM's ideas and example virtually wiped those courses off the map.  

In other words, yours and my opinion may be subjective, and the opinion that many held at the time may have been subjective, but the tangible impact that CBM's approach and work had on American golf design was not subjective.    That is why it is more important to understand their opinions than our own.  Their subjectivity changed the direction of golf design in America.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

"Visitors from across the water confess that The National Golf Links of America is just about the best course that there is to be found anywhere.......Every branch of industry, every profession, every avocation, has itsgeniuses; golfing America should be proud of the factthat she has the finest golf architectural genius ofmodern times in Mr. Charles B. MacDonald, whose constructive work on these lines is unequalled."- John G. Anderson

From Long Island to St. Louis there are courses which bear the imprint of Mr. C. B. Macdonald and the National. And anyone interested in laying out a new course can surely afford a journey to the National where he can get ocular demonstration of what should be done- Robert White

..."from my own point of view, the courses I have seen in this country compare very favorably indeed with those abroad. I am sorry to say—for I am a Scotsman—that I was under the impression that the finest golf course in the world was situated in Scotland. Alas! and I say it very humbly, I was greatly mistaken. I have seen Garden City, Brookline, and Myopia, and they are all very good, but the course without doubt, is the National Golf Links of America. I have been over it several times, and have studied it very carefully. I cannot find a fault and am ready to challenge anyone to show me the golfer who can point out one unfair hole"........"I read a lot about it before I came over to this country, but I had no idea of its excellence. I quite agree with Ben Sayers and sympathize with him when he says he wishes he had never seen it. Facts are"chiels that winna ding" however, and that ends it." -Peter Lees

The National Golf Links of america - to give it its full name- was a stunning success. As the first illustration on this side of the ocean of what a real championship course had to have in shot values and overall character, it had an enormous influence on golf-minded people in all corners of the United states. They traveled hundreds and sometime thousands of miles to study the course so that they would be able to incorporate some of the tenets it dramatized in the courses they planned to build in their own home towns. It also placed Macdonald in the enviable position of being able to work only on those projects that, for one reason or another, appealed to him the most. While he was extremely confident about his knowledge of the elements of golf-course design, he was wise enough to always see to it that a professional engineer (usually Seth Raynor or Charles Banks) was on hand to superintend that phase of his creations."-Herbert Warren Wind


"Any one who has seen Prestwick, or Sandwich, St. Andrews, or dozens of other natural golf courses in Great Britain, will readily recognize the ideal. Sad to say, we have nothing like it on this side—that I know of! The nearest approach to the real thing is the National Golf Links at Shinnecock Hills, just nearing completion." - Walter Travis


Immediately alongside is the new course of the National Golf Links of America, now nearing completion,with rare natural advantages in soil and contour of surface. Here no money or pains have been spared to make each and every hole the most perfect of its kind, and so far the results justify the belief that the course as a whole will easily be the best in this country, if not in the world . . .which we are quite aware is saying a great deal.-  Around The 19th Hole

"From our point of view, I should like to see the supreme struggle take place on the National Golf Links at Southampton. It is one of the best and perhaps the most difficult course in the world, and it has a fine seaside wind very often blowing"......."Of the American courses that I have seen. I should prefer Myopia next to the National." -Bernard Darwin

[Jim_Kennedy]

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

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

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

[DMoriarty]

Great quotes Jim.

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

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

[TEPaul]

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

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

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

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

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

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

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


Moriarty:

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

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

[DMoriarty]

"TEPaul,
Moriarty:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TEPaul]

Moriarty:

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

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

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

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

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

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

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
Would you take this guys word for it?

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

[TEPaul]

JimK:

Sure I would.

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

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

[TEPaul]

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


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

[TEPaul]

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

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

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

I would suspect as much as well.


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

[David Stamm]

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

[TEPaul]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TEPaul]

DavidS:

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

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

[David Stamm]

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