The role of CBM in golf in America is enormous to be sure. But I wonder if he had not produced NGLA if architects such as Colt, Fowler and Park would not have had the success anyway here. It's debatle to be sure, but eventually someone would've made that step. IMO, I see very little evidence to suggest that CBM's work heavily influenced the above mentioned architects and how they decided to design their courses here in America. I'm sure there was admiration and respect for the effort and passion of CBM, but I'm not aware of his work influencing them, especially Colt. He seemed to keep his own counsel in regards to course design.
David Stamm,
As for if and when Colt and/or Fowler would have had had the success here anyway, it is certainly arguable. But we could just as easily argue about whether the United States would have eventually broken away from Great Britain, had the revolutionary war not gone as it did. My point is that we cannot rewrite history with "
what if's." With CBM we don't need to speculate as to "would have" and "could have" because CBM did it. And we cannot erase his influence from the landscape to give these guys a free shot at trying to accomplish what CBM accomplished.
So while some of these guys who followed may not have been borrowing anything from CBM, they were preaching many of the same ideas and/or utilizing many of the same concepts, and CBM set the stage for these guys here. He started the ball rolling and they (and others) took it all sorts of places.
Tom, yes, of course MacKenzie played a role, especially in California where most of his work in this country was done. MacK was quite different in his approach to design compared to CBM. And I feel whatever CBM did at NGLA did not have much, if at all, of a bearing on how he approached his work here in California. Now, I do think there is work in California that was influenced to some degree by NGLA, namely Thomas and Behr's courses. And this would make sense knowing their backgrounds and history in golf on the east coast.
When you say that AM's approach was much different than CBM's just what exactly do you mean? There are differences obviously, but there are plenty of remarkable similarities as well. AM was espousing many of the same fundamental principles as CBM, and building many golf holes with very similar strategic underpinnings. Diagonal hazards, undulating and interesting greens, undulating fairways, multiple routes to the hole, equally challenging and interesting to the scratch and the duffer, every hole different in character, undulations but no hill climbing, dislike of high rough, as natural appearance as possible, minimization of blind approaches (CBM obviously had a few exceptions to this, but preached minimum blindness nonetheless while noting these exceptions.) The both shared a deep affection for the Old Course, and both had very similar views on the purpose of hazards, they both even praised the same holes from overseas. They differed on trees, but only to a degree.
MacKenzie was quite fond of NGLA. From The Spirit of St. Andrews:
North America is rapidly becoming a greater golf center than even the home of golf, Scotland. The average American golf course is vastly superior to the average Scottish golf course, but I still think the best courses in Scotland, such as the Old Course at St. Andrews ,are superior to any in the World. In the East, the National and Pine Valley are outstanding, and the excellence of many other courses may be traced to their shining example. My personal preference is for the National. Although not so spectacular as Pine Valley, it has a greater resemblance to real links land than any course in the East.
It is also essentially a strategic course; every hole sets a problem. At the National there are excellent copies of classic holes, but I think the holes, like the 14th and 17th, which C. B. Macdonald has evolved, so to speak, out of his own head, are superior to any of them. As an example of how similarly they thought on architecture, recall that CBM had Raynor build AM's "ideal two-shot hole" at the Lido. From the caption of the photograph of his winning plan (SoSA):
"The ideal two shot hole that launched my golf architecture career. C.B. Macdonald and Bernard Darwin awarded this design first place in Country Life magazine. July 25, 1914." One thing I found fascinating is when Gib in his usual off-the-cuff, less than serious manner recently went around CPC naming the Raynor holes. While he was joking (I think,) one could easily go right around CPC and find quite a few holes with similar strategic concepts to those at NGLA. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying this was done intentionally or that AM was working off of Raynor's plan. But I am saying that
CBM and AM viewed many things similarly and so it should be of no surprise that their courses end up presenting some very similar strategic problems.
So I am curious as to what you meant when you wrote that AM's approach was much different than CBM's?