What is interesting or perhaps significant about Walter Travis' remarks on his impressions of British and American golf architecture in his 1901 statement posted above and posted again below that is from The British (London?) Golf Illustrated magazine (November, 1901)?
Well, first of all, that might be a very good question, or, on the other hand, perhaps it's not. To determine the answer of whether it's an interesting question or not, I would say a few details surrounding his remarks need to be determined first. I don't know the details surrounding his remarks but others on here might. Even if they don't at the moment, the details surrounding that magazine article with Travis' remarks probably can be determined.
Where, for instance, did Travis' idea for the use of all those famous holes abroad he listed in that article, including the way some of them were bunkered, come from? Was that his original idea or did he get it from someone else or some others who originated that novel idea for American architecture before him?
We know from Macdonald's autobiography, written between 1927 and 1928 that he wrote an article in 1897 while still living in Chicago that an ideal first class course should have eighteen holes and sandy soil and the right distance between the holes, the shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfecting of putting greens, and all must be evolved by a process of growth and it all requires study and patience. But where in that 1897 article did Macdonald talk about the famous time-tested "classical" (his word) holes and their principles from abroad, and further, where or even when did Macdonald talk about them as a virtual model to draw from to create ideal courses and architecture in America?
Macdonald also tells us in his autobiography that he was inspired by a controversy surrounding the “Best Hole Discussion” in the London Golf Illustrated magazine (presumably a number of the holes Macdonald used in America and first at NLGA as templates were not necessarily his personal favorites from abroad (how many did he even have or know from abroad, at that point?) but they came from that “Best Hole Discussion” apparently first generated in that London Golf Illustrated magazine controversy.
Is this the same magazine that contains the article that Travis’ idea to use holes from abroad came from (he listed a good many holes and courses in that article, so presumably Travis knew them all very well, at that point. We do know Travis had been abroad in the 1890s as well)? Was it Travis who inspired that “Best Hole Discussion” in London Golf Illustrated with his remarks or was it someone else? I doubt it was Macdonald because it appears he wasn’t even over there at that time, as Travis was.
Macdonald also tells us in his autobiography that this idea was what motivated him to go abroad and begin the first of three architectural “study” trips. The other two came in 1904 and 1906.
Is it possible that it was Walter Travis who came up with this concept or model of using famous GB holes and their bunkering ideas over here in America to make better architecture compared to the architecture Travis said we had over here at the time which he believed to be very weak?
If it turns out Travis inspired Macdonald into using GB template holes (Macdonald called them “classical” holes) and perhaps with this British Golf Illustrated article quoted above and below perhaps it was Travis who had the significant and important architectural influence on Macdonald in this particular important vein.
I have no idea at this time whether that is true or even what the chronology was of this concept or model of using famous GB holes and their bunkering ideas for better architecture but I’m sure we can all find out somehow and it may turn out that Travis’ remarks were very important and even a significant influence effecting some of the questions that began this thread.
Again, Travis’ remarks in the British Golf Illustrated magazine article of November, 1901.
"In an article in the November 8. 1901 British Golf Illustrated, Walter Travis spoke of his impressions on British golf. In it he contrasted what is found in Britain and is lacking in the US.
"Where for instance, have we any bunkers that suggest the faintest resemblance to the "Himalayas" or the "Redan" at Prestwick, or the "Maiden," "Sahara" or "Hades" at Sandwich? Where have we any holes comparable with the 7th, 11th and 13th at St. Andrews, the 7th and 10th at Troon, the 5th and 17th at Prestwick, the 7th, 8th, 11th and 12th at Formby, the 2nd and 15th at Carnoustie, the 3rd, 7th and 14th at Prestwick St. Nicholas, the 7th, 14th and 15th at North Berwick, the proposed new 12th and 13th at Blundellsands, the 5th 11th, 12th and 18th at Muirfield, the 11th, 13th and 14th at Hoylake, the 3rd, 6th, 8th and 17th at Sandwich, the 3rd and 8th at Mid-Surrey, the 7th and 14th at Deal, or the 3rd, 4th and 10th at Huntercombe? -- to say nothing of many others. Golf, with us, is mostly of a Kindergarten order. The holes are too easy, and there is too much of a family resemblance all through, generally speaking. There are undoubtedly some notable exceptions which will at once suggest themselves to those familiar with the leading courses on both sides. But, speaking broadly, our courses seem to be mainly laid out, not with reference to first-class play, but rather to suit the game of the average player. And what is the result? On the ordinary courses a premium is placed on mediocrity. But let the average good player on such courses "stack up against" golf as it should be played -- on links such as Prestwick, Sandwich or Formby, or Garden City or Wheaton -- and where is he? Really good links develop really good players, a few remarkably so, while the general standard of play is at the same time very sensibly improved. This fact is meeting with increasing recognition, as is evidenced by the growing improvement of our courses in the direction of making them more difficult."