Was Charles Blair Macdonald really the father of Golf Architecture in America

[TEPaul]

"He did mention going to NB, but I agree that we obviously cannot rely on his book to figure out everything he saw, because he does not give us a full account of his golf and travels in Europe."


That is true, Macdonald does not seem to give us a list in his autobiography of all the courses he saw when he made his three dedicated architectural study trips abroad in 1902, 1904 and 1906 (and apparently quite lengthy trips each, likes months per trip) in preparation for the creation of NGLA. But he does seem to give us a complete list in his autobiography of the places he played abroad between the years 1875 to 1892 that he referred to as his "Dark Age" and which might even extend with courses abroad to the year 1902. But I'm still looking to see if there is any mention of any others anywhere else abroad before 1902.

The Golfer magazine made mention of this in an 1895 addition that includes an article by Macdonald, so one would logically assume The Golfer magazine learned of this by asking Macdonald himself.

[TEPaul]

David Stamm:

We know from Macdonald himself that the first time he ever saw North Berwick was in 1906. He actually wrote about that particular first visit in some detail. He was scheduled to play the course with a friend of Whigam's who, to C.B.'s disappointment, could not make it at the last minute and so C.B. writes about going out alone just with an interesting caddie who taught him a thing or two.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

Do not send me anymore of your insulting personal messages.

If you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen."



Jim Kennedy:

Then I suggest you stop making posts on here (the last example being #318) trying to criticize me constantly on this website for discussing the facts of Macdonald's time and places played abroad as some attempt on my part or Wayne's to be something that is AGAINST Macdonald. If you can manage to stop doing that I see no reason to send you any messages at all in the future. It is definitely saying nothing AGAINST Macdonald to try to determine how familiar he was with GB architecture (the courses he actually saw and was familiar with the architecture of) between the years 1875-1892 or perhaps 1875-1902.

[TEPaul]

"As usual, your discoveries come about 7 years after the rest of us have already moved on."


Moriarty:

I definitely did not know that. Can you show me a single example from anyone that explained what Macdonald was talking about when he made that remark?

You think of yourself as a pretty good researcher, don't you? if so, can you find me a single example by someone or anyone on here of what Macdonald was talking about before I mentioned it on here in the last few months? If you can I would be more than happy to admit I did not know that and was always unaware he was talking about something other than the architecture that we have generally described as "Geometric" or "Victorian" or "Dark Age" etc in America.

[DMoriarty]

David,  

TEPaul cannot ever quite get it right, even when almost copying verbatim from a book.   His key point about NB is from his imagination, not Scotland's Gift.  In Scotland's Gift, CBM wrote about finding himself alone at NB in 1906, and taking the oldest caddy and pestering him with questions, and how the caddy determined the club on the Redan tee by throwing grass in the air.   The point of the story was how integral and knowledgeable caddies were in those days.  It had nothing to do with whether CBM had ever seen the course before.  (CBM had the opportunity to question him extensively because CBM was there alone.)

But CBM did NOT write that it was his first time in North Berwick.  He lived over there for a number of years made multiple trips, and then made three study trips.  Surely he played these courses more than once while studying them, including St. Andrews which he already knew well.

[TEPaul]

"Of course I asked him numerous questions about the fairway and different holes----Point Garry, Perfection, and particularly the Redan."




That from Macdonald's autobiography explaining when he went to North Berwick in 1906 (presumably for the first time since he did not mention knowing NB previous to that and he did seemingly mention in his autobiography the only courses he played during his so-called "Dark Age" and North Berwick was not one of them.).

But perhaps from Macdonald's remarks above about seeing North Berwick and its 'fairway' and the holes Point Garry, Perfection and particularly the Redan in 1906 that it was the oldest and best caddy at North Berwick in 1906 who we should now in fact label as the one who was Charles Blair Macdonald's primary mentor and architectural influence in explaining to him the characteristics of some of the famous holes and architecture of GB he apparently was not aware of as late as 1906 but that he would use at NGLA.  

GOD ALMIGHTY, please spare me, please spare us all, from these preposterous rationalizations and diversions of some on this webiste such as the following ones in post # 329!  



 

"TEPaul cannot ever quite get it right, even when almost copying verbatim from a book.   His key point about NB is from his imagination, not Scotland's Gift.  In Scotland's Gift, CBM wrote about finding himself alone at NB in 1906, and taking the oldest caddy and pestering him with questions, and how the caddy determined the club on the Redan tee by throwing grass in the air.   The point of the story was how integral and knowledgeable caddies were in those days.  It had nothing to do with whether CBM had ever seen the course before.  (CBM had the opportunity to question him extensively because CBM was there alone.)

But CBM did NOT write that it was his first time in North Berwick.  He lived over there for a number of years made multiple trips, and then made three study trips.  Surely he played these courses more than once while studying them, including St. Andrews which he already knew well."

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,

In lieu of your most recent personal message to me I would suggest that you don't send any more. Part of your message to me was telling me that you are trying to involve people and families in your insanity that really don't wish to be involved, and that borders on the truly scary.

I can't tell you how many callers have told me that they cannot believe your behavior. Grow up.

[DMoriarty]

David Stamm,

As you can see, TEPaul doesn't quite comprehend the difference between fact and supposition.   CBM did not say it was his first trip,  he only said he had the opportunity to quiz the wise caddy because his playing partner did not show up.   CBM believed that one should get to know a course under every condition, so who better to talk to than an old, wise caddy?   This would be true whether it was his first play or his 20th. 

Is it possible that it was his first trip there?   Possible, but unlikely.  CBM doesn't say one way or another.

[TEPaul]

DavidS:

As far as whether Macdonald's mention of visiting North Berwick in 1906 was the first time he saw or played the course I think we have two important points on that from Macdonald's autobiography:

#1. He never mentioned it in his previous trips abroad but he did mention the other courses he had played apparently prior to 1902 and they were remarkably few---actually apparently only two of architectural note---eg TOC and Hoylake. The others he mentioned were Wimbleton in Cambridge and a course he said was the worst excuse for a golf course he had ever seen in his life. It doesn't seem to be much reason for him to have mentioned the latter in his autobiography if there had been others of note during his self-proclaimed "Dark Age."

#2. Obviously the following is pretty indicative that he had never seen North Berwick before:

"Of course I asked him numerous questions about the fairway and different holes----Point Garry, Perfection, and particularly the Redan."

When Macdonald said 'he' Macdonald was talking about the caddie he went out on the course with alone and of who Macdonald obviously asked a lot of questions about North Berwicks architecture. No reason to have to ask a caddie to point out the course and its architecture if he had seen it before and was familiar with it. Moriarty says above he may never have seen it before 1906 but it's unlikely. Why does he say it's unlikely? What possible evidence has he produced to suggest it's unlikely? He has produced none at all and Macdonald's own statement above suggests it is very likely!

Apparently it's quite hard for some people on here to believe that Macdonald may not have had any familiarity with the vast majority of GB architecture before his extended architectural study trips abroad in 1902, 1904 and 1906 but logically that is probably precisely why he felt the need to make those three extended architectural study trips abroad between 1902 and the creation of NGLA.


 I must say it sort of surprised me too because I had never quite considered before the extent of what Macdonald meant by his so-called "Dark Age" until I carefully reread his autobiography with just that in mind.

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

I will send no more IMs to you but if you continue to constantly claim on here that what I've been trying to determine regarding the courses Macdonald played or was familiar with abroad previous to his architectural study trips abroad in 1902, 1904 and 1906 is some attempt on my part or Wayne's part to say something AGAINST Macdonald, which is completely untrue and which I have pointed out to you on here numerous times, then you will hear from me about that. Can you think of any good reason why I shouldn't? I'm only looking for some important facts to do with his architectural life and career and there is no reason at all why you shouldn't understand that and frankly be interested in it yourself if you have any real interest in Macdonald and his life and career in golf course architecture.

[DMoriarty]

Jim Kennedy.

Did you get that?   If you continue to honestly express your well-supported opinion on a public forum, then TEPaul will continue to harass you.   In other words, if you cross TEPaul he will come after you, even in your private life.  

Is this really what this website is about?   Some pathetic creep threatening and harassing participants for honestly expressing their opinions, even if those opinions are well documented and shared by the vast majority of posters?    

Pathetic.  

[TEPaul]

Can either of you actually document what golf courses abroad CBM was familiar with before 1902 other than TOC, Hoylake, Wimbleton and Coldburn Commons that C.B. allowed was the worst excuse for a golf course he had ever seen in his life? That would be a bit more productive and educational on this website to the vast majority of posters than your constant posts about how pathetic you think TEPaul is.  

[TEPaul]

“The Biarritz question was posed because I thought it would be worth establishing the template concepts used at NGLA and when he might have seen them. Even though Brancaster, North Berwick, Prestwick, etc aren't mentioned in his book, we know he went to these places.


Now, as far MacKenzie and Macdonald comparisons, while both claim to have thought St Andrews to be the very best, I don't think AM went out of his way to try and duplicate anything from the UK, while CBM would look for the best areas of the property to implement a template, and if substantial earth had to be moved, he would. There are certain features on AM's courses that I think he had perhaps some features from overseas in mind, such as the 14th fw "trench" feature at Pasatiempo, but it was much more subtle. I don't think AM tried to compete with courses such as SA, whereas CBM tried to emulate or even tried to improve upon the original concept.”


David Stamm:

This is a very good point on your part and worth looking into (not that it hasn’t been before on here to some extent). I think there are number of things that have come forth perhaps even on this particular thread about the way CBM went about things to do with his architecture, when and even perhaps how and why that most have never considered before or at least not appreciated enough.

I would be glad to list what I think they are later. Would you care to?

[TEPaul]

David S:

The following remarks and quotation are from Tom MacWood and post #243 on this thread:


“TEP
You are grasping for straws. This is what Travis wrote about the NGLA and copies:

"The original idea was to construct eighteen holes fashioned after the various holes in Great Britain which were generally recognized as being pre-eminent either as single-shot, two-shot or three-shot holes. There was nothing experimental...nothing creative--merely slavish imitations of these famous holes abroad in so far as physical limitations permitted. Physical limitations! There was the snag. For while certain holes might colorably lend themselves to such an undertaking in this, that or the other respect, it was a source of mortification to find that, after all certain essential features were totally lacking which were incapable of reproduction unless the whole topographical map was rearranged...which of course, was out of the question on account of expense."



Travis' remarks I believe are pretty seminal and significant for a number of reasons. The first reason is it seems to be perhaps the best example extant of some growing dissatisfaction with the use of the copy or template concept of golf course architecture that CBM and his National School of architecture based its type and style and model on course after course and it seems a number of signficant American architects were beginning to resist it. One could certainly argue that Macdonald and his NGLA and National School really wasn't doing that but the more important question should be did other of the most significant architects of the teens and 1920s think it meant that?

We need to ask ourselves why that was and Travis' remarks appear to be the sharpest and most direct expression of it. Shall we simply chalk up Travis' remarks above to his seeming parting of ways with Macdonald apparently due to residual effects of the Schnectedy Putter issue or Travis' amateur status issues with which Macdonald at least had to do with in his position on the USGA Rules Committee for a number of years?

Personally, I don't think that explains the reasons for Travis' critical remarks above, at least not entirely. I think plenty of it had to do with a departure in architectural philosophy and frankly Travis said it in those remarks above pretty explanatorily.

It seems the fundamendal issue with Travis and other American architects of the teens and early 1920s perhaps including Tillinghast, Wilson, Flynn, Thomas and Behr, Hunter, Mackenzie et al was that Macdonald's (Raynor's) architectural philosophy or perceived architectural philosophy did not exactly promote the idea of experimentation, creativeness and innovation in golf course architecture. Macdonald actually wrote that the idea of innovation in golf architecture was a bad thing and to be avoided. I am not sure when or where he first wrote that or how often but I do know he most certainly wrote that in his autobiography published in 1928!

Was this the issue that some of the most signficant American architects had with his style or philosophy as golf architectural ideas and applications began to evolve and flower in different types and stylistic directions from the teens into the 1920s? Personally, I think so and we should discuss it. It is not to take away from Macdonald's label or attribution as the Father of American Architecture but only to try to show if and how American golf course architecture was moving on in various ways and why!

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,
Yes, I got that, and it's sad. 

In his next-to-last message to me he makes it pretty clear that he's using TMac's revelation about George Crump to go on a witch-hunt in search of damaging personal information about Macdonald.

He says it should be done for historical purposes, but I cannot see how he conflates the two, it makes no sense to me.

So I guess if he did find some deep, dark, family secret he and Wayne would just go ahead and LEAK it out in their ongoing attacks on Macdonald.

.....and I thought they didn't do such things? ?
 

[TEPaul]

In search of damaging personal information on Macdonald??  

At the moment, trying to determine what courses abroad Macdonald actually saw and was familiar with in the 19th century doesn't seem to be damaging personal information, does it? And if you think so why is that exactly?  

Did Macdonald have a real problem with booze at any particular time that effected him in his dealings with a number of his contemporaries? Apparently, and the documentation seems to be there but so what? What's wrong with that and what's damaging about it if it's the truth? For God's Sakes, the same can probably be said and documented for a number of the most significant of the architects of that interesting era including Tillinghast, Flynn, Toomey, Mackenzie and Crump, young Dick Wilson, as well as Macdonald.

That kind of thing happened to be the sometimes part of the tapestry of their lives and times and I fail to see why any competent historian would view it as damaging or something that should never been mentioned, discussed or analyzed. But even if it is viewed as damaging by some and apparently there are a few on here who are saying they think it is damaging, still if it is the truth there is no reason I can see that it shouldn't be known and discussed and analyzed if it effected something to do with their lives and work unless of course the point of this website is to unrealistically and historical unfactualy just glorify and iconize and completely sanitize some of those interesting men and their lives who did such good and adventurous golf architectural work.

Come on people, tell me if you think anything should be out-of-bounds when we investigate and analyze and discuss these people if it effected their lives and work? If you think so I'd love to hear why you think so. And I would love to hear from others on here if they think these kinds of attempted limitations by a few on here on what we can and should discuss is out-of-bounds as well.

[David Stamm]

David, thank you for your thoughts on the AM/CBM comparison. And I pretty much agree with everything, although I'm not so sure that I agree w/ Whigham stating that NGLA made CPC possible. The reason being is that AM had done a sustantial amount of work in the UK before coming to the US. I don't think CBM doing NGLA or not would have prevented him from coming here to design addtional courses. There is not argument on my part that they shared similiar ideas on strategic course design. What I think CBM's biggest impact was to other architects already practicing overseas was "opening up the market" as it were to them and give them some ideas in strategic design along the way. Colt, Alison, Fowler, Park and AM had already done courses overseas, many of which were quite good, without seeing NGLA.

[DMoriarty]

Can either of you actually document what golf courses abroad CBM was familiar with before 1902 other than TOC, Hoylake, Wimbleton and Coldburn Commons that C.B. allowed was the worst excuse for a golf course he had ever seen in his life? That would be a bit more productive and educational on this website to the vast majority of posters than your constant posts about how pathetic you think TEPaul is.

Can anyone tell you exactly what courses CBM played when he lived in Scotland and during the many trips (one for almost a year) he took, all before 1902?  This was over a century ago Tom, so I wouldn't expect to be able to figure exactly the courses with which he was familiar.  He discussed some of those courses but not all of those courses, and it is ridiculous for you to pretend that those he happened to mention are the only courses he played.  

As for your constant mention of your many theories about how CBM was a drunk, an asshole, lower class than those around him, a jerk, etc., they are thus far UNSUPPORTED.  If you want to try and make your case, then by all means do so.   But thus far all you have done is toss around gossip like an old hen at the fence.  Apparently your plan is for someone else to take up the cause and do your research for you, but I don't think anyone else is all that interested in your attempts to project your own pitiful personal failings onto a great man like CBM.

__________________________________________________________

David Stamm,

While AM did see NGLA, I am not saying he learned anything from it.   I meant more that CBM not only opened up the Market, but also that he got the conversation going about what good design was, and that made a place for someone like AM, who came in and built holes very much along the CBM mold (even though not necessarily intentionally so.)  

Remember, CBM didn't think he was inventing these underlying strategic principles but considered them timeless truths that he was just bringing to the fore, and the reason I think they were similar is not whether AM got his ideas from CBM, but rather that AM and CBM were applying the same basic ideas (or the same timeless truths.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Moriarty,

What's interesting about NGLA are the comments from those who were exposed to the golf course shortly after it opened.

The Invitational tournaments began being held at NGLA in 1911, along with others.

It's interesting to read what people like Bernard Darwin wrote and even more interesting to read what the competitors wrote, especially those from the UK.

Reading their commentary would seem to reinforce CBM's position as the Father of GCA in America

[Ulrich Mayring]

I didn't follow this thread for sanitary reasons, but it appears there is some idea that Walter Travis might challenge CBM's pioneer credentials. I would not agree with that assessment, as Travis at the turn of the century was still completely uneducated about golf architecture.

He wrote in his column "Practical Golf" (May 1901) that holes should be done in a way that one, two or three perfect strikes were needed to get onto the green. Less than perfect shots should end up in a bunker, thus making sure that the better player will be on the green first and could not lose the hole to someone who merely putts better. He advocated "scientific" design, whereby the holes should not be laid out following the natural terrain, but according to a "proven" scheme that would guarantee fairness and an equitable game.

It took Travis a few years to learn the errors of his ways and as such he cannot be considered a frontrunner.

Ulrich

[TEPaul]

"Can anyone tell you exactly what courses CBM played when he lived in Scotland and during the many trips (one for almost a year) he took, all before 1902?  This was over a century ago Tom, so I wouldn't expect to be able to figure exactly the courses with which he was familiar.  He discussed some of those courses but not all of those courses, and it is ridiculous for you to pretend that those he happened to mention are the only courses he played."



I have never been able to understand why anyone, even you, would say something like that. I'm not pretending anything---I am only taking Macdonald at and with his own words in his autobiography. What seems pretty ridiculous is for someone like you to assume there must have been more. Macdonald was talking about a time he called his "Dark Ages" where he hardly played golf between leaving St Andrews as a student and both generating interest in golf in Chicago in 1893 (there wasn't any golf there before that) and creating the first golf course in Chicago.

Macdonald seems to be very comprehensive in chronicling the golf he did play in that era he called his "Dark Ages" which seems to have been precious litte and consisting of 3-4 courses abroad and one attempt in a field in Chicago in 1875 (hence his own term for that long era (his "Dark Ages"). I take Macdonald at his word when he chronicled that particular time but apparently you don't. Why is that? Are you afraid to admit what seems obvious from his own life history and apparently the truth----eg he may've actually been familiar with very few courses abroad before he went over there on his three separate "study trips" on architecture beginning in 1902 in preparation for his ideal course which turned out to be NGLA. He apparently went over there and spend all that time in those three "study trips" simply because he never had been familiar with architecture abroad other than just a few which certainly included real familiarity with TOC and Hoylake, the latter course being the one he says he played most all his golf during this long period he referred to as his "Dark Ages."

You say he discussed some courses he played over there during those years but not all of them. How in the world do you know THAT? What courses did he discuss that he did not play during those years and when did he discuss them?    

[DMoriarty]

He wrote that Hoylake was his "headquarters."  He did not write it was the only place he played.  And this was only from the time he left St. Andrews in the mid - 1870's until 1892.   It doesn't include before or after.

1.  Quit pretending that you know where else he played while living in St. Andrews, or BETWEEN 1892 AN 1902.    He made multiple trips abroad during this period, but doesn't discuss them in the book.  That doesn't mean he didn't play.

2.  He does not ever write that the ONLY places he played were where he mentioned.   One of his trips during the "dark ages" was for a year.   Do you honestly expect him to give you an everyday accounting?

[TEPaul]

"1.  Quit pretending that you know where else he played while living in St. Andrews, or BETWEEN 1892 AN 1902.    He made multiple trips abroad during this period, but doesn't discuss them in the book.  That doesn't mean he didn't play.

2.  He does not ever write that the ONLY places he played were where he mentioned.   One of his trips during the "dark ages" was for a year.   Do you honestly expect him to give you an everyday accounting?"



I'm not pretending I know where else he played while living in St. Andrews or between the years 1875 and 1892 or abroad between the years 1892 and 1902. It is you who is pretending he played other courses although there is no evidence of that and that is probably why he never mentioned any others and called that extended period his "Dark Ages." I most certainly do think he mentioned in his autobiography where he did play in those years he called his "Dark Ages" and I think the facts are those places amounted to no more than 3-4 courses that he listed in his autobiography. I think he mentioned all of them in his autobiography and that is precisely why he referred to that extended period as his "Dark Ages" when he played what he considered to be so little golf.

It is you who is speculating and assuming something here for which there is no evidence at all. I'm merely going on what Macdonald said himself about those years. If one takes him at his word those are all the FACTS we have, and there is no reason to speculate on more for which there are no FACTS! It is you who always harps on ONLY FACTS on here, right?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Let's see, a locker in Old Tom's shop, learning about and playing The Old Course, for 25 months, with that great man, his son, the Dunns, and David Strath. Trips to Hoylake, and multiple trips abroad in the intervening years.  Then, after going through 17 "Dark Years" of something less than real golf between 1875 and 1892 he ends up doing Chicago GC.
All of this happened before Walter Travis even bought his first set of clubs!!

The next step in the progression was when CBM read the best hole discussion, and this sparked the flame of his "Ideal Golf Links" concept, which doesn't need a retelling here.  That  happened 11 months before Walter Travis wrote the article that's being used to 'show' that he (Travis) was the first to come upon the idea!

CBM had 29 years of golf experience under his belt beforeTravis wrote his article, and he was familiar with the whole 'package' of the Scottish game 24 years before Waler Travis even picked up a club.

Travis' contributions to the game and to its architecture are well known, and The Old Man really doesn't need to have smoke blown up his reputation for the sole purpose of trying to take another man's reputation down.

[TEPaul]

"Let's see, a locker in Old Tom's shop, learning about and playing The Old Course, for 25 months, with that great man, his son, the Dunns, and David Strath. Trips to Hoylake, and multiple trips abroad in the intervening years.  Then, after going through 17 "Dark Years" of something less than real golf between 1875 and 1892 he ends up doing Chicago GC.
All of this happened before Walter Travis even bought his first set of clubs!!"


I don't think this has anything to do with when Travis first bought a set of clubs. It only has to do with the extent of Macdonald's familiarity with GB architecture before he went abroad on three separate architectural "study trips" (1902, 1904, 1906) in preparation for the creation of NLGA and who may've been more familiar with various famous holes abroad before him that would eventually be created at NGLA (and afterwards) even if "in principle." Frankly, in the 19th century H J Whigam was probably a lot more familiar with GB architecture generally and specifically than either Travis or Macdonald were by 1901 since Whigam was a natural born Scot with a whole lot of golf experience abroad since he grew up there! Macdonald mentioned he made thirty or forty drawings during those trips in the beginning of the 20th century. There is no question at all from Macdonald's own autobiography that he was intimately familiar with TOC and Royal Liverpool GC at Hoylake from his experiences at those two courses during the years 1872-1892 (and he certainly did use a few holes from those two courses at NGLA) but he does not seem to have been personally familiar in the 19th century with much more than that abroad. I would presume that is the very reason he felt the need to spend a number of months abroad three times between 1902 and 1906.



"The next step in the progression was when CBM read the best hole discussion, and this sparked the flame of his "Ideal Golf Links" concept, which doesn't need a retelling here.  That  happened 11 months before Walter Travis wrote the article that's being used to 'show' that he (Travis) was the first to come upon the idea!"


I am not certain when the "Best Hole Discussion" actually began in GB but above Tom MacWood said it began Feb. 15, 1901 so let's assume that's the case. Travis was abroad between the middle of July to the middle of August 1901 and apparently he played 36 holes per day at numerous courses some of which are listed in his London Golf Illustrated magazine article of Nov. 1901. Macdonald and Travis belonged to the same golf club---GCGC at that time (1901) so persumably Macdonald heard from Travis about the holes he admired long before Nov, 1901.



"CBM had 29 years of golf experience under his belt beforeTravis wrote his article, and he was familiar with the whole 'package' of the Scottish game 24 years before Waler Travis even picked up a club."


The whole 'package' of the Scottish game? What does that mean? As far as the facts we have are concerned Macdonald was very familiar with TOC and Hoylake during those years. Again, this is probably the very reason he felt the need to spend a number of months on three separate architectural study trips abroad beginning in 1902 in preparation to create NLGA studying all the other courses and holes of note he had probably never seen before. His description in his autobiography about visiting North Berwick and a few holes there in 1906 seems to be an excellent example of this-----eg NB's Redan had ranked high on that "Best Hole Discussion" in 1901 and it appears Macdonald had been unfamiliar with what it looked like before 1906.  


"Travis' contributions to the game and to its architecture are well known, and The Old Man really doesn't need to have smoke blown up his reputation for the sole purpose of trying to take another man's reputation down."


Again, I see nothing on here from me which attempts to up Travis' reputation for the sole purpose of taking down another man's reputation; in this case Macdonald's. All I'm trying to do is establish some basic facts along a very interesting timeline of what these two men were actually familiar with at any point in time along that timeline.