Macdonald and Scotland's Gift

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...I was thinking the exact same thing.  I don't know why this happens, but I think it sucks!

CBM is one of the most interesting figures in the history of American golf...and perhaps golf in general...I am fascinated with him and I am wanting to learn more.  I've studied him in some depth...but not nearly as much as I want to.  I agree with you that something happened after NGLA was built.  I have guesses...but I don't know exactly what it was...but I would love to learn more.

Right now, I have put down my Tillinghast book and have started to review the CBM information that I have handy and I will post a response to some of your questions in hopes to getting informative conversations going...after all that is what Jay appears to have wanted in his posting of this thread on CBM and Scotland's Gift.

I think the world of CBM's work and his place in golf history and, therefore, I want to learn more about him.  I can't figure out why that makes people angry.

EDIT...I see two posts were put up while I was typing...I think I am in agreement with Mike Cirba.  I simply want to learn about CBM.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

I think our respective posts just crossed, and with all due respect, I would state that most here aren't clamoring to learn more because frankly it seems there are perhaps a dozen or two of us on this entire website who seem interested in the type of historical minutae that you and I and a few others enjoy discussing.

That's ok...I just wish we all got along a bit better because I think we add more value working together than at odds,, but I do think the topic is worthy of discussion, and hopefully not coming from armed camps.

Personally, I'm only asking because I want to learn more.  

If Tom Doak quit architecture tomorrow and left the game almost entirely, and then lived another 20 years, I'd certainly want to know why.

[Mike Cirba]

Let me give an example...

When I came back to this website a few months ago it was with the idea that if I was going to be here, it was to have fun discussing a topic I'm passionate about, but also that I was simply not going to engage in the type of pointless, endless arguments that I got sucked into prior.   This is supposed to be fun, collegial, and educational...

Fairly, at this juncture I think I'd probably give myself a B, perhaps B+ at doing so.

And, as an example of learning, despite the sometimes heated exchanges among some here when discussing the work of Old Tom Morris, and some other topics, I think ultimately I've learned much more about him than I would have if we simply avoided the topic.

So, it's not like I'm kidding myself and thinking that any ensuing discussion of Mac's later years will be anything like an episode of Mister Rogers, but I'm also betting that there are others who will find the little undeniable gems of information and understanding that pop up unsullied in the midst of any ensuing chaos.   

And I think as long as we all don't take ourselves as seriously as we take our subjects, then we'll all be ok at the end of the day.

[TEPaul]

"Actually, this thread was going along quite nicely, and with civility, until you interjected some slimy innuendo about CBM....and if you'll notice, no one is protecting CBM, only just wondering why you want to spread rumors? Frankly TEP, it really appears that most people don't give a damn."


Jim Kennedy:

Firstly, it would probably be best on this thread or any other thread on ths website if you didn't trying to speak for most everyone else. Speak for yourself. If you're not interested then don't read this thread or my posts, who in the Hell really cares if you don't?

If no one is interested in the rest of Macdonald's life for its context with this book then perhaps they won't respond or give a damn but I have a hunch the likes of Mac Plumart or perhaps others and Jay Flemma who started this thread are a bit more curious about Macdonald other than just his golf course architecture and a lot less defensive about him than you are.

Secondly, there is nothing in the slightest uncivil or slimmy or rumor spreading about what I'm referring to about his life and times when he wrote that book or what I've said about any of it.  Your either too defensive or just too dense to apparently realize it but I'm actually a huge admirer of Macdonald and/or certainly curious about him for not just his golf architecture but many of the other things he felt strongly about and I don't think there was anything remotely slimmy about any of it even though it most certainly seems quite sad and very unfortunately so when one considers the man and his life and times in toto.

Always I keep thinking how would things have been different in American golf had Charles Blair Macdonald really gotten his way throughout his life as he apparently foresaw it in and with golf, which was certainly considerable as it even was with his dissatisfactions that began early on and eventually ended up with his virtual and fairly formal and public turning away from it and dropping out of it. To me that is totally fascinating to conceive of and contemplate and it might be one of the most interesting contemplatible facets in the entire tapestry of American golf history and I think it should be completely discussable and developed on here without having any defensive bowlderizing little idolaters trying to squelch any of it when it comes up.

[TEPaul]

"Anyone who can shed some light on those areas would be helpful to my historic understanding, and I suspect would be helpful to others, as well."


Mike:

One of the problems with apparently many on here and including some of those who are most enamored with Macdonald's architecture and particularly when it comes to his autobiography do not seem to appreciate that his book was on a lot more than just golf course architecture. Architecture wasn't even the half of it. I realize this is a golf architecture website and many to perhaps most are not interested in the parts of his book and the parts of his life that aren't about golf architecture. I remember some years ago when speaking with Tommy Nacarrato who is certainly an enormous fan of Macdonald's and who is most certainly a comprehensive reader and researcher, how surprised I was when he told me he had never even read the parts of Macdonald's book that were NOT about golf architecture.

I love architecture too but perhaps because I spent so many years in golf administration and in Rules and such that is one reason I am completely fascinated with those aspects of Macdonald's life and times in his book too. Those areas, in my opinion, may've served to completely depress him and early on too, and to continue to depress him as time went along. If no one on here wants to know about that then fine but I sure as hell do because that was a hugely important part of his life and times too, and it definitely factors in and did factor in to the guy's life and times in toto, including what I believe to be something of a sad last decade of his life when he really did seem to just drop out and become unapproachable for perhaps his last decade of his life.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,
I wasn't singling you out, only using your perfectly good observations as one side of the question.

Without searching for an answer I'd say that real estate based golf course development was in the majority in the past 40 years, and I can't foresee too many privately owned courses without a RE component being built in the future. One reason:  no developer is going to allow a bordering property to take advantage of the increase in value that the golf course brings to its immediate surroundings.

Having grown up in a county (within two hours of the G.Washington Bridge) that had 12 golf courses, most of them 'antiques' and 11 of them 9 holers, I can't even remember the first time I saw a paved cart path, no lie. Golf has mainly been a low-key pursuit around here and most of the stuff that is deemed unhealthy has by-passed us. Actually, I can comfortably drive within a two hour radius of my house and find a slew of fun, low key, reasonably good, fun places to play that won't break my bank. I've found similar situations all up and down the eastern seabord, and I know I'm not alone in that pursuit.

I will say this:  90% of the golf courses featured in the top 3 golf magazines represent a minor portion of what's really going on out there, and what's really going on out there doesn't need to sell itself in the top 3 golf magazines. 

Well, it seems to me that this is a key point about where American golf went astray - real estate development, especially in places like Florida  .

Most of the courses we GCA wingnuts treasure are being built in remote areas with little or no housing - Kingsley, Bandon, Sand Hills, Wild Horse, Ballyneal.  I also really like the kind of courses you reference in your penultimate paragraph.  I just don't think many of them have been built in the past 40 years because of the economics.

[TEPaul]

"I agree with you that something happened after NGLA was built.  I have guesses...but I don't know exactly what it was...but I would love to learn more."


Mac:

Oh no, I do not just mean that something happened after NGLA. Something may've happened in Macdonald's mind at some point after NGLA with American golf architecture that led him in his autobiography, published in 1928, to state "It makes the very soul of golf shriek" but I believe something happened to him in golf administration much earlier than that which was something like the proverbial dagger right through his heart or at least through his sensibilities about what golf should be or could be in its new American home and with perhaps him being more of the total transporter of it. In many ways he was that transporter of it and many looked to him as that and for that in some specific ways, but then a few things began to happen, and at and with the USGA that he more than clearly articulated in his book if one only bothers to read those sections.


But that's some of the problems with many of the participants on this website and their total understanding or appreciation of Charles Blair Macdonald---eg they don't really care about reading and seriously considering all those other sections of his life and times and his autobiography because they aren't about golf course architecture.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bill,
A couple are new, but most aren't.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I remember RJ Daley mentioning that he bought a lot at Wild Horse??  That doesn't make it any closer to 'civilization' though.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom...I was thinking the exact same thing.  I don't know why this happens, but I think it sucks!"


Mac:

I know, but unlike you I believe I do know why it happens but nevertheless you're right it does suck.

It's not the end of this thread though and like many other threads on here different people can discuss their different issues and ideas simultaneously. If people like you and Mike Cirba and others are interested in this angle then let's discuss it and we can certainly do it at the same time people like Jim Kennedy and Bill McBride are discussing their interest or angle on such things as the evolution of American golf and housing developments which they've been doing of late today on this same thread.

And furthermore, I guarantee you I will not tell Jim Kennedy or Bill McBride that I think most people on here aren't interested in what they're discussing on this thread or that it is in some way uncivil or slimmy or unnuendo or rumor spreading about the life and times of C.B. Macdonald!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Well, it seems to me that this is a key point about where American golf went astray - real estate development, especially in places like Florida  .

True enough, but a real estate/ golf course development like the one Raynor did at Mountain Lake would not "...make the very soul of golf shriek". 

[TEPaul]

Mac and MikeC and perhaps Jay:

If you are interested in what I'm trying to say and/or trying to explain here your first assignement is to read and consider very carefully some of the things Macdonald says in his Chapter VI that is titled "The Beginning of the USGA----Bogey." I would ask you to begin your considerations by particularly appreciating the last word of that chapter title and then to pay very close attention and consideration to what he says about the presidential acceptance speech (and philosophy) of incoming USGA president R.H Robertson in 1901.

I would also remind you that C.B. Macdonald was the 2nd Vice President of the USGA when it was originally formed in 1895-96. In other words he was on the so-called "latter" if you get my gist. Can you conceive of any possible reason why a man like Charles Blair Macdonald would not have accepted the presidency of the UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION had he been nominated for it and it had been offered to him?

[TEPaul]

Mac and MikeC and perhaps Jay:

If you are interested in what I'm trying to say and/or trying to explain here your first assignment is to read and consider very carefully some of the things Macdonald says in his Chapter VI that is titled "The Beginning of the USGA----Bogey." I would ask you to begin your considerations by particularly appreciating the last word of that chapter title and then to pay very close attention and consideration to what he says about the presidential acceptance speech (and philosophy) of incoming USGA president R.H Robertson in 1901.

I would also remind you that C.B. Macdonald was the 2nd Vice President of the USGA when it was originally formed in 1895-96. In other words he was on the so-called "latter" if you get my gist. Can you conceive of any possible reason why a man like Charles Blair Macdonald would not have accepted the presidency of the UNITED STATES GOLF ASSOCIATION had he been nominated for it and it had been offered to him?

He was a huge believer (he clearly said so in his book) in the philosophy that the success or strength of an administrative body in golf such as the USGA was in the infrequency of the questions they were asked by golf and golfers and the infrequency of the necessity to change their Rules or By-Laws but had Macdonald actually been nominated and offered the presidency of the USGA something tells me he may've supported a resolution on the board to change the by-laws to make him president for life!

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

I am very interested to discuss and I have read all parts of the book in question.

I am now reviewing the notes I have made during my previous reading and I am re-reading certain sections of the book.  I will post a few of my thoughts after work today in the evening, as they will touch on some of your previous points.

As a side note, I leave first thing in the morning for my March Madness Vegas trip...so I will be off line for a few days after tonight.

[Bill_McBride]

Well, it seems to me that this is a key point about where American golf went astray - real estate development, especially in places like Florida  .

True enough, but a real estate/ golf course development like the one Raynor did at Mountain Lake would not "...make the very soul of golf shriek". 

I was thinking more of the many RE developments starting in the '60s that are much more tightly constrained by real estate values than a course with homes around it like Mountain Lake.  I never felt there was a home anywhere near in play at Mountain Lake.  That's pretty far from the '60s and newer Florida model of condo left, lake right, or vice versa.   Or Phoenix where there is little home left, little home right, cart path right against the OB.   

[Jay Flemma]

TEP, let me get back to you later on your question, I'm still making my first pass through.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom…

I am waking up at around 4 am tomorrow and flying to Vegas for a few rounds of golf, basketball betting, and quality time with friends in general.  So, in between trying to get some rack time, packing, and trying not to oversleep…I’ll try to get my initial thoughts on CBM out.  I probably will only be able to get out my notes on the first few chapters, given all these time constraints.  Nevertheless, here goes…

Upon first getting the book, I starred at the cover and read and re-read the title “Scotland’s Gift, How America Discovered Golf”.  How America discovered golf stuck in my head for quite sometime, especially in light of the fact that this is an autobiography.  Given these facts, I could only come to the conclusion that CBM feels that the story of his life is one in the same as how America discovered golf.  Therefore, he must feel that he is, indeed, the Father of American golf.  Others may have differing opinions, and they may very well be justified, but deep down in his soul I have to believe the CBM thought of himself as the Father.  With this in mind, I began reading the book.

In the first chapter, he says that he was first introduced to golf in 1872 when he was 16 years old.  And it just happened that he was in Scotland, mainly St. Andrews.  A point that jumped out at me regarding this chapter was his comment that went something like this; golf was so simple at St. Andrews as the rules were Spartan.  He also went on to say that he wishes to that he “…could hand on unimpaired the great game as it was my good fortune to know it!”  These two things jumped out at me…whether they are vitally important or not, I trust our discussion will discover.

In the Dark Ages chapter, he mentions “just how ignorant of the game the people in America were…” and he has a truly enlightening article which follows that quote which clearly illustrates that the game Americans were playing perhaps resembled golf in some ways…but really wasn’t much like real Golf.

In the Beginning of American Golf chapter, he outlines how he was the man behind the Chicago Golf Club and how in 1893 it got its charter.  Furthermore, he details how on Dec. 22nd 1894, the USGA was formed.  It is clear that CBM was a MAJOR force behind both entities.  Another interesting item that jumped out at me was his statement that there were really no golf courses in the U.S. in 1890 that were worthy of the name.  And that how in 1927 (the year he was writing this book) there were 4,000 golf courses in the U.S.

Then in the Beginnings of the USGA chapter, it is again detailed that CBM was a founder of the USGA.  And he states how things were moving along quite well for the first 7 years of its existence with this quote, “This indicates how well the first seven meetings…passed off.  No serious disagreements marred the harmony.”  And then in 1896, it is detailed that CBM was voted to the rules committee.

Now, given my schedule…I must run and leave it here for now.  I have a bunch more comments, questions, and thoughts to post and discuss…but perhaps this can get the ball rolling.

[TEPaul]

Mac:

I think that's a pretty good analysis and a good start.

As I think I mentioned on here at some point earlier most on this website seem aware that Macdonald was arguably the Father of American golf architecture (over the years many referred to him that way) and far less aware that he very well may've been in the best position of anyone at that time (the late 1890s and the formation of the USGA) to be considered the Father of American golf itself. I suppose it's logical that since most on here are primarily interested in golf architecture, as this is a golf architecture website, they probably haven't concentrated much on Macdonald's roll in early American golf and in early American golf administration.

I guess the question is; did he see himself in that roll----eg as the Father of American golf administration and of American golf itself?

Personally, I just can't imagine that he didn't or wouldn't have seen himself in that roll at some point and perhaps quite soon, perhaps as soon as right around the turn of the century.

But how important was his roll in early American golf administration and early American golf, and how did he view his roll in it? What did his roll in it mean to the incipient American Golf Association and what did it mean to him at the time?

It seems he viewed himself as arguably the best player in America at the time or it certainly seems he expected to win the first two Amateur Championships which were sponsored only by the individual club holding the invitational championship since there was no national governing golf body at the time. It also seems he viewed himself as perhaps the most knowledgeable and familiar at the time with the workings of golf and golf administration abroad and in what most everyone considered to be the home of golf at the time, Scotland, and not just Scotland but St Andrews. Obviously, it would be a mistake for any of us to forget to consider the importance of the state of the Rules of Golf at this time as we can’t underestimate the importance of that facet for an incipient national golf administrative body such as the USGA was then, as other than the administration of national championships (just 2-3 at that time) and club membership, the Rules of Golf would inevitably be their most important administrative function.

In that vein----eg familiarity with the Rules of Golf abroad Macdonald was arguably the new USGA’s go-to guy, and particularly considering right around that time the R&A of St. Andrews was just beginning to take on the administration of the Rules of Golf generally (more on that later). Macdonald seemingly had the closest connections of any of them with the R&A and golf and its administration abroad, at that time.

Macdonald, with two others (Tallmadge of Shinnecock and Reid of St Andrews, NY) was asked to write the new association’s constitution and by-laws so obviously he was in a very central position and right at the ground floor at that time in American golf and administration. He would be appointed one of two on the Rules Committee with transplanted Englishman Laurence Curtis (of Brookline), and he was also appointed the USGA’s first 2nd Vice President. Consequently, he was on the so-called “latter” immediately to rise to the presidency of the USGA and apparently around 1901 as he was right behind Laurence Curtis, the first Vice President in 1896 (who would become the USGA's second president on the death of Theodore Havermeyer).

Was Macdonald, at that time, arguably the best golfer in America and the most familiar with golf and golf administration abroad, including the Rules of Golf and the R&A of St. Andrews?

Very ironically, he actually may not have been at that time. Those distinctions probably went to his future son-in-law, H.J Whigam, who in the late 1890s was a transplanted Scot who was acting as a reporter and war correspondent out of Chicago. But at that point Whigam may’ve been too young at 26 to take on a roll in golf and golf administration as important as Macdonald’s.

Considering that Macdonald’s roll in golf architecture and as the creator of NGLA and the consequent label of the Father of American golf architecture for it was still more than a decade away I would say Macdonald’s roll in golf and golf administration at this time was extremely important and central as well as extremely important to him (hence the inclusion of so much about USGA administrations in his 1928 autobiography) perhaps leading him to see himself as something of the formal transporter of golf to America and perhaps shortly to be considered the Father of American golf itself for it.

But this was not to be and the reasons why it was not to be are more than worth exploring, in my opinion, because I feel it was an important part of his life as his autobiography seems to clearly indicate!

[Niall C]

Tom P

As a matter of interest was HJ Whigham one of the Whigams from Troon ?

Niall

[TEPaul]

"Tom P
As a matter of interest was HJ Whigham one of the Whigams from Troon ?"


Niall:

I believe Whigam's father was D.D. Whigam of Prestwick, a man Macdonald had known from his early days in Scotland.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

I am back from Vegas and have just read your latest post.

I think I would have to agree with you that CBM considered himself the Father of American golf in general. 

Furthermore, I've got a few more notes to share and ask for comments...

pn page 85 of my edition...CBM posts a letter written by Horace Hutchinson that quotes CBM as saying that Americans need definitive rules because they play by the letter of the law, not by the spirit.  Interesting to me, as he said previously that golf at St. Andrews was so great due to the spartan rules.

Page 87 discusses the 5 member clubs agreeing to play golf  at it  was played in Scotland. 

But then on page 90 he goes on to say that that in the 1901 and 1902 the USGA minutes began to expand in size dramtically and he alludes to "Americanization" of golf and this followed the death of Havenmeyer.

So, let me ask a question here...is this "American" golf where the focus on stroke play comes from versus match play.  Seems like it might be and it makes some sense as we have discussed on this site that Americans always ask "how'd you shoot" and the British ask "how was your match".  Does that make sense?

[Jim_Kennedy]

The Open has been a stroke play format since its inception in 1860, ours has also been stroke play since its first year, 1895.   
Americans have always been obsessed w/stats, stroke play fits right into that mind set, much more so than match play.

You hit on it earlier, the difference in philosophies is what he seems to have in mind, but that philosophy could be summed up rather simply: you play the ball as it lies, period. That principle died a long time ago, well before he built NGLA, and CBM wouldn't see that same ethos today if he were reincarnated and set down in the geographic center of Scotland.

[TEPaul]

Mac:

I'm still in Fla, so I don't have the book but it seems very apparent to me that it was with USGA president Robertson (1901) when Macdonald became so disappointed in the idea of the "Amercanization" of golf. He quotes the appropriate section of incoming president Robertson's speech to that effect.

Again, when the USGA was formed Macdonald was the original second vice president which means he was on he so-called "latter" and should've been the president of the USGA when Robertson became the president----1901. At that point Macdonald was no longer on the board even though he did serve on the nominating committee and of course on the Rules committee for many years. I also believe Macdonald wrote some of the resolutions on amateur status in the teens.

[Bill_McBride]

Mac:

I'm still in Fla, so I don't have the book but it seems very apparent to me that it was with USGA president Robertson (1901) when Macdonald became so disappointed in the idea of the "Amercanization" of golf. He quotes the appropriate section of incoming president Robertson's speech to that effect.

Again, when the USGA was formed Macdonald was the original second vice president which means he was on he so-called "latter" and should've been the president of the USGA when Robertson became the president----1901. At that point Macdonald was no longer on the board even though he did serve on the nominating committee and of course on the Rules committee for many years. I also believe Macdonald wrote some of the resolutions on amateur status in the teens.

Tom, I've read Scotland's Gift a couple of times now, love to go back and forth with George's biography  .

It occurred to me that, given CBM's massive ego, any disagreement on the part of the early USGA might have been viewed by him as the ruination of golf through "Americanization."   There was such a huge UK influence on the game in the late 1890's and first two decades of the 20th Century that it's hard to believe total "Americanization" could have been possible.  By "huge influence" I mean that the course designers (other than CBM and his team), club makers, golf pros, were all from England or Scotland.  They must have been tremendously influential on the early development of American golf.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Towards the end of the first chapter, Introduction To St. Andrews, CBM gives his ideas of what golf is, and what it meant to him, during his years at St. Andrews. The paragraphs are toward the end of the chapter and begin with his description of St. Andrews; the code of honor found in the earlier rules; the playing of the ball as it lay, with only two exceptions; his lamenting the fact that a the time of writing their were 45 rules for match and 15 special rules for medal play vs. the 13 original ones that didn't need much interpretation.
He closes with saying that a "St. Andrews man" has  a lifelong reverence for, and association with, the game and the place, which led him write the closing paragraph:
 
"Would that I could hand on unimpaired the great game as it was my good fortune to know it! The iconoclast and the bolshevik, knowing nothing of golfing law or golfing sin, may mar its spirit, but I have faith in its supremacy."

The last seven words of this paragraph are those of an optimistic man.

[Bill_McBride]

I don't recall anyone saying anything about him being bitter.