Macdonald and Scotland's Gift

[Mac Plumart]

Jim...

I used a portion of that quote as well in post #40.  That type of stuff is why I love CBM so much and am interested in learning more.  That quote shows a gut-busting love for Golf and all that is true to its nature.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bill,
Replies # 20, 28, & 31 allude to that, and I think this one sentence shows that's not the case.
Even though I think it's relevant to the overall picture I'm going to remove the 'bitter' line so it doesn't step on anything else.


Mac,
It surely does.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,
Replies # 20, 28, & 31 allude to that, and I think this one sentence shows that's not the case.
Even though I think it's relevant to the overall picture I'm going to remove the 'bitter' line so it doesn't step on anything else.

Understood. 

[michael damico]

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". 

are we forgetting Arizona? It would be nice to be all inclusive, let's not discriminate now...

[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". 

are we forgetting Arizona? It would be nice to be all inclusive, let's not discriminate now...

Hard to argue with that, Michael, Florida and Arizona are definitely the poster children, with some parts of California (think Palm Springs) not far behind.

[guesst]

If you are going to do the day (36 + lunch at Muirfield) and Renaissance, don't miss North Berwick.  It will be the most fun round of your trip.  Guaranteed.

I must agree. When the Armenian and I were over the pond a few years ago, we were so enamored of North Berwick that we cancelled our week-long sojourn to England and stayed the extra week right in the little hamlet . . . and played it several more times. I'm itching to go back!

[Bill_McBride]

If you are going to do the day (36 + lunch at Muirfield) and Renaissance, don't miss North Berwick.  It will be the most fun round of your trip.  Guaranteed.

I must agree. When the Armenian and I were over the pond a few years ago, we were so enamored of North Berwick that we cancelled our week-long sojourn to England and stayed the extra week right in the little hamlet . . . and played it several more times. I'm itching to go back!

Great to hear that.  North Berwick must be lady golfer friendly, Darva, it was my wife's favorite when we made a trip to St Andrews together for the 2005 Open,  She loved Crail too, the links courses agreed with her!  I think she got an extra 30 yards off the tee and loved it.  Loved the caddies too.

[TEPaul]

"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."


Bill McBride:


I don't think there can be any real question at all of a huge UK influence on the game in America in the 1890s. I feel it can be best understood and appreciated by not necessarily looking at just the influx of journeymen Scottish and English pro/teachers/greenkeeper/clubmakers/architects etc and who they were but by better appreciated that golf virtually was non-existent in America before the 1890s. That means there were no American professional golfers, no American teachers, no real American golf greenkeepers, no American clubmakers, no American architects to speak of over here in the 1890s. It all had to be imported from abroad and Macdonald articulated this pretty well in his book.

But there are also a ton of truly fascinating cultural and social dynamics involved in all this when the game really began to explode in popularity over here towards the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century and to really understand all that one needs to really understand what Macdonald was doing and saying and thinking during that time as well.

I've said often on here that in my opinion Macdonald was a very complex man particularly due to his philosophies about many of the things to do not just with architecture but golf itself as well as how he thought it should be best administered and how it should not. I believe that Macdonald had been imbued with what he referred to as the "spirit" of the game (and its Rules and such) as they had been evolved over literally centuries at St Andrews and there was indeed a certain amount of democracy in that interesting long-term traditional ethos but on the other hand there is no question at all in my mind that Macdonald was also a classic "elitist" and when you combine those two traits or philosophies at least you really do get a very interesting dynamic.

I don't think many on here really understand the depth and breadth of that dynamic. But I certainly do think it is well worth discussing on here even though it appears to be hard to do by some whom seems to actively resist it for some reason.

[TEPaul]

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


Bill and Jim:


I'm not so sure bitter would best describe the way Macdonald apparently came to be but it just might. Perhaps something like unapproachable or unpredictable would be a better description.

You won't really find an indication of that in his own book but you sure will in some correspondences found in those so-called "Agronomy Letters."

If you don't know where to find them I'll see if I can point you to them.

[Bill_McBride]

"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."


Bill McBride:


I don't think there can be any real question at all of a huge UK influence on the game in America in the 1890s. I feel it can be best understood and appreciated by not necessarily looking at just the influx of journeymen Scottish and English pro/teachers/greenkeeper/clubmakers/architects etc and who they were but by better appreciated that golf virtually was non-existent in America before the 1890s. That means there were no American professional golfers, no American teachers, no real American golf greenkeepers, no American clubmakers, no American architects to speak of over here in the 1890s. It all had to be imported from abroad and Macdonald articulated this pretty well in his book.

But there are also a ton of truly fascinating cultural and social dynamics involved in all this when the game really began to explode in popularity over here towards the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century and to really understand all that one needs to really understand what Macdonald was doing and saying and thinking during that time as well.

I've said often on here that in my opinion Macdonald was a very complex man particularly due to his philosophies about many of the things to do not just with architecture but golf itself as well as how he thought it should be best administered and how it should not. I believe that Macdonald had been imbued with what he referred to as the "spirit" of the game (and its Rules and such) as they had been evolved over literally centuries at St Andrews and there was indeed a certain amount of democracy in that interesting long-term traditional ethos but on the other hand there is no question at all in my mind that Macdonald was also a classic "elitist" and when you combine those two traits or philosophies at least you really do get a very interesting dynamic.

I don't think many on here really understand the depth and breadth of that dynamic. But I certainly do think it is well worth discussing on here even though it appears to be hard to do by some whom seems to actively resist it for some reason.

The "elitist" part is certainly accurate, CBM was apparently very wealthy, to the point where he was able to indulge his love of golf course design without compensation.  [Certainly as he got more and more involved due to growing demand, he turned over more and more of that work to his protege, Seth Raynor]

Golf in Scotland had been a lot more egalitarian, perhaps that's another source of tension in the man's relationship with the growing sport of golf in America.

No matter what, he certainly was a fascinating character!

[Niall C]

I don't think there can be any real question at all of a huge UK influence on the game in America in the 1890s. I feel it can be best understood and appreciated by not necessarily looking at just the influx of journeymen Scottish and English pro/teachers/greenkeeper/clubmakers/architects etc and who they were but by better appreciated that golf virtually was non-existent in America before the 1890s.

TomP

Who says that the Scots and English pros in America at that time were journeymen ? Willie Campbell wasn't and neither were a lot of his contemporaries. Perhaps looking back they weren't as good as later generations but in their time they were as good as anyone.

Niall

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

You are really diving into the context of the issues and that is exactly what I need to round out my learning and begin to piece together disparate pieces of information to develop a well-rounded understanding of golf and its history.  I feel like it is one thing to know that The National was an historic golf course, another to understand why, but quite another to KNOW why.

I think you can only KNOW why when you understand all the moving pieces.  Perhaps how golf was in Europe, how it was spreading to the States, who was responsible, who were the allies, who were the antagonists (if you will), what were the competing ideals, who was in power, who wanted power, why, and what were the next shoes to drop.

"I don't think many on here really understand the depth and breadth of that dynamic (having the "spirit" of golf and being "elitist"). But I certainly do think it is well worth discussing..."

Could you proceed along this line of thinking?

[TEPaul]

"The "elitist" part is certainly accurate, CBM was apparently very wealthy, to the point where he was able to indulge his love of golf course design without compensation.  [Certainly as he got more and more involved due to growing demand, he turned over more and more of that work to his protege, Seth Raynor]

Golf in Scotland had been a lot more egalitarian, perhaps that's another source of tension in the man's relationship with the growing sport of golf in America."




"I don't think many on here really understand the depth and breadth of that dynamic (having the "spirit" of golf and being "elitist"). But I certainly do think it is well worth discussing..."

Could you proceed along this line of thinking?"




Bill and Mac:

To me that is the nub of the duality or dynamic or complexity of Macdonald. He did cut his teeth in golf at St Andrews where there apparently always had been a significant amount of egalitarianism with who was able to play with whom but I don't think there is any question that when it came to golf administration Macdonald's philosophy was seemingly more elitist than most anyone he served with on the USGA. This is well reflected in his very clear point about who he felt should be allowed to be a voting member and who shouldn't and why.


It may be going out on a speculative limb on my part (because I certainly never met the man) and it may sound politically incorrect to some today but I have always had the distinct impression Macdonald was definitely the kind of man who sort of instinctively looked down his nose at people in golf and golf architecture he felt were not educated or particularly classically educated, and back in his day I think most either know or suspect what that meant. He certainly seems to imply as much from time to time in his book. If that were in fact the case then that would certainly qualify him as an "elitist" in his makeup and attitude and philosophy, in my opinion.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

Perhaps to your point, in the Beginnings of USGA--Bogey, there is talk about full voting member clubs, 4/5 members, and 2/3 members.  And then this quote from MacDonald...

"If any association of men having a six, nine, or even an eighteen-hole golf course in nothing but name, a golf course laid out in any old place, inaccessible, unrepresentative, a hotel course, perhaps, could have had the same voting power as the leading clubs in the country where clean sportsmanship reigned supreme, we should to-day have as many varieties of golfing rules as we have clubs!  I violently opposed this change in the constitution at the great fight in 1905 and happily it did not occur unti 1927--a quarter of a century later when it was assumed men had become familiar with the game and understood it.  I still doubt the wisdom of this change."

I can see how this could be construed as elitist.  BUT given the state of golf in America prior to Macdonald's influence, I think I would be scared as hell (if I were him) to see the game veer away from the "Scottish" game to the weird game described in the last few paragraphs of The Dark Ages chapter of a game called golf that was played by the "Apple-tree gang" in 1889 in Yonkers.  Hit the ball, run around as fast as you can to it, hit it again, hole it, pick it out, tee it up, run as fast as you can, etc...for the entire course.

Was he an elitist or a Steward of the true game of golf?

[Bill_McBride]

"The "elitist" part is certainly accurate, CBM was apparently very wealthy, to the point where he was able to indulge his love of golf course design without compensation.  [Certainly as he got more and more involved due to growing demand, he turned over more and more of that work to his protege, Seth Raynor]

Golf in Scotland had been a lot more egalitarian, perhaps that's another source of tension in the man's relationship with the growing sport of golf in America."




"I don't think many on here really understand the depth and breadth of that dynamic (having the "spirit" of golf and being "elitist"). But I certainly do think it is well worth discussing..."

Could you proceed along this line of thinking?"




Bill and Mac:

To me that is the nub of the duality or dynamic or complexity of Macdonald. He did cut his teeth in golf at St Andrews where there apparently always had been a significant amount of egalitarianism with who was able to play with whom but I don't think there is any question that when it came to golf administration Macdonald's philosophy was seemingly more elitist than most anyone he served with on the USGA. This is well reflected in his very clear point about who he felt should be allowed to be a voting member and who shouldn't and why.


It may be going out on a speculative limb on my part (because I certainly never met the man) and it may sound politically incorrect to some today but I have always had the distinct impression Macdonald was definitely the kind of man who sort of instinctively looked down his nose at people in golf and golf architecture he felt were not educated or particularly classically educated, and back in his day I think most either know or suspect what that meant. He certainly seems to imply as much from time to time in his book. If that were in fact the case then that would certainly qualify him as an "elitist" in his makeup and attitude and philosophy, in my opinion.

The good news for him was that he was such a dominant elitist he could get away with it!

[TEPaul]

Mac:

Good thoughts, points and questions there.

The original by-laws of the USGA required a 4/5th vote of the board to bring a member club in as an "Associate" member which meant voting rights. A 2/3rds vote of the board could bring in a club as an "allied" member which meant no voting rights or limited rights. To me that's a pretty "elitist" structure and philosophy that was something that USGA president Robertson wanted to change to Macdonald's chagrin!

The other thing I think we need to appreciate about Macdonald and the USGA is who some of the men were who were on the board with him, particularly early on and then through the first decade of the 20th century and the teens. To say that some to many of them were heavy-weights was sort of putting it mildly, in my opinion.

The other thing to note about Macdonald is who he cultivated as his friends and fellow members and founding members and such at the clubs he had to do with. Check some of them out on Google; I think you will be amazed at some of the things they controlled.

Macdonald was clearly a very strong-willed man with a lot of strong opinions on some things but I get the sense that he knew when to "hold 'em and when to fold 'em" if you know what I mean because he did understand that there were some people even he couldn't afford to piss off and I don't just mean in golf----I mean in the rest of his world and life.

[Bill_McBride]

Mac:

Good thoughts, points and questions there.

The original by-laws of the USGA required a 4/5th vote of the board to bring a member club in as an "Associate" member which meant voting rights. A 2/3rds vote of the board could bring in a club as an "allied" member which meant no voting rights or limited rights. To me that's a pretty "elitist" structure and philosophy that was something that USGA president Robertson wanted to change to Macdonald's chagrin!

The other thing I think we need to appreciate about Macdonald and the USGA is who some of the men were who were on the board with him, particularly early on and then through the first decade of the 20th century and the teens. To say that some to many of them were heavy-weights was sort of putting it mildly, in my opinion.

The other thing to note about Macdonald is who he cultivated as his friends and fellow members and founding members and such at the clubs he had to do with. Check some of them out on Google; I think you will be amazed at some of the things they controlled.

Macdonald was clearly a very strong-willed man with a lot of strong opinions on some things but I get the sense that he knew when to "hold 'em and when to fold 'em" if you know what I mean because he did understand that there were some people even he couldn't afford to piss off and I don't just mean in golf----I mean in the rest of his world and life.

Tom, I'm not sure I agree with your last paragraph there (highlighted in red) - it seems to me that he took his ball and went home.  No more golf courses designed, not much more USGA leadership.

[TEPaul]

"The good news for him was that he was such a dominant elitist he could get away with it!"



Bill:

The way I look at Macdonald and the USGA (and his position on the USGA) was that he certainly was an elitist in many ways but he needed a number of allies in that vein or he would be sidelined on the USGA as I think he eventually was quite early on----or at least as a board member and potential president.

I have a feeling Macdonald's real problem may've been just how plugged in he was to the spirit and tradition of the other side (the R&A et al). Even if many of his USGA board member cohorts in the early days of the USGA were some very sophisticated and massively powerful people, and many of them with strong connections abroad and true familiarity with GB and Europe most all of them seemed to have an attitude of residual competition or even resentment towards some of the things that were going on with golf and golf administration on the other side.

I think this was Macdonald's raison d' etre and his mission early on with the USGA----eg UNITY between the other side(R&A) and the USGA (American golf) and frankly I think he did a masterful job of plying between the problems that arose between the two sides from time to time in the early years, and even of solving or compromising some of the potential rifts. And then of course there was the Western Golf Association which was a real thorn in his philosophical outlook and particularly since he came from Chicago before moving to New York in 1900,

Ultimately, this is what fascinates me so much about Macdonald----eg as strong-willed as he was and could be he knew very well he was up against some super-heavy-weights who were more than used to getting their way in all the aspects of their lives no matter who opposed their ideas and position including C.B. Macdonald. I feel he completely understood that perhaps mostly because he wasn't just dealing with these same people in golf and administrative golf but that in some ways he actually worked for some of them or their ilk in his real job and over time I think it truly affected him in the over-all, and about 15-20 years in it pretty much contributed to his virtual withdrawal and approachablility.

I think even the closest and most detailed researcher of Macdonald's life will find that after about 1926-27 he had pretty much totally withdrawn from most everything. I think he sort of just shrunk back into his NGLA (and Bermuda) world and even in the last few years of his life he was virtually thrown out of anything to do with even his own club----NGLA.

To me this is completely fascinating and a whole lot more than a little sad and tragic.

Always I keep thinking what would American golf have been like had Macdonald completely gotten his way in American administrative golf early on as some could make the good case he should have and had every good right to have done!

It was not to be.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, I'm not sure I agree with your last paragraph there (highlighted in red) - it seems to me that he took his ball and went home.  No more golf courses designed, not much more USGA leadership."



Well, Bill, what the hell else could he do then if he could not get his own way with them?   By the way, by the end of the teens Macdonald had nothing at all to do with the USGA!

I grew up in that world and I've been a real student of physiognomy since my teens and my years particularly in the high-priced bars and nightlife of New York back in the 1960s and the rest of that world by day which was a virtual classroom for just this kind of thing and that type of people.

I remember so well so many of those people around New York of my grandparent's and parent's generations and acquiantence. You think Macdonald was powerful or curmudgeonly and elitist and used to getting his way? You should have seen some of those people he dealt with back then including some on the USGA. Basically, if anyone one stood in their way they'd eat them for breakfast, including C.B. Macdonald. One could make a very good case that many of those people were the kings of America's social, business and political worlds.

The thing that fascinates me so much about him is the hand-writing is all over the place that probably no one understood that better than he did, and apparently very early on! I firmly believe the way he dealt with it all was fascinating and perhaps masterful until he just couldn't take it anymore. Even to some of them and their roiling high-fallutin' world in some ways he had become a pariah by the 1920s at some points throughout that decade.

I'd even be glad to list them for you Bill----I mean their names. You can look them all up on Google at this point and if you do I have no doubt at all you will begin to understand completely what I mean here.

[Mac Plumart]

What happened at the Creek?

[TEPaul]

"What happened at the Creek?"


Mac:

The Creek? What creek? What did I say about a creek?

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

Did you work for tv or radio in a past life?  That is a tease if I ever heard one.  Now I am DYING to know what happened at The Creek!!!

In all seriousness however, please do what you have to regarding asking permission and/or not posting the information at all.  Class, decorum, and tact are always the right things to abide by regarding these issues...even if I am wildly curious now!!!   

[TEPaul]

Mac:

You're dying to know what happened at some creek? What creek? Would that be something like Billy Joe McAllister throwing something off the Tallahachee Bridge into the creek? If you're talking about something I said earlier I think I may've erased it by mistake.


If so, and if you really want to know what happened at The Creek, I will make a deal with you on here. I'll explain the deal later.

Is that OK with you? I'm really just trying to pump up the ratings on here, don't you know?

[Mac Plumart]

Deal.

[TEPaul]

Mac:

I had a post to you but just lost it. The deal is that I'm willing to explain my own opinions of various unpublished club material but I will not put copies of it on this website (we are still looking at another repository for it for researchers and analysts).

Some on here have a problem with that and demand that these kinds of things should not even be mentioned or discussed on here unless and until copies of it are turned over to them. I do not subscribe to that process and those demands, and I never will with some unpublished club material. It is no different to me with The Creek than with Merion or Merion Cricket Club, NGLA, Myopia or Pine Valley or numerous other clubs I have some copies of unpublished club material from due to a working relationship. The reason I look at it this way is because I really do have respect for these various clubs regarding their own material including some that they have shared with friends and people they have working relationships with. In my opinion, if those people on here who demand copies of this kind of material be turned over to them first want to question my opinions or the bona fides of any of this kind of historical club material I feel they can simply do what I've done, and other researchers have done----eg establish their own working relationships with these clubs and work out their own arrangements with the material they share.