[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

I get that and respect that.  No worries.

[TEPaul]

Mac:

To your last post---I'm not stalling, believe me; I'm actually going through something of a permission process which has been occuring to me more and more as something of a necessary and required formal process to use as this whole North Shore GC thing develops on here. It may be up to some time next week at even the earliest.

[Mac Plumart]

No worries Tom.  I think the process you are going through regarding permission makes a TON of sense...if you end up not wanting to share online...that is fine.  We can talk privately at some point if that makes better sense.

In the meantime, I am continuing to work through my notes and working on an add-on post.

[Mac Plumart]

I've got a bunch of notes from the Activities of the USGA chapter.  But rather than post a bunch of stuff, I'll simply say that it seems to me that CBM seemed to love the original, spartan rules of golf as he learned them at St. Andrews.  He also seems to favor keeping the rules as they were kept in Scotland (R&A)...

but I find it odd that he was on the Rules Committee of the USGA that kept adding rules.

I can't seem to get my arms around that.  I get his point about the low golf IQ inherent in the Americans...as they hadn't played the game their whole life, like the Scottish golfers.  But still, why more and more and more rules under his watch?

Also, there seems to be a HUGE power struggle between the R&A and the USGA...American vs. British golf?

[TEPaul]

"No worries Tom.  I think the process you are going through regarding permission makes a TON of sense...if you end up not wanting to share online...that is fine.  We can talk privately at some point if that makes better sense.

In the meantime, I am continuing to work through my notes and working on an add-on post."



Mac Plumart:


Thank you very much for the above. You are a most understanding and level-headed man. If we could have 1499 others on here like you in this way it would be positively ideal!

[Mac Plumart]

I am continuing through my notes on this book and although I've found interesting tid-bits here and there, I found one that has had a big impact on my thought process behind great golf courses.  Some might disagree, but I find it to be one of the most interesting statements made by CBM in the entire book.  It is in the Lido, Yale, Bermuda chapter...

"An ideal golf course must be controlled and developed by men who love and are devoted to the game without any possible emolument."

As I said, I found this statement to be powerful.

[TEPaul]

"I am continuing through my notes on this book and although I've found interesting tid-bits here and there, I found one that has had a big impact on my thought process behind great golf courses.  Some might disagree, but I find it to be one of the most interesting statements made by CBM in the entire book.  It is in the Lido, Yale, Bermuda chapter...

"An ideal golf course must be controlled and developed by men who love and are devoted to the game without any possible emolument."

As I said, I found this statement to be powerful."






Mac:

If your interest or thought process is only reserved for what might be behind great golf courses vis-à-vis Macdonald’s statement above that’s one thing and one discussion.

However, if your interest and thought process in his autobiography goes to Macdonald himself and perhaps the way he looked at golf clubs, golf administration on any level, or even golf itself that would be another discussion, and a much broader one that should be and could be supplemented by additional available information from sources other than just his book.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

My interest is to learn not only the rote information regarding golf, but to dive deeper into things and understand what was going on and why it was going on.  Therefore, I am interested in learning along the lines of both of the things you touched on.  I understand it will take time, but God willing I should have a lot of time...in fact a lifetime of it!!

I am anxious to hear your follow up comments from a few posts back, but understand that might take a little while.  So, I am moving on through the book and my notes.  I thought the comment I posted was time appropriate (at least for me) as I just began to understand what Wolf Point was all about and just had a phone converstation with someone about building their dream course...and we talked about Pine Valley, The National, Oakmont, Pinehurst #2...courses that appear to be built from a gut-busting love of the game...not neccessarily money driven money making ventures.  It appears CBM thought that is how greatness is developed regarding golf courses.

After my son's baseball game today, I will be digging into the USGA 1911 chapter in the book and my notes on it...and then I've got another quote from the Ramblings chapter that was another life changer for me.  Not too much to do with CBM, but simply an amazing quote (at least I think it was).

What a great book and what a great site GCA.com is!!!

[TEPaul]

"Tom...
My interest is to learn not only the rote information regarding golf, but to dive deeper into things and understand what was going on and why it was going on.  Therefore, I am interested in learning along the lines of both of the things you touched on.  I understand it will take time, but God willing I should have a lot of time...in fact a lifetime of it!!"




Mac:

While reading the above from you today something occured to me that I've never thought of before and when one begins to consider it I have a feeling it just could offer a remarkable view and insight into what Macdonald was arguably looking at and going through early on in his career with American golf.

By that I mean the idea of and the formation of the USGA in 1894. Of course we all realize that was the first attempt to create a national governing body for golf in America but it just occured to me it also may've been the first attempt to create a national governing body like it in the world! If that was the case, then from his perspective it is pretty heady stuff. At least it seems pretty heady stuff to me in retrospect. Talk about being there at "the creation" so to speak, and not just of the creation of the USGA but of a body for golf administration like it anywhere in the world.

Most all of us tend to look back at the R&A as the prototype and precedent for an administrative body of golf in this world but ironically, at that point---eg 1894, the R&A was just one of a number of clubs abroad that dealt with golf rules----eg their own at their own course and club. I suppose at that time the R&A may've gotten into basically administering the British Amateur and British Open tournaments in some way but I'm not even sure about that. I do know the R&A formally began to administer the Rules of Golf worldwide with the exception of the Americas but actually that came later (1897-1899) after the formation of the USGA and the R&A was also apparently somewhat reluctant to do it at first.

Think of this from that perspective when the members of five American clubs got together one evening in New York at the Calumet Club on December 22, 1894 to form the USGA! The oft-told story is that Macdonald instigated the creation of a national governing body for golf in America (the USGA) because of his two near loses within a month of one another in the first two so-called American Amateur Championships in 1894 that were conducted under the auspices of the individual clubs that held them and were actually no more than club invitationals.

So that story goes but in his autobiography Macdonald assigns the instigation and inspiration to form the USGA to H.O. Talmadge of the St. Andrews GC and Laurence Curtis of the Country Club of Brookline. Macdonald was made the initial 2nd Vice President and he and two others were asked to draw up the Association's constitution and by-laws. Seven months later he and Curtis were asked to be a committee of two to interpret the Rules of Golf for America. At this point it seems to have been Macdonald who insisted that the USGA link itself to the R&A and unify with them on the Rules of Golf, even if, at that point, the R&A had not yet agreed to administer the Rules of Golf generally.

The more I think about this, Mac, the more I really do wonder why Macdonald did not become the third president of the USGA as he was initially in line to be and I wonder more what that missed opportunity must have meant to him when he looked at himself as perhaps effectively the greatest and most comprehensive representative in America to transport the game and its future administations from the old country, and most specifically from the R&A of St. Andrews, to this country in the beginning.

I just have this certain sense that for whatever the reasons he did not manage to stay on the so-called "latter" at some point between 1899 and 1901 when R.H. Robertson (who it is certainly not hard to tell from his autobiography he had some strong philosophical differences with) became the USGA's third president rather than him that that very event may've contributed to his first real disappointment in golf over here. Frankly, it may've even been a primary reason that he conceived of the idea of the creation of NGLA. It's at least noteworthy that happened at the very same time!

[Mac Plumart]

Now that is what I am talking about!!!

You are piecing together a mosaic based on information and data you have collected over the years to paint a picture of what might have driven people to take the actions they did.  Will your ideas ever be proven correct?  Probably not...but are they worthy enough to consider...and consider very seriously...I think so without a doubt!!  Great work.

I think you are spot on about MacDonald wanting a global ruling body regarding the way to play golf.  I think he was appalled at how golf was played in the US prior to his influence and I think he didn't want to see it veer away from the Scottish game.  I think he had some real issues anytime the R&A and the USGA had differing opinions.  And I think you are totally correct that Robertson and CBM had issues as well.

And now that you mention the potential reason that NGLA was built, I wonder if Mid-Ocean was built for similar reasons.  Didn't CBM vacation quite frequently and for long periods of time there?  Perhaps "vacation" is the wrong word.

Excellent work/post and tremendous food for thought.

[Peter Pallotta]

Hi TomE -

you mention the creation of a national governing body to administer the rules, across the board and not on an ad-hoc/club-based basis. A question: is there any evidence in Macdonald's writings that he was interested in the creation of a national administration for other reasons as well? In particular, I'm wondering if there are any indications that he also wanted to establish/administer the criteria by which golf clubs-golf courses would be allowed to become members of a national association that governed the game; and if so, if the quality of architecture manifest at those potential golf clubs-members would have been part of the criteria for membership. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Peter

[JC Jones]

I'd participate on this thread but I don't understand Scotland's Gift: Golf; neither what is written on the lines nor what is in between them.

[JMEvensky]

Hi TomE -

you mention the creation of a national governing body to administer the rules, across the board and not on an ad-hoc/club-based basis. A question: is there any evidence in Macdonald's writings that he was interested in the creation of a national administration for other reasons as well? In particular, I'm wondering if there are any indications that he also wanted to establish/administer the criteria for which golf clubs-golf courses would be allowed to become members of a national association that governed the game; and if so, if the quality of architecture at any and all golf clubs-courses would have been part of that criteria for membership. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

Peter

Peter P,glad you're back.Your contributions were missed.

Trying to read between the lines of your question,are you asking if CBM's ulterior motive was being the ultimate judge of worthy architecture?

I have no proof nor any agenda,just curious.

[Mac Plumart]

Hey Peter...

I know you asked your question of Tom Paul, but I posted something that might be related to your question in post 63.  Here is a cut and paste of that previous post...

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?

Is this the kind of stuff you are looking for?

[Peter Pallotta]

Thank you, J. And yes, you put it very nicely, i.e. I was wondering if there is evidence that CBM's motives around the creation of a national governing body were, at least in part, architecturally based. (And like you, I am just curious -- I have not read enough to form an opinion.) And thanks Mac - yes, I was looking for those kind of comments; but again, in that snippet CBM seems to be talking mainly about the rules and the nature of the club itself (the club 'culture' as it were) and not architecture.
Peter

[TEPaul]

PETER!!

It's just terrific to see you back even for a post!


You asked:

"A question: is there any evidence in Macdonald's writings that he was interested in the creation of a national administration for other reasons as well? In particular, I'm wondering if there are any indications that he also wanted to establish/administer the criteria by which golf clubs-golf courses would be allowed to become members of a national association that governed the game; and if so, if the quality of architecture manifest at those potential golf clubs-members would have been part of the criteria for membership."


Absolutely! There were a number of reasons Macdonald and according to him some others in the beginning believed a national association and national governing body was necessary.

1. To be the administratative body of national championships. The first two so-called national amateur championships (both of which Macdonald just missed winning) were basically invitationals of two individual clubs (Newport first and St Andrews in NY second) and other clubs apparently felt that was neither fair nor representative.

2. To administer a unified code of Rules nationally and a code that was unfied with the R&A's code of Rules.

3. To define and administer amateur status.

4. To vote on the inclusion of member clubs in the National Association.

But Macdonald felt very strongly that membership of clubs in the USGA should be separated into two classes----eg those with voting rights and those without. They were referred to then as "Associate" clubs or membership (those with voting rights) and "Allied" clubs or membership (those without voting rights). It seems in this way Macdonald was on the extremely conservative or elitist side and mentality.

His reasoning was that only clubs that understood the ancient and honourable traditions of the game (according to the board of the USGA) should be allowed to vote on USGA matters (at USGA annual meetings and such). A 4/5th vote of the board was necessary initially to admit "Associate" member clubs (voting rights) while a 2/3rds vote could admit clubs as "Allied" members (no voting rights). Apparently Macdonald believed that only those with obvious intelligence should be allowed representation wth a vote or a say which of course is the classic elitist philosophy and mentality.

Macdonald also abhored the idea of innovation for innovation's sake, whether that be in golf administration or even golf course architecture. His suspicion of and apparent abhorence of the idea of innovation is a theme we find interwoven through his entire autobiography in a number of subjects. He was above all completely dedicated to the idea of maintaining old and honourable traditions and to accomplish that unity with those he felt believed in that and practiced that was his primary tool and advocacy thoughout his life and times in golf.

Macdonald claimed that president Robertson advocated the revision of the USGA's Constitution and By-laws to provide for the abolition in the distinction in class of membership and to Macdonald and some others he said that amounted to treason!

All this can be found in his book in the chapter entitled "Beginningof the USGA----Bogey."

 

[TEPaul]

Peter:


As far as Macdonald advocating the traditional or as he generally called it "the classical" in golf architecture and the art of golf course architecture, yes he did. He said it directly with no qualification in his book. The fact that he very publicly advocated the copying of time-tested famous holes and famous time-tested architectural principles from abroad for his NGLA (and his style) is ample evidence of that.

The opposite of what he believed in this way he generally called "innovation" and attempts at "novelty" and he railed against it.

This is a factor and issue with which he may've been somewhat misunderstood over here by some but there is no question that some, and some significant American architects disagreed with him on that whether fairly or unfairly, and they said so, a few directly and some more indirectly. Travis was clearly the most vocal on this issue and at least one of his editorials is a good example of it.

[Mac Plumart]

Ok…

Here is a little time line I put together and some closing thoughts.

1872…CBM discovers golf
1893 Chicago Golf Club has 18 holes
1894 USGA (AGA) formed—Havenmeyer President
1895 Chicago Golf Club moves
1896 CBM and Curtis named to Rules Committee of USGA
1897 Havenmeyer dies;

1901 RH Robertson elected USGA President (3rd President I think)…as a note CBM states that the troubles at the USGA started at this time…I think this trouble is over the “Americanization” of golf.

1905…CBM makes his “first battle to keep the game clean in America and prevent it from becoming controlled by a mob”…regarding the class of members.

1907…“storm broke in a wave of indignation, demanding a revision of the St. Andrews rules.”…this seems to be regarding the types of golf clubs allowed to be played, specifically center-shafted putters.

1911…USGA and R&A back in harmony, but CBM notes that there was no formal recognition that the USGA had an obligation to confer with the R&A (and vice-versa) before making any rules changes

1917-1927/1928 (the time the book was written/published)…issues with the professionalism, the stymie, the ball, and clubs arise and various splits between the R&A and the USGA arise (and also splits between the USGA and the WGA).


Interestingly enough, here are some other things going on…

1901…CBM is inspired with the idea to build the ideal golf course
1902…CBM goes abroad to study golf courses
1906…CBM’s studies are complete
1908…NGLA is incorporated
1909…NGLA first played
1911…NGLA formally opened
1919…Mid-Ocean started
1921…Mid-Ocean complete


So, it is coincidence that CBM got the idea to build the ideal golf course at the same time the time RH Robertson and the USGA began to “Americanize” golf and split from the R&A?  My personal opinion is no, I do not think it is a coincidence at all.

Why do I think that?  For starters, this theme is prevalent through his entire autobiography.  In fact, in opening chapters he says, “Would that I could hand on unimpaired the great game as it was my good fortune to know it!”   And then in the very end of the book he quotes the R&A as saying this…

“We are going to play the game as it was handed down to us by our forefathers.  We will tell you how it was handed down, and we will give you our interpretation of the rules and endeavor to convey to you all the spirit of the game, but do as you like, much as we desire to see you play the game that has been played for some many centuries in Scotland.”

Furthermore, as I type this I am struck by a quote from “Golf in the Kingdom” and Melvyn’s feeling regarding the game.  The quote from the book is this:  “I have come to think that a person grows in his regard for the rules as he improves his game. The best players come to love golf so much they hate to see it violated in any way.”   And we all know how Melvyn feels about how golf was intended to be played.  

I think the CBM simply loved golf…the real and true game of Golf that has been played in Scotland for years and years and years.  So, why might CBM have retreated away from the game?  Perhaps it morphed into a game other than Golf as he knew it.

[TEPaul]

Mac:

That's a very good time-line; thanks for that (there are a few little "housekeeping" necessities (errors) in it I'll correct at the end).

Your personal feelings about much throughout that timeline conform with my own personal feelings.

As I've mentioned on here before much of this part of Macdonald and his life and book are not of primary interest to perhaps most on this website probably because it does not relate directly to golf course architecture. Nevertheless, to me, and seemingly to you, it is nevertheless fascinating and completes the tapestry of his life and times and one can hardly deny that it has to interrelate in various ways with everything else he did including architecture which is doubtlessly true of anyone's life and times with some of their primary interest and activities. In the case of Macdonald, however, his complete life and times throughout that timeline probably deserves our interest and attention more than most anyone else of that time simply because he really was right there at the heartbeat of so much of it compared to most others of his contemporaries of that timeline.


Corrections and additions to the timeline:

1. The first president of the USGA was Theo. Havemeyer.
2. Curtis and Macdonald were appointed as the USGA's Rules Committee of two but more importantly they were also the intial in that order first and second vice presidents.
3. Macdonald's book was published in 1928 not 1917. When he suddenly resigned from The Creek Club where he held the position of the president of the holding company (Kellenworth Corp) of the club in the late fall of 1926 (after an obvious dispute with a primary administrator of the club) the reason he gave is that he wanted to spend extended time at his cottage in Bermuda to write his autobiography ("Scotland's Gift Golf").

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks Tom...very good stuff.

FYI, I made a clarification on my time table...obviously a bit of it was unclear.

I agree with you on the importance of CBM's entire life and how it relates to golf as a whole. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Can CBM's life be simply that he fell in love with the game and all aspects of the game and pursued them with an all consuming passion ?

[BCrosby]

TEP -

A propos CBM's interest in the rules, CBM was appointed by John Low as a member of the R&A rules committee around 1910. The idea was, given CBM's clout with the USGA and his friendship with Low and others, he would be the liaison between the two groups. CBM was a also member of the USGA delegation in 1921 that met with a R&A delegation to iron out cross-Atlantic rules inconsistencies. I don't know if CBM was still on the R&A rules committee at that time. I would doubt it due to obvious conflict of interest reasons.

Where did the the delegations meet? In Crumbo Croome's office at Field magazine in London.

BTW, who is this person you call "Peter"? Do we think he might be (sotto voce) Canadian??

Bob

[Mac Plumart]

Bob...

I believe that CBM re-signed from the R&A rules committee in 1926.  This is off the top of my head...I will verify in a few mintues.

[BCrosby]

Mac -

I might be wrong about the date of his original appointment by Low. Let me know what you find. The whole idea of his appointment to a R&A committee I find somewhat amazing.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Sure it could be but in my opinion Macdonald was most definitely of such central importance to early American golf it's far more interesting to look a lot deeper into his life and times than just that.

Welcome back. Have you been chasing pretty young skirts around fancy swimming pools in Southeast Florida again and maybe playing a little golf on the side when the pretty young skirts were still sleeping it off?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()