America's Top Courses 1910

[Tom MacWood]

Ah, nothing like the old question and question format to spark a discussion!

TMac,

What I take from your extensive list is that the notion of just how gca was going to be performed was evolving, but evolving towards the professional way of doing things quite quickly.  Even TePaul admits that the era of the amateur sportsman gca was quite limited in duration and scope, pretty much to the dozen or so courses he typically mentions.  Certainly after WWI in the teens, very few am designs were done.

I liken it to the computer sales industry two decades ago. Back then, there were some mom and pop stores and a few chains opening up, not to mention Dell in mail order.  Not many of those are around today and the whole process is a lot more streamlined and customers more savvy as it sorts out.

Just from the buyer perspective in 1910 it might have been daunting to choose a gca.  You had the amateurs and any number of Scottish Pros, including Bendelow who Spalding would send out for a song, which had to be tempting.

Sorry to thread hijack, but this is pre-coffee, pre golf Saturday morning.......

TEP usually lists a half a dozen well known courses and their amateur designers, but not all the courses he lists were solo amateur jobs - they often had help. And there were hell of lot more than a dozen amateurs operating around the country in those early years, right before and right after the turn of the century. And then you have the case of some amateurs morphing into professionals, like Bendelow, Watson, and Barker. Alex Findlay may fall into that category as well. I don't think it was that daunting in 1910, you had a lot more and a lot better designers to chose from. How daunting would it be if your choice was between an untested inexperienced insurance salesman and HH Barker or CB Macdonald?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom, that's simply a false choice and its really a shame you seem locked into a hamstrung stockade of your own prejudiced incredulity.  

For whatever reasons, call it snobbery or whatever, but its very clear from the historical record that both NGLA and Merion purposefully eschewed the use of a professional for their golf courses and seemed quite proud of that fact.

Merion did in fact use Macdonald, and leveraged his advice and suggestions in selecting their site and also had him come down just before construction to Lconsider and advise on or (five) plans", in the words of Alan Wilson as clearly reflected in the MCC Minutes of April 1911.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

I don't understand the characterizations?

By your own very Barker-biased  list the very top courses of the time in the US were all either totally or heavily designed by amateurs who usually belonged to the clubs involved.

Which Barker course or courses should I remove, and why? And what course or courses would you choose to replace them, and why?

We've already gone through the documentation about Crump, and a lot of his routing was done before Colt's arrival and much changed after his departure.   Your continued mis-characterization of that situation belies true history.

You are referring to TEP's speculating...I don't buy it. It is a documented fact that Colt was hired, he produced a design, which was largely executed and he referred to the course as his design throughout his long career.

Most of the courses in Philadelphia in 1910 or thereabouts had a strong amateur influence or design.   Philly Cricket was mostly Samuel Heebner, Herman Strouse was already highly involved in Philmont, Tillinghast and Klaudner were building a new course for Aronimink, George Fowle had designed most of the Philly Country Club and soon had revisions by E.K. Bispham, Ab Smith at Huntingdon Valley, Heebner and Thomas at Whitemarsh and so on.

In 1910 Philadelphians were doing some heavy soul searching due their consistent failures on the golf course. They concluded one of the reasons for the failures was a lack of good golf courses compared to cities like NY, Chicago and Boston....note there are no Philly courses on my list.

None of the courses you listed would be considered a top echelon design in 1910, with the possible exception of Whitemarsh Valley, and I'm still waiting for someone to document who actually designed that golf course. After 1910 you find a long line professional and seasoned amateurs working in Philadelphia.

The very early Philly courses by pros were done mostly by John Reid, Willie Campbell, a very few by Findlay (he didn't live there yet), and Willie Tucker and they just were not very good and quickly proved inadequate Tom.  

It is therefore no surprise at all that these amateur guys had the time, motive, and opportunity to design courses for themselves Tom and it's very well documented history.   This continued through the teens and 20s as many local courses were designed by amateurs like Frank Meehan and Ed Clarey and Hugh Wilson and Herman Strouse and Ab Smith, with many as collaborative efforts, like Pine Valley and Cobb's Creek and later revisions to North Hills.

Here is a link to Philadelphia 1922, which is somewhat misleading because it predates Flynn's work, but by far the most prolific and affective golf architect during this period was Donald Ross. Should we be impressed with the output of Meehan, Clearly, Smith, et al? Perhaps if you would document their design careers we would have a better sense.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35009.msg707604/


After watchiing competitive friends like Leeds and Travis and Emmet and Macdonald do the same thing for their clubs, there was no reason for these very successful men who loved the game to think they couldn't do the same thing for their own.

If it would help, I could show you the early design lineage of every prominent Philadelphia course during this time period.   I would agree that beginning somewhere around 1910 til WWI or so some more pros were beginning to be brought in, primarily Donald Ross, but both amateur and pro design motifs co-existed well into the 20s in the region, with the major pros post-war being Flynn, and Ross, with surprisingly little Tilly, who was off making a name for himself in other cities.

I'm not sure why you want to deny this well-documented history Tom.   You should really have read many of the articles Joe Bausch produced here over the past three years in this regard, Tom...it's been absolutely stellar stuff that makes it all very clear.

Whatever work early pros like Barker did near Philly for clubs like Springhaven and Atlantic City didn't last long, and was never much heralded locally.

Merion turned out pretty well.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom, again, that's simply a false choice and its really a shame you seem locked into a hamstrung stockade of your own prejudiced incredulity.  

For whatever reasons, call it snobbery or whatever, but its very clear from the historical record that both NGLA and Merion purposefully eschewed the use of a professional for their golf courses and seemed quite proud of that fact.

Merion did in fact use Macdonald, and leveraged his advice and suggestions in selecting their site and also had him come down just before construction to Lconsider and advise on or (five) plans", in the words of Alan Wilson as clearly reflected in the MCC Minutes of April 1911.

The Minutes, after saying the Committee rearranged the course and created five different plans in March/April 1911, say Macdonald and Whigham came down and "spent the day on the ground, and after looking over the various plans, and the ground itself", determined that if Merion were to lay it out according to the plan they approved ("which is submitted herewith") they'd not only have a first class course but also have the finest seven finishing holes of any inland course in the world.

Of course, one has to wonder if these were indeed plans CBM had himself created supposedly six months or earlier on some topo map as David would have us believe why CBM would then have to "look over the various plans", or even come down to look at the plans again in context of "looking over the ground itself", or why he couldn't have made up his mind over the course of the previous nine months where he was supposedly diligently working on a routing for Merion via a topo map while trying to get NGLA in condition and the club opened, but that's some of the willing suspension of disbelief that's required to actually try to digest this stuff.  

Similarly, to believe your theory that Barker routed the course in December 1910, we'd have to throw out every other single piece of contemporaneous evidence or news account ever found, but what the hell, why not.   

But hey, I guess that's what revisionist history is for...to keep conspiracy theorists occupied with their tales of intrigue, conspiracy, and paranoia.  

As far as the history of Pine Valley, there is a thread that Joe Bausch put together that documents what was happening on that course in real time as it happened.

You should read it.

You should also be aware the Colt visited Merion and Seaview, and they were proud to have him.

It's no wonder that Alan Wilson lamented in the early 20s that the US simply did not have a professional architect as good as Harry Colt.   THAT was the prevailing thinking in tow among these guys...they simply weren't impressed with much of the junk the pros on these shores had turned out, Tom.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Try to stay on topic. I'm not interested in starting a new Merion thread. Start a new thread if you are interested in re-discussing that tired subject.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

You're the one who consistently interjected Merion with your nonsense talk about "insurance man".

btw...it's another nice day.    I'm going to upstate NY to play some golf.
  
Your biased unwillingness to accept reality and documented history in this case Tom, is not going to be correspondingly met by my unending attempt to convince you.   Real life beckons.

Have a great weekend.  

[TEPaul]

"By in large by 1910, if you had any intelligence and you aspired for anything good, you hired a professional/architect or a seasoned amateur. Are you trying to make the case the people at Merion were idiots?"



Tom MacWood:

No, I am certainly not trying to make the case that the people of Merion (MMC) back in 1910 and 1911 were idiots for appointing a committee of Hugh Wilson as chairman, and four other club members to design the East and West courses. I have never made that point or case or implied it. But it seems you are trying to make the case the people of Merion were idiots if in fact the history of the initial routing and design and creation of those courses as presented by that club is correct and factually accurate!


On your course and architect attribution list in Post #74, your architect attribution  (evoutionarily and otherwise) on Myopia, The Country Club and GCGC are either incomplete or meaningfully inaccurate. 

[DMoriarty]

TomM,

Can you explain your inclusion of Oakmont?   Prior to 1910 I've seen little if anything praising the course at all.  Right around 1910, they began adding a major "bunkering system" to bring their course up to standard with other top courses of that era, but I don't think that this was completed until 1912, and even then  continued to make changes to the course to make it what it eventually became.   

[Mac Plumart]

David M...

I don't know if this will help but here is a link to some prior Oakmont discussion and how it transformed to greatness.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42260.140/

[DMoriarty]

David M...

I don't know if this will help but here is a link to some prior Oakmont discussion and how it transformed to greatness.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42260.140/

I recall the thread but I don't recall anything in it suggesting that Oakmont was considered a first class course in 1910.   I think Oakmont began to gain respect when they installed their "bunker system" and as they continued to make improvements, most of which were geared toward making the course more difficult.  While they may have began installing their bunker system in 1909, the work seems to have started in earnest in 1910, and I don't think the project was completed for a number of years.   And before the project, I don't even think those at Oakmont would have classified it as a "first-class" course.   From American Golfer, Western PA Notes, Dec. 1909, quoting Merion's Board of Governors:

Much work has been done upon hazards at the Oakmont course during the last year, and after considerable discussion it has been decided that the proposed system shall be completed without delay. As stated by the Board of Governors, the course "has been brought to a very high standard of excellence as far as the turf and putting greens are concerned and to make Oakmont one of the classic golf courses of the country we only need the traps and hazards that are the completement of every first-class course."

While substantial work had been done in 1910, by February 1911 the bunker project had not yet been completed.  From American Golfer, Pittsburg Notes:

Western Pennsylvanian clubs, in general, are prepared to complete, this year, improvements which have been in progress at their respective courses. Newly built courses will be brought to good shape and in other cases bunker systems of greater or less magnitude are to be completed.  Most important of all will be the final touches on the new bunker system at Oakmont, which will give Western Pennsylvania a course in which golfers take pride and pleasure.

By February 1912, the work must have been largely completed, but was reportedly still not quite finished.   It was around this time, though, that those in the Pittsburg area started viewing their course as comparable to the best courses in the land.

The club will complete its improvements to the grounds in the early spring, thus finishing the bunker system on which work has been carried along during the last two years. As a result of Oakmont's improvements, there has been much talk during the past two seasons of the probability of an effort to bring the amateur championship tournament of the United States Golf Association to the Oakmont course, the matter having been discussed freely by the Pittsburgh press and among the local golfers.

It has been chiefly on account of the possibility that the course might not be entirely in the shape desired that the club has not heretofore made an application for the amateur event.    From present indications it is probable that the club will be one of those desiring the tournament of 1913, as was stated, about one year ago. The completion of the improvements on the course have made it the leading one in this vicinity, and, in the opinion of many who have played on it, one of the leading courses of the country.

Changes continued the next year.  From February 1913 AG:

The 1913 National Championship Tournament will positively not take place in Pittsburgh according to the leading golfers of the local champion- ship courses. Both the Oakmont and the Allegheny Country Club courses are undergoing some improved changes, which, when finished, will make them compare favorably with any two golf courses in any other section of the country.
Positive proof has been given that Oakmont will ask for the National event in 1914. By that time the course will undoubtedly be one of the finest in the country, measuring well over 6,000 yards in length.   Since the new bunker system was instituted last year, no complaint has been made that the course is too easy. On the other hand, it has been the opposite.
. . .
Not perfectly satisfied with some of the conditions of its course, the Oakmont Country Club will make a few changes during the present off-season.

At the present time the first green is under reconstruction. The hole lies at the end of a sloping fairway which in the winter time is always heavily coated with ice. The green is being elevated about 6 feet. A few minor changes will also be made on other putting greens which did not come up to expectations the past year.

The eighteenth fairway will also show a great change next year. The fairgreen will be bunkered and the ap- proach to the elevated green will also be surrounded with formidable mounds.

TomM have you seen any accounts which put Oakmont with the top courses by 1910?  I don't think I have.  

[Mac Plumart]

David...

that is why I posted that link.  I recall, as you do, that the collective mindset here at GCA.com thought the course was not world class around 1910.  Instead, it transformed to greatness for a variety of reasons.

And we discussed that process on that thread.

[Peter Pallotta]

It's interesting that the work being done on courses around this time had so much to do with making them 'harder', and yet I imagine that this was one of the least (or maybe least obvious) lessons/goals that CBM and NGLA had brought to the forefront of  America's golfing consciousness.

Peter

 

[DMoriarty]

It's interesting that the work being done on courses around this time had so much to do with making them 'harder', and yet I imagine that this was one of the least (or maybe least obvious) lessons/goals that CBM and NGLA had brought to the forefront of  America's golfing consciousness.

Peter

From what do you conclude that "the work being done on courses around this time had so much to do with making them 'harder'?"   From Oakmont?  If so, I am not sure Oakmont is a representative sample.

NGLA was considered by many to be the hardest course in the country, at least before Pine Valley was finally finished. There weren't many criticisms of NGLA but those few were focused on the difficulty.   

[Mac Plumart]

David...

Tom Macwood said this in his rebutal to Bob Crosby's "Joshua Crane" piece:

  This rather inconsequential remark is the first clue to what was really behind the Crane debate: British golf vs. American golf, and its architectural offshoot. It was a discussion that had been going on for several years in a number of different forums. The first major confrontation came in 1917 with AW Tillinghast and JH Taylor. Taylor warned that American courses were becoming too severe, to which Tilly took exception, arguing modern Americans course although more testing were also fair and enjoyable to all classes of golfer. That more severe trend can be traced to Harry Vardon and Bernard Darwin’s criticisms of American courses a few years earlier. In 1914 Vardon wrote his infamous article ‘What’s Wrong with American Golf?,’ in which he suggested American golf was not progressing because American golf courses were weak. Darwin wrote a series of critical articles while covering the Vardon/Ray tour of 1913. Those articles were syndicated by American papers and generated quite a controversy, particularly in Chicago where he was most unflattering. The result was a design and redesign spree in Chicago in the aftermath by the likes of Colt, Ross, Watson, and others. The Chicago Tribune (10/3/1916) observed: “I am of the belief, although none of the men concerned admits it, that Darwin’s critical rejection of Chicago’s claims in 1913 served to whip the executives of the most pretentious clubs into the activities that have resulted in providing the district with the most wonderful group of high test golf courses the world has today.

I underlined part of it to highlight the idea that American architecture seemed to be focused on making courses more difficult.  Now there is no doubt this came after this 1910 timeframe we are discussing now, but perhaps it isn't totally unreasonable to consider that some people desired more challenging courses in America.  Perhaps we can look to Tom MacWood's comments on this thread that some of the original US Open and US Amateur courses were too short and too easy to be considered great.

I was under the belief that the British vs. American golf debate was the focal point/reason for the "toughening" up of American golf courses.  Again, I believe I got this from Tom MacWood.

[TEPaul]

"I underlined part of it to highlight the idea that American architecture seemed to be focused on making courses more difficult.  Now there is no doubt this came after this 1910 timeframe we are discussing now, but perhaps it isn't totally unreasonable to consider that some people desired more challenging courses in America.  Perhaps we can look to Tom MacWood's comments on this thread that some of the original US Open and US Amateur courses were too short and too easy to be considered great.

I was under the belief that the British vs. American golf debate was the focal point/reason for the "toughening" up of American golf courses.  Again, I believe I got this from Tom MacWood."



Mac:

The idea of making American architecture and American courses more difficult via increased bunkering and different bunker arrangements certainly came before 1910. Walter Travis' ideas in writing and on the ground is one example and proof of that. Travis mentioned before the middle of the first decade of the 20th century that American courses needed more bunkers as the good courses abroad had. And there are other good examples of it before 1910 too; another one would be Herbert C. Leeds' well known liberal bunkering bent with Myopia Hunt Club (and the well known story that he would throw a white chip where he wanted another bunker to penalize a missed shot he observed that had gone unpenalized).


However, it would be something of a mistake and a misinterpretation to think that the debate between Joshua Crane and Behr and Mackenzie in the 1920s was only about the subject of making architecture more difficult or not via bunkering or rough etc. It was also about, and probably much more about, who the philosophy of increased difficulty or increased penalty for missed shots via increased bunkering or particular types of bunker arrangements and increase rough was directed at!

It has been suggested by some on this website that the new philosophy in the late 1920s of the likes of Behr and Mackenzie and apparently Bob Jones of less bunkering albeit more strategically placed bunkering with the lesser total number of bunkers was only about economics. That might've had something to do with it on some of their courses but their call for greater fairway area and less or no rough was clearly a vast philosophical departure in architecture from Crane's idea (or at least what Behr and Mackenzie claimed Crane's idea was) of proportionally penalizing missed shots which generally are more common among less good players. In a number of ways in his articles Behr spoke directly to these specific points and it is undeniable in his writing!

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks Tom P.  Great stuff.

I agree that the Behr/Crane debates focused on much more than making difficult courses, but the reason I recalled Tom Macwood's rebutal to Bob Crosby's piece was that specific mention of British vs. American golf in the first part of the 1900's.  That was the first time I had heard of that and, therefore, it left an impression on me.

[TEPaul]

"I agree that the Behr/Crane debates focused on much more than making difficult courses, but the reason I recalled Tom Macwood's rebutal to Bob Crosby's piece was that specific mention of British vs. American golf in the first part of the 1900's.  That was the first time I had heard of that and, therefore, it left an impression on me."


Mac:

There were various debates and dynamics between British and American golf and golfers going all the way back to when golf really caught on in America. Those debates and dynamics involved which side had better golfers at various points in time and why, they involved debates and dynamics about the Rules of golf and also about golf courses and golf architecture and their comparative qualities or lack thereof. In a general sense it obviously all derived from a matter of national pride and in some instances became quite severe and heated in print and otherwise! Perhaps the best example was the Schnectedy Putter issue that went on for about six years and even involved the opinion of the President of the United States.

Those historic realities may've somewhat touched on and preceded some of the same issues of the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debates that began in the mid 1920s but they by no means rebut most of the specifics and realities of what the Crane vs Behr/Mackenzie debates were about with architecture.

For Tom MacWood to try to make the point that they did refute or rebut the Behr/Mackenzie vs Crane debates or refuted and rebutted Bob Crosby's presentation of the specifics and issues involved in those debates shows, in my opinion, a significant misunderstanding and misinterpretation on Tom MacWood's part of the philosophical specifics and the philosophical importance of the Behr/MacKenzie vs Crane debates.

[JC Jones]

How can courses that either opened in 1910 or finished a redo in 1910 be considered great in 1910.  Wouldn't it take at least a year of reflection to determine their greatness?

Is it possible we are looking at whether these 1910 courses were great in 1910 with the ability of hindsight and not from a contemporaneous perspective?

[Mike Cirba]

If the routing is what makes the golf course, as some have argued, then I'm not sure how Oakmont can be so easily dismissed, even without the later stringent bunkering...especially if the greens were anything like today's.

After all, Merion was pretty highly regarded right out of the gate, even with very little bunkering in its first three years of existence.  In fact, it wasn't until it was awarded the 1916 US Amateur that significant changes including the addition of many bunkers were done to "toughen" it for that contest.

[Mac Plumart]

JC...

Great point.  I would offer up that many think Old MacDonald is great.  But I agree with your sentiment that time will tell.

To your point, that is why I am so interested in progression of each and every course mentioned.  Particularly the ones that were considered great back in the day and are still considered great today.  What do they have that makes them stand the test of time?  What changes were made to keep them great?  What things were NOT done that would have ruined them?

[JC Jones]

To your point, that is why I am so interested in progression of each and every course mentioned.  Particularly the ones that were considered great back in the day and are still considered great today.  What do they have that makes them stand the test of time?  What changes were made to keep them great?  What things were NOT done that would have ruined them?

We've already had this conversation, Mac, and the answer is:

Go out and figure it out for yourself and don't tell anyone what to think (and whatever you figure out, you better agree with me).


In all seriousness, I agree that there must be something about them that is great and there must be some common thread to why they stood the test of time and others didn't.  I asked that question once......

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

No, I am certainly not trying to make the case that the people of Merion (MMC) back in 1910 and 1911 were idiots for appointing a committee of Hugh Wilson as chairman, and four other club members to design the East and West courses. I have never made that point or case or implied it. But it seems you are trying to make the case the people of Merion were idiots if in fact the history of the initial routing and design and creation of those courses as presented by that club is correct and factually accurate!


On your course and architect attribution list in Post #74, your architect attribution  (evoutionarily and otherwise) on Myopia, The Country Club and GCGC are either incomplete or meaningfully inaccurate. 

TEP
No I'm not trying to make the case the powers-to-be at Merion were idiots, I'm making the case that in 1910 if you aspired for anything good you hired a seasoned professional or amateur, which why they engaged Barker and CBM.

[Tom MacWood]

TomM,

Can you explain your inclusion of Oakmont?   Prior to 1910 I've seen little if anything praising the course at all.  Right around 1910, they began adding a major "bunkering system" to bring their course up to standard with other top courses of that era, but I don't think that this was completed until 1912, and even then  continued to make changes to the course to make it what it eventually became.    

I included Oakmont based on the early map Joe produced. It appears the course has changed very little since then. I can't explain why the course was not praised early on, perhaps being somewhat isolated, but that would certainly change shortly. The course was being seriously considered for the US Amateur in 1912, so some must have thought highly of it, but for whatever reason they took themselves out of the running. It was chosen in 1917, but the War cancelled that event.

[Tom MacWood]

How can courses that either opened in 1910 or finished a redo in 1910 be considered great in 1910.  Wouldn't it take at least a year of reflection to determine their greatness?

Is it possible we are looking at whether these 1910 courses were great in 1910 with the ability of hindsight and not from a contemporaneous perspective?

Wasn't the NGLA considered great the moment it opened? Pine Valley? Sand Hills? In the case of well publicized special designs the reflection occurs before they open which is why there is so much anticipation.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

With all due respect, if that's the case you're trying to make I think you missed the.mark.

Seriously, what do you think were the driving reasons that the ethos of clubs like Merion and NGLA both seemed so proud to have designed their courses without using professionals?