[Mike Cirba]

In May of 1911, Walter Travis reported;

"The Columbia course will not be in any condition to hold a tournament until a year from this spring, as it is an entirely new course.   There are many good holes, and the general contour of the land is much better than the old course."

Which begs the question...

Which courses designed by HH Barker were actually open for play and viewable as proof of his work in the spring of 1910?   I know Rumson didn't open til later....Arcola perhaps?

How about revisions by Barker?

I'm not sure what Barker did at Waverly, but according to the club there was a course on the present site since back in the 1890s.   AAC?   Atlantic City??   When were those changes actually accomplished on the ground by the clubs?

[Mike Cirba]

Nope...Not Arcola, which apparently didn't open for play until sometime after this March 1912 photo;

I'd ask again, what major architectural works of HH Barker's were actually in the ground and open for play by spring 1910 that could be considered by clubs looking at a course of action for their own clubs at that time?

[Mike Cirba]

Rumson doesn't seem to have been opened by spring 1910, either.

In September 1911, six months after Barker became the pro at Rumson, the following report of the Eastern Pro Golfers tournament held at Rumson was recorded for American Golfer;

championship won at the end of the
third round, but a very indifferent 46
going out in the concluding round destroyed
his chances. The event was
played at the Rumson Country Club
course, which is a new one and, unfortunately,
was not in good condition,
the greens especially being very poor
indeed. With age, however, the
course promises to be a very good one.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Now you're really stretching it.

The basic question of your thread is this;   what would a club looking to build a new course in early 1910 have out there as models of excellence in US golf?   Right??

Your list includes a ton of either start-ups, or major revisions that happened in 1910, and as they were brand-new certainly wouldn't have been considered by any club in question.   Furthermore, when Vardon saw them, they had another 3 years of development, which in these fledgling years, may as well been a lifetime.  

Which of the courses changed significantly between 1910 and 1913? And if they did change who carried out the changes?

For instance, would you argue that Garden City in 1905 was the same as Garden City in 1908?   Merion in 1912 the same as Merion in 1915??   And so on...

Did Vardon write anything about GCGC, and is there any dispute GCGC was one of the top courses in 1910?

Later today I'll post some articles that will show that many of the course you mentioned were in transition from cross-bunkered, "Cop" bunkered affairs that were very rote and mindless to some degree of "scientific bunkering", which was at various stages of implementation by 1910.

The bottom line is still that in early 1910, the very best US courses were all designed by amateurs for their own clubs, and the second tier of Ekwanok, Pinehurst, and others all had heavy amateur influence and architecture in the form of Walter Travis.

This list runs contrary to your opinion. First of there were more than 2 or 3 premier golf courses in America in 1910. Second the two or three courses you do cite also had professionals involved. Mayfield, Ekwanok, Chicago, Brookline, Baltusrol, Oakmont, etc were not second tier golf courses then, or now. They all hosted major championships.

Most of the rest were far below this, or so new as to be outside anything anyone would have considered as they made their architectural choices in 1910.

[Tom MacWood]

Speaking of which Tom, why are we even discussing Mayfield in this context?

It didn't open until 1911, and even then it was just being developed and raw as many members were still playing the Euclid course at that time.

Also, shouldn't former Euclid pro Bertie Way get some design credit there?

I thought there was something off....

Do the rest of your dates reflect the year the course was designed and/or revisions were made, or when they were actually in play and viewable by others and therefore germane to your larger question?   

Mayfield was designed in 1909, seeded in the spring of 1910, and ready playable in late 1910, although I don't believe it was formerly opened in 1911. Some of the members of Euclid formed Mayfield but they were separate clubs. Some of the Euclid members formed another club too, I believe it was Oakwood. The lease on the land at Euclid expired at the end of 1910.

I probably should give Way credit since he built the golf course. He is also a good example of an experienced professional.

[Tom MacWood]

In May of 1911, Walter Travis reported;

"The Columbia course will not be in any condition to hold a tournament until a year from this spring, as it is an entirely new course.   There are many good holes, and the general contour of the land is much better than the old course."

The last tournament at the old Columbia was played in late September 1910 after which they moved immediately over to the new course. The new Columbia was designed in 1909.

Which begs the question...

Which courses designed by HH Barker were actually open for play and viewable as proof of his work in the spring of 1910?   I know Rumson didn't open til later....Arcola perhaps?

How about revisions by Barker?

I'm not sure what Barker did at Waverly, but according to the club there was a course on the present site since back in the 1890s.   AAC?   Atlantic City??   When were those changes actually accomplished on the ground by the clubs?

Weren't you mocking Waverly earlier in the thread? I believe it was brand new course. The new course was opened in October 1910. Barker redesigned Atlantic City in 1908, and those changes were implemented over the next couple years. Barker redesigned AAC in 1910, and after he submitted his plan to Merion. I don't believe those plans were all completed until 1911.

 

[Tom MacWood]

I'd ask again, what major architectural works of HH Barker's were actually in the ground and open for play by spring 1910 that could be considered by clubs looking at a course of action for their own clubs at that time?

Why are you so hard on poor Barker? I'm not sure in matters how many courses were in play in spring 1910, since there is no disputing the powers-that-be at Merion engaged him in the spring of 1910, but I'd guess about a dozen designs and redesigns by the end of 1910. I don't think it makes a difference one way or the other. I don't see a prospective club traveling across country to visit one of his courses before hiring him. I believe his connection to Travis and word of mouth were his biggest friends.

But this exercise is not about Barker it is about the state of golf architecture in 1910. In 1910 if aspired for anything good you hired experience professional or amateur, you do not hire an inexperience, untested, insurance salesman.

[Tom MacWood]

I've contended that any number of courses on Tom's list were either still markedly flawed by 1910 as a result of having originally been conceived in the form of cross-bunkered, "copped", turn of the century designs that were still in the early process of evolving to something better, or those that were just opening around 1910 and still raw and developing.

Exhibit 1 is a 1910 list of courses in Long Island.   At the time, NGLA is not yet open, and amateur Dev Emmet's Salisbury seems according to Travis who wrote the article as a few years away from being really good, despite obvious potential.   

More to come...

Nice try. This was written in March 1910 so it was based on 1909. Travis was very high on Salisbury, which was reflected in these comments and other articles he wrote about the golf course. They were playing golf at the NGLA in 1910, so that is non starter as well. And you forgot to mention the comments regarding your 'deeply flawed' Nassau. I guess it wasn't deeply flawed after all.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Don't you think it is about time you and others stopped writing that the golf course at NGLA wasn't open for play in 1910?   It is extremely disingenuous and misleading, and suggests that you are more in rhetoric than fact.  I've posted photos of golfing at NGLA from 1909.  They played a tournament there in July of 1910, and the course was reported as open for play in 1910.   

From the June 26, 1910 NY Sun: 
On Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, July 2, 3, and 4, the Founders and Associate Members of the National Golf Links of America will have their first informal meeting over the new course, which has been in preparation for three years.  This is not an invitational tournament.  The national golf links is not to be formally opened until June, 1911. In the meantime the course is open for play, and in order that the committee may have the opinion of all of the members this first informal meeting is called and a few prizes will be played for.  Among those who will take part . . .  (emphasis added)

How many times have you been made aware of this?   Why do you continue to misrepresent it?

[Mac Plumart]

Tom M...

You say..."But this exercise is not about Barker it is about the state of golf architecture in 1910. In 1910 if aspired for anything good you hired experience professional or amateur, you do not hire an inexperience, untested, insurance salesman."

How do you know that for a fact?

Also, I posted this a bit earlier...

I think Mike makes a great point and one in which I think we all need to consider if, indeed, we want to get to the bottom of things.  And that is the article from Vardon was published in 1915 and most likely centered on his 1913 tour.  But we are talking golf courses in 1910. 

Tom Macwood says not much changed from 1910 to 1913.  Tom, what makes you say that?  I'd love to see how all the pieces of information lead you to that conclusion.  Not that I am questioning you, rather I am interested in learning about this stuff.  I find that given that I have so much to learn about this topic when someone posts information designed to educate on topic X, I also learn things about topics Y and Z.  Perhaps my previous point illustrates that.

Anyway, if you could post some items and/or educate us on how you conclude that not much changed from 1910 to 1913 I think that would be great.


Mike C...Great articles; thanks for sharing were you got some of your ideas from.

[Peter Pallotta]

If we are to deem the 1910 courses good, don't we first need to deem the commentators and their commentary goodl?

Yes, most every commentator used by us to confirm/deny that the course(s) were good were first-hand witnesses and experts in their day. But they, like us, must've had their biases and preferences.

That doesn't disqualify them or their views, but I wonder if -- especially in those fluid times of quick change and new ideas -  the commentators themselves found their own preferences and biases changing, even over just a few years.  (Would the features they thought praiseworthy and desirable in 1910 be the same ones they thought praiseworthy 5 years later?)

The alternative to assuming this to be the case/likely is, it seems to me,  that those commentators and those courses which they deemed good/great manifested some kind of perennial philosophy of good golf course architecture.

In other words, that there are timeless and objective standards of quality.

I'm not denying such standards (or at least the possibility of such)....but the idea does seem to run counter to the modern-day thoughts of many on this board.

Peter

[Mac Plumart]

Peter, I think you make excellent points.  These biases you mentioned are precisely why I like the Top 100 lists that are a collection of a variety of opinions.  But we didn't have these lists (as far as I am aware) in 1910.  Which opens up the need for discussion and discovery.  Open, honest and flowing communication could probably piece together a really nice list.

[TEPaul]

"Why are you so hard on poor Barker? I'm not sure in matters how many courses were in play in spring 1910, since there is no disputing the powers-that-be at Merion engaged him in the spring of 1910,"



Personally, I've always felt it is most interesting and probably quite indicative of the mentality of MCC (Merion) and the direction they were planning to go in architecturally (the "amateur/sportsman" route and not the professional architect route) that the 1910 MCC Search Committee thought to SPECIFICALLY put in their July 29, 1910 report to the MCC Board of Governors that they DID NOT hire or engage HH Barker to look at the land in Ardmore or do an architectural sketch for them. They specifically wrote that HH Barker's visit was 'on the account of' (paid for by) HDC representative, Edward Connell, the Main Line residential real estate developer who had nothing to do with MCC. Within a week or so they brought in their own advisers on the project, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam, and it is also interesting and probably quite indicative to consider how they described them in that same report to the Board of Governors.

[Tom MacWood]

In 1913 Bernard Darwin spent a month in the US reporting on Vardon and Ray. The courses he saw were GCGC, NGLA, Brookline, Myopia, Onwentsia, Glen View, Chicago, Homewood and Old Elm. In his opinion the NGLA was the best American golf course, and one of the two or three best in the world. He thought Myopia was as good as any inland course he had ever seen; on par with the best in England. He was very high on Brookline; not as good as Myopia but comparable with some of the top Surrey courses. I did not care for GCGC. He thought it was difficult, but not particularly thrilling or interesting. In Chicago he thought Wheaton and Homewood were the best, and expected Old Elm, which was yet to be completed, to be their equal. He thought Glen View was pretty, but way too easy. And of all the courses he saw he was most critical of Onwentsia, and by the end of 1913 it was reported due to his criticism the club had hired William Watson to overhaul the course. In that same report we discover the club's professional had toured some of the leading eastern and mid-western courses, the CC of Detroit and Mayfield were singled out. What is interesting about the timing of the tour, it was before Vardon's famous article listing those two plus Toronto as the best.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
So based on this rather positive report in 1909 you concluded Fox Hills was 'deeply flawed'? Flawed, yes, deeply flawed, I don't think so. The author believes with a few changes, namely making the course more difficult, it could be the second best in the Metropolitan district. And evidently the club took the criticism to heart because in 1910 it was reported they had added 30+ bunkers. Those changes were likely carried out by the club's professional Isaac Mackie, who was infamous as a golf architect whose courses were heavily bunkered.

[Mac Plumart]

Ok...I need to re-set things just a little bit as I am getting lost.

This thread is designed to determine the best American golf courses in 1910, right?

I think we have a consensus that the top 3 were NGLA, Myopia, and Garden City...in that order.  It appears NGLA is undisputed at #1.  Myopia seems to be well-liked, but Garden City was called a bit boring by Darwin...hence its #3 ranking.

Does anyone disagree?  If so, what changes should be made.

Assuming no major quibbles are brought up, what would be courses 4-6?

[Mike Cirba]

So, if I have this right, the number of courses a club considering a new course could look to in the spring of 1910 that were;

1) Solely designed by a golf professional

2) Already open for play and therefore viiewable as to achieved results

3) Not already been significantly revised by an amateur such as Walter Travis

and

4) Not significantly revised based on recommendations of a professional in 1910 with changes likely not yet in the ground, we're left with...

the following courses as examples of the excellent work and pinnacles of achievement by professional golfer up until 1910.


Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)

Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)

Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)

Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)

Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)??

Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)

Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)?

Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)

Waverly - H.Barker (1910)


Hmmmmmm...quite objectively, I'd have to say that I'm pretty sure that's not a very strong showing.    

I posted an article about Baltusrol's state in 1910 some pages back and more recently about Fox Hills.

Any interest from anyone in me posting similar articles about Apawamis and Nassau?

[Mike Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

Don't you think it is about time you and others stopped writing that the golf course at NGLA wasn't open for play in 1910?   It is extremely disingenuous and misleading, and suggests that you are more in rhetoric than fact.  I've posted photos of golfing at NGLA from 1909.  They played a tournament there in July of 1910, and the course was reported as open for play in 1910.   

From the June 26, 1910 NY Sun: 
On Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, July 2, 3, and 4, the Founders and Associate Members of the National Golf Links of America will have their first informal meeting over the new course, which has been in preparation for three years.  This is not an invitational tournament.  The national golf links is not to be formally opened until June, 1911. In the meantime the course is open for play, and in order that the committee may have the opinion of all of the members this first informal meeting is called and a few prizes will be played for.  Among those who will take part . . .  (emphasis added)

How many times have you been made aware of this?   Why do you continue to misrepresent it?



David,

I agree with you.   The course opened informally for a small invitational tournament to get feedback from better players in July of 1910, and then to the club members in 1911.

The contemporaneous article I posted that said the course wasn't open yet was from the spring of 1910, a few months before soft opening.   

One thing I don't understand is when I see some folks attribute the opening to 1909...it clearly wasn't open then.

On the other hand, that tells us that CBM was very, very, very busy in the latter half of 1910 and spring of 1911, especially as reports from that opening tourney mentioned that the course conditioning at that time was quite raw and needing further maturity.   

[RSLivingston_III]

Your not finding much using an end date of 1910 because golf was still at its very beginnings in this country. The teens was the big growth decade for golfers and the 20s seems to be the biggest growth decade for golf courses, especially after some sophistication about play and then design came along. I think the biggest concern in golf, circa 1910, was just having a place to hit balls. I wonder how many people there were in this country that were worried about a golf courses quality?
I think it was very appropriate you added emphasis to that line in the last post. I bet it is VERY indicative of the overall view of the game in that time.
Also not sure how you can compare golf courses that no longer exist. And who on this site has knowledge of what was there.

[Mike Cirba]

Ralph,

I think your post is very insightful.

I'd simply add that one very overlooked factor in how the quality of golf courses was viewed circa 1910 was the ability to grow reasonable turfgrass for the playing of the game, which at that time was hardly a given.

-kll try to post some articles this weekend that speak to that important issue.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

Your ability to misinterpret even the simplest things is truly astounding.  
--   You wrote that this was a "small invitational tournament."  In fact, this was not an invitational tournament.  That is why the article said: "This is not an invitational tournament."
--   You wrote that this was just for better players.   In fact, the gathering was for the entire membership -- the Founders and Associates.  That is why the article said: The Founders and Associate Members of the National Golf Links of America will have their first informal meeting over the new course."
--   You wrote that the course would not be opened for member play until 1911.  In fact, the course was open for play at the time the article was written.   That is why the article said, "In the meantime the course is open for play."  

You say that the course "clearly" wasn't open for play in 1909.  Yet we know they were golfing there in 1909 because there were photographs.  I don't know whether NGLA was open to the entire membership in 1909, but you seem to think it "clearly" was not.  Any facts to support this.  ?

As for your conjecture that "CBM was very, very, very busy in the latter half of 1910 and spring of 1911," nice try.  By the way, how much busier is very, very, very busy than very, very busy or very busy or even busy?  What do you suppose CBM was "very, very, very busy" doing that winter and spring?  Watching the grass grow? Anyway, if he was as busy at NGLA as you think, then any time he took away from the course must have been to attend to matters he felt were of the upmost importance.  

____________________________________________

Ralph, I agree that it is difficult to know the quality of courses that no longer exist.  I think we tend to favor courses that we consider good now, even if at the time they may not have been considered much good.  The best we can do is look at course that were considered to be good then and I think this is what TM has tried to do.  

I am not sure I agree about whether or not clubs were worried about their golf course's quality at this time.   Looking at the old literature, it seems that with NGLA the quality of golf courses not only became a very important, but also the understanding of what a good course began to change.  And the methodology of creating golf courses around this time also radically changed.  So right around 1910 or a bit before was the beginning of a different era in American golf course design.  

But 1910 may be a bit early to when it comes to looking at the impact of this era.  There were quite a few courses started in the late aughts that may not have been fully on line in 1910.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Sorry, but you really need to take this up with George Bahto (sorry George...God bless you, my friend!).

From George's book, page 68, titled, "The First Invitational", George and Gib write, in a chapter titled "The First Invitational";

"On July 2, 1910, 14 months before the official opening, the course was FINALLY ready for a test run (emphasis mine)."

An informal Invitational Tournament was held for a select group of founders and friends invited to participate.

A qualifying round was played the first day, followed by two days of match play.   The course was still rough with temporary tee boxes, and a few bare spots on fairways and greens.   (emphasis still mine, with more to come)  MACDONALD WAS STILL ALTERING AND REFINING THE COURSE.   IN FACT, A NEW 9TH GREEN (current 18th) WAS ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION BEFORE THE COURSE EVER OPENED."

....

(Even more emphasis added)Besides the 9th (Current 18th), soon expanded by 60 yards, Macdonald CHANGED HIS MIND AND STRETCHED THE SAHARA HOLE (current 2nd) FROM A SHORT 215 yards to 261 yards uphill over an extended sandy waste area."

IT WAS NOTED THE TOURNAMENT SERVED THE PURPOSE OF REVEALING ANY DESIGN SHORTCOMING THAT NEEDED CORRECTING.   All holes received high praised, except the Road Hole, "WHICH DID NOT PLAY AS ANTICIPATED (emphasis yet mine again).   Apparently, the corner hazard in the driving area was not what it would later become."

In the book 16 players are photographed, entitled "A Who's Who of American golfers at the time participated in a 1910 tournament to see how good the course really was.

Among those in attendance included Fred Herreshoff, Max Behr, Walter Travis, CB Mac, Dev Emmet, Joseph Knapp, John Ward, and frankly David...if you try to call this out as being anything but an Invitational Tournament for the purposes I described exactly, then I'm really not sure what the heck you're talking about.

And, furthermore David...if you think CBM was just sitting around in the second half of 1910 and 1911 watching grass grow, then "CONJECTURE" my rear-end.

By trying to hold onto the timelines about Macdonald, NGLA, and his activities you originally envisioned, against ALL available physical evidence and contemporaneous reporting, you really just end up putting CBM on the same failed level as the half-hearted, paper-job, 18-stakes-on-a-Sunday-afternoon hacks who came before him, and I think such faulty and foolish characterizations serve his memory egregiously poorly and extremely erroneously.

[Tom MacWood]

I'll show you why Fox Hills, Nassau, and Salisbury were either viewed as deeply flawed or needing much further developing during their own time (1910) tomorrow.

We're still waiting.

[Tom MacWood]

So, if I have this right, the number of courses a club considering a new course could look to in the spring of 1910 that were;

1) Solely designed by a golf professional

2) Already open for play and therefore viiewable as to achieved results

3) Not already been significantly revised by an amateur such as Walter Travis

and

4) Not significantly revised based on recommendations of a professional in 1910 with changes likely not yet in the ground, we're left with...

the following courses as examples of the excellent work and pinnacles of achievement by professional golfer up until 1910.


Beverly - G.O'Neil (1908)

Belmont Springs - D.Ross (1908)

Minikahda - W.Watson/D.Foulis (1899), J.Jaffray/R.Taylor (1906)

Atlantic City - J.Reid (1897), H.Barker (1909)

Baltusrol - L.Keller (1895), T.Gourlay (1896), G.Low (1908-10)??

Englewood - J.Hobens (1905)

Apawamis - T.Bendelow (1899), H.Strong (1906-10)?

Fox Hills - P.King/D.Brown (1901)

Waverly - H.Barker (1910)


Hmmmmmm...quite objectively, I'd have to say that I'm pretty sure that's not a very strong showing.    

I posted an article about Baltusrol's state in 1910 some pages back and more recently about Fox Hills.

Any interest from anyone in me posting similar articles about Apawamis and Nassau?

No, you don't have it right. It is fairly simple, what I have said continually, if a club aspired for anything good in 1910, they hired an experienced amateur or a professional, and in 1910 there were quite a few to choose from. And you might as well post my entire list because it is an illustration of that trend.

You did post an article on Baltusrol from early 1910 in which the author said: when all the ongoing work was completed, in Baltusrol, Fox Hills, Apawamis, Nassau and GCGC, the Metropolitan district will have as a high class golfing variety as to satisfy everybody.

And you did post an article from 1909 on Fox Hills, in which the author said: FH will stand out among our best American golf courses if changes are made to make it more difficult. Which is precisely what they did in 1910.

These courses hosted the Metropolitan Amateur:

1911 Garden City
1912 Baltusrol
1913 Fox Hills
1914 Englewood
1915 Apawamis
1916 Nassau

These course hosted the Metropolitan Open:

1911 Englewood
1912 Apawamis
1913 Salisbury
1914 Scarsdale
1915 Fox Hills
1916 Garden City

There were no Metropolitan championships held in 1917 or 1918.

Englewood hosted the 1909 US Open; Baltusrol hosted the 1915 Open. Englewood the 1906 US Amateur, Apawamis hosted the 1911 Am and GCGC the 1913 Am.

[Rick Wolffe]

Just want to make a note on the attribution for Baltusrol.

The first nine holes was laid out by an Englishman named George Hunter who club founder Louis Keller employed for this task.

Gourley was the greenkeeper for a short stint, but most of the evolution of the Old Course has been attributed to George Low who was hired in 1903.

We believe the first island green in America, the old tenth hole, was attributed to Low and was put in play before the 1904 US Amateur, but was not used for the tournament as it was deemed too difficult. 

The course would never achieve any "Finality in Perfection."  It received some deserved criticism after the 04 Amateur and over the next 10 to 12 years was constantly improved in search of perfection.  Although considered one of the best courses in the land by the time the 1915 US open rolled in, shortly thereafter the course achieved a different form of "Finality in Perfection" when Tillinghast put it to the plough in 1919.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()