[MCirba]

There seems to be a great number of instances from that period where a more well known Pro "A" (or one known for his design work) was asked to lay out a plan - followed by the hiring of Pro "B" to build and maintain it - Pro "B" settling into the job as the club pro - Pro "B" eventually realizing that he too could lay out golf courses - Pro "B" deciding to 'become' another Pro "A"  -  and a 'new Pro "B" following him.  

Jim,

That's very true, and if I had the wherewithal (i.e. where·with·al
ˈ(h)werwiT͟Hˌôl,ˈ(h)werwiTHˌôl/
noun
noun: wherewithal; plural noun: wherewithals

    the money or other means needed for a particular purpose.
    "they lacked the wherewithal to pay"
    synonyms:   money, cash, capital, finance(s), funds; More

I'd love to do much the same thing for a living as these guys did back then.

However, like most of those early pros, what I might know about a good golf hole from having seen and played a great number of golf courses in my life might or might not translate into something reasonably workable for the early rudimentary state of the game in the US at that time, as well as for the generally naive and low expectations of those who might contract me to do that work for them based on my greater "experience" and "expertise" than theirs with the fledgling game.   There is a reason why so many of those early courses were woeful in comparison to what came later as knowledge of good golf holes and practices evolved in this country.

Of course, if I could hang around and give lessons and make clubs for the members and run their competitions for them, that would add to my value, wouldn't it?  

The vast majority of these guys were essentially independent contractors hoping to hook up with a good club that could provide them some financial stability to learn and practice their trade.   To suggest that they came here with knowledgeable background in design , much less construction supervision is really a idealistic stretch.   The few who who did were by far the exception to what most of them knew, much less professed to know.

Further, none until Ross had employees, or specialized business support, or needed to make a payroll.   I've seen a bunch of names listed here but nothing much in the way of examples that the initial question on this thread asked for.   The fact we've moved so quickly through the first decade into Harry Colt territory is indicative of that fact.


 

[Phil Young]

David,

I have no problem with that...

 

[DMoriarty]

You often fancy yourself a "man of honor."  Go back a reread your private messages to me at the beginning of that whole fiasco and then ask yourself whether, since it became clear that Ian Scott-Taylor was a criminal, have you acted as a man of honor?

[Phil Young]

David,

For someone who just stated a few moments ago, "Phil I am not interested in discussing anything with you until you finish cleaning up the Scott-Taylor mess" you seem to be unable to do so.

As far as "re-reading" my messages to you, you ought to do the same and also those that you sent my way...

That you don't want to talk me is fine... so DON'T!

If you see a need to make to have the last word here be done with it as I am with you.

[DMoriarty]

I was hoping you might do the right thing.

I am a slow learner, I guess.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I have no trouble, in those multi tasking times, believing CCofD hired him as pro for both sets of abilities, first maybe as teacher, but knowing the construction was upcoming and that his experience would be valuable there, too. Doesn't seem like it has to be one or the other.

[Jim_Kennedy]

There seems to be a great number of instances from that period where a more well known Pro "A" (or one known for his design work) was asked to lay out a plan - followed by the hiring of Pro "B" to build and maintain it - Pro "B" settling into the job as the club pro - Pro "B" eventually realizing that he too could lay out golf courses - Pro "B" deciding to 'become' another Pro "A"  -  and a 'new Pro "B" following him.  

Jim,

That's very true, and if I had the wherewithal I'd love to do much the same thing for a living as these guys did back then.

However, like most of those early pros, what I might know about a good golf hole from having seen and played a great number of golf courses in my life might or might not translate into something reasonably workable for the early rudimentary state of the game in the US at that time, as well as for the generally naive and low expectations of those who might contract me to do that work for them based on my greater "experience" and "expertise" than theirs with the fledgling game.   There is a reason why so many of those early courses were woeful in comparison to what came later as knowledge of good golf holes and practices evolved in this country.

Of course, if I could hang around and give lessons and make clubs for the members and run their competitions for them, that would add to my value, wouldn't it?  

The vast majority of these guys were essentially independent contractors hoping to hook up with a good club that could provide them some financial stability to learn and practice their trade.   To suggest that they came here with knowledgeable background in design , much less construction supervision is really a idealistic stretch.   The few who who did were by far the exception to what most of them knew, much less professed to know.

Further, none until Ross had employees, or specialized business support, or needed to make a payroll.   I've seen a bunch of names listed here but nothing much in the way of examples that the initial question on this thread asked for.   The fact we've moved so quickly through the first decade into Harry Colt territory is indicative of that fact.

Did I suggest they all came here with architectural knowledge? - no, but some did. The "great number of instances"  relates to the whole post, one you're in agreement with as you initially said "That's very true".

I ran across an article where one of the old pros was asked why he and his brethren built such simple architecture when they should know better, being born in the cradle of golf. His answer was that you can't build much else when the clubs don't want to pay for it. What do you think they were going to do for a few dollars a day, build Augusta?  
Do you think that the early clubs were going to spend lots of money on complicated designs when they were basically just experimenting with the new game?  
How much "construction supervision" skill do you think it took to lay out a few cops and mow a few areas for greens and tees?
Who built those first courses if none of the Pros knew which end of a shovel goes in the ground?
Why would many of them form a company and hire large crews when the grass seed companies and outfits like Spauldings were already in that business?
Why would many of them form a company and hire crews when labor in general was plentiful and cheap in most areas of the country, and as previously mentioned, most of the clubs were not willing to spend a ton of money for their experiments with golf ?

 

[MCirba]

A friend passed this one along which is sort of related to the topic and shows that even back in 1919, one usually got pretty much what they paid for.

[Jim_Kennedy]

You mentioned Dunn, and Tucker was all over the place supervising construction, another was:
 
Thomas Winton moved to London around the turn of the century. There he was employed in golf-course construction, working for several architects in building such courses as Coombe Hill and South Herts.

The younger Willie Park’s primary occupational interest was the making of clubs. His designs were revolutionary, and he is credited with the introduction of clubheads with higher loft that launched shots higher and which would stop quicker when hitting greens. Park’s focus shifted over time, and he too developed an interest in golf-course design. When Park decided to take his design skills to the United States, he asked his old friend from Montrose, Thomas Winton, to join him.

Their partnership of Willie Park Jr. and Thomas Winton failed to flourish, however, and Winton soon found it necessary to secure a paying job as superintendent for the Westchester (New York) County Parks Commission, where he remained for many years. He was in charge of maintaining the county's golf courses and parks and with constructing new facilities. In this capacity he designed several public courses in the New York suburbs.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

It seems like golf pros were over rated in architecture skills, even back then!

Interesting to note a pro/architect sloughing the design back to the owner, another thing that may not have changed all that much. It does occur to me that the Scots are notoriously thrifty, and probably accepted the Owner's edict without too much of a fight.

Also interesting, but seldom considered, is that the seed companies, perhaps sensing a big new market, jumped in with some financial strength. If and when the contractor runs things, design issues usually take back seat to construction efficiency (whether due to a lump sum bid or busy schedule, as in "Boys, we gotta be in Topeka by Tuesday!")  For that matter, to the degree that Wilson bankrolled new courses, I am sure the mantra was more is better, not better is better.

Add in a general fog of not really knowing what to do in the new world, as experienced in other early courses, and your good point about the game perhaps not being assured of going, and getting something on the ground, and perhaps improving it later was probably the watchword of those early pro/architects.

As David sometimes says, we have to step back and try to judge things in the mindset of the day, not from modern perspective.

Mike,

I can't upsize my screen enough to read that article.....

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
That's true, context is important.

Mike,
C&W - Chapter 4 - Golf Spreads To America. 

 

[MCirba]

Jim,

I agree with every word of your post above and it's been the major point  I've tried much less eloquently to make here. Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

But Jim's point is the exact opposite of what you had been claiming.  While the "construction" might have been minimal, it was oftentimes the early pros - not the club members - who were the ones who created these early golf courses.   Many of them weren't just just drawing out a plan or putting some stakes in the ground and then leaving town on the next train.
__________________________________________________________

To suggest that they came here with knowledgeable background in design , much less construction supervision is really a idealistic stretch.   The few who who did were by far the exception to what most of them knew, much less professed to know.

What are you talking about?   No one claimed they all came here with the equivalent of modern expertise in design and construction (although contrary to your claim, many of them had prior design experience.)  And as Jeff points out, you can't compare what they knew in 1900 to what designers knew decades later.   If anything, the point of comparison is with the knowledge based of those interested in starting clubs during the same time period.

Who knew more?  Professionals who were skilled at the game and who had grown up working and playing in golf? Or rich americans who were considering giving the game a twirl for the first time in their lives?

I've seen a bunch of names listed here but nothing much in the way of examples that the initial question on this thread asked for.   The fact we've moved so quickly through the first decade into Harry Colt territory is indicative of that fact.

All of the names I've listed (and many more) were directing the construction golf courses and they go back to the dawn of golf in America. Even some of the names you've listed cut directly against your point! If you aren't familiar with the names I've listed, maybe it is about time you dropped the generalizations and looked into them.

Again, Mike, you seem to think that if you don't know you history then you can just make stuff up, and if we don't devote hours and hours to refuting your conjecture, then your claim has somehow been proven true.  That is not how it works.  You are the one who has claimed that "most" of the early courses were designed by "itinerant" teaching pros but built by club members.  While this is a nice cliche, history does not support your claim.  

[Rich Goodale]

Rich and David,

Do either of you know how long Colt was on site at Detroit CC? I ask because almost exactly two years later in April 1913 he was back north of Detroit at Bloomfield Hills CC. He was there for a few days only, a stop while on his way to Pine Valley.

He provided the club with recommendations for a new course to replace the existing Bendelow course. This advice included the purchase of an adjacent 50-acre tract which the Club bought shortly after he left.

The October 11, 1913 board minutes state: “The report of the Chairman of the Greens Committee, Mr. M.T. Conklin, suggesting some changes from the plans as prepared by H.S. Colt, was accepted with instructions that work proceed immediately along the lines suggested by the Greens Committee and a motion to this effect was carried.”

The Board minutes record that Colt left "recommendations" only and that the drawings/plan arrived later. The "plans as prepared by H.S. Colt" were done back in the U.K. and sent to the Club. Hence my question as to how long Colt was at Detroit CC as the above article seems far to general to simply use as a definer of what Colt actually did in "laying out the course on the property recently purchased."

I'm not saying that he didn't physically stake out the course or oversaw the beginnings of construction, all of which were interchangeable with "laying out the course" at that time as also were the actions of designing it. I'm just wondering if he sent the club the drawings/plans for the new course from back in the U.K. just like he did for Bloomfield Hills CC. Do either of you have any information on that?

Thanks.

Sorry, Phil, but I do not have any information other than that the club I was talking of is the CC of Detroit rather than Detroit CC.  Kinda like Monty Python's Holy Grail....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5gm9hoTw6Y

Rich

[Sven Nilsen]

Regarding CC of Detroit, do we know what role, if any Donald Ross played in the construction of the course.  He had a hand in its design (July 1915 Golf Magazine), and as this was contemporaneous with his construction work at Old Elm, it raises the question if he was brought in to implement Colt's plans.

Sven

[Phil Young]

Thank you Rich. That was my oops as I'm just so used to putting the CC after the name!

[Jim_Kennedy]

From an older topic - more about Ross at CCD, but not what he did. Was Colt in the US when the work was done?
  

[MCirba]

David,

I agree with you.  I think only disagreement is in how often that actually happened. That's okay.

[Pat Burke]

In answer to the OP

How many CURRENT pros are capable of supervising construction?

[Jim_Kennedy]

In answer to the OP

How many CURRENT pros are capable of supervising construction?

Pat,

Is this a trick question?  

No one would (or probably even could) hire a construction supervisor that didn't have the necessary experience, the demands are exponentially greater today than in 1915 - there's no "cross-trading" in the modern world unless you're qualified.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,  to get a better idea of "how often it actually happened" look at the names on my list and think about their output. Or go back through from beginning of golf in the US and consider the actual courses.  You'll find that, even in the case of the courses supposedly created in-house, there was very often a professional there supervising the creation of the course.  You often knock the early Scottish pros but they knew a hell of a lot more about golf courses than the American novices at the dawn of golf in America, and where they were available and it was economically feasible for the clubs, they were involved in directing the creation of the golf courses.  Even those on your list.

I am not saying that it never happened that the club members were solely responsible for creating a golf course based on a quick design by a traveling pro, but you to act like this is how the vast majority of US courses were created, and the historical record doesn't back you up on this one.

[Sven Nilsen]

An article by one of those immigrant, itinerant professionals discussing his wherewithal to supervise the construction of several early US courses. 

I particularly enjoyed the last line of the article, "Let us respect his labors."

Sept. 1934 Golf Illustrated -

[MCirba]

Sven,

That's a terrific article, and thanks for sharing it.

Given Dunn's backing by the Vanderbilts and other upper crust folks who brought him here, would you say he was fairly representative of the various pros from abroad who designed courses in the 1890 and first decade of the 20th century or was he a bit more of an exception?

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,

That's a terrific article, and thanks for sharing it.

Given Dunn's backing by the Vanderbilts and other upper crust folks who brought him here, would you say he was fairly representative of the various pros from abroad who designed courses in the 1890 and first decade of the 20th century or was he a bit more of an exception?

I don't think there was a rule to have an exception made from.  Projects varied depending on location, wealth of backers and numerous other factors.  You're looking at this as if each architect had a pattern, when you should be looking at it from the perspective of the nature of each individual project.

For example, what Bendelow was doing around New York and New Jersey from 1895 to 1900 was very different from what he was doing after his move to the Midwest.  Willie Davis is another example of diversity in involvement, as his work at Newport (as the pro) differed from what he did at places like Vanderbilt's Asheville Estate or Morris County where he was one of four different guys who had a hand in planning the new course.

The same holds true as you go forward, with guys like Ross having different levels of involvement in construction matters depending on the type of project.  I doubt he spent much time on site for the expansion of Franklin Park, a design job he did for free.  We do know his involvement at Pinehurst, which would be on the opposite end of the spectrum.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I didn't see the list you refer to as yours in this thread.  I may have missed it.

I do wonder if the kind of research you and others would do would overly focus on the better courses.  Or put another way, how many of the first thousand courses or so in America do you estimate were designed by a Scot pro?  How many country affairs not associated with the likes of the Vanderbilt's, etc. were done in house?  One of the articles posted did make a "sales pitch" for the need for a gca, which of course, suggests that too many projects were being done badly without one.

BTW, I am taking a whipping from Melvyn Morrow over on Facebook about my supposed ignorance of the history of architecture and how that has led to such poor designs over the last 40 years......I commented that even if I don't know for sure how they stayed and got construction done, I doubt it would have affected design in the 20th and 21st Centuries, as things have changed.  The best I can gather from his incoherent rants is that we have strayed too far from golf courses that looked like Old Tom made them look, which is his usual (long winded) point.  I guess I see the whole process of architecture in America an evolution because of the varying conditions from Scotland.  But, what do I know?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()