News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Brian_Gracely

C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« on: December 03, 2003, 11:03:06 PM »
Sure, he helped shape golf architecture in the US, helped form the USGA, won the US Amateur....but his one mistake is still haunting us today.  In 1923, C.B.M. failed to make a sufficient argument that Golf Digest was not the proper ruling body to rank the Top 100 courses in the US when it ranked WFW ahead of Chicago GC.  And because of this, we're forever burdened with the yearly rankings that are subject to speculation, bias, opinion and politics.  

pre-1900 through 1915
======================
4. OAKMONT C.C. (1903)
7. MERION G.C. (East) (1912)  
11. THE COUNTRY CLUB (Clyde/Squirrel) (1902)
19. NATIONAL GOLF LINKS OF AMERICA (1911)
29. GARDEN CITY G.C. (1899)


1916-1920
==========
1. PINE VALLEY G.C. (1918)
5. PEBBLE BEACH G. LINKS (1919)
17. INVERNESS CLUB (1919)  
28. SAN FRANCISCO G.C. (1918)
31. SCIOTO C.C. (1916)
36. INTERLACHEN C.C. (1911)
41. SOMERSET HILLS C.C. (1918)  
44. WANNAMOISETT C.C. (1916)
 

1921-1925
==========
9. WINGED FOOT G.C. (West) (1923)    
10. OAK HILL C.C. (East) (1925)  
21. CHERRY HILLS C.C. (1923)
22. BALTUSROL G.C. (Lower)(1922)
24. OLYMPIA FIELDS C.C. (North) (1922)
27. LOS ANGELES C.C. (North) (1921)
32. WINGED FOOT G.C. (East) (1923)  
33. CHICAGO G.C. (1923)
39. THE HOMESTEAD (Cascades) (1923)
45. PLAINFIELD C.C. (1921)
46. CANTERBURY G.C. (1922)
50. KITTANSETT CLUB (1922)
56. MAIDSTONE CLUB (1924)
66. CAMARGO CLUB (1921)
82. SHOREACRES (1921)


1926-1930
==========
3. CYPRESS POINT CLUB (1928)
13. MEDINAH C.C. (No. 3) (1928)    
14. SEMINOLE G.C. 6,836 (1929)
16. THE OLYMPIC CLUB (Lake) (1928)    
20. QUAKER RIDGE G.C. (1926)
26. RIVIERA C.C. (1926)  
34. FISHERS ISLAND CLUB (1926)
40. MILWAUKEE C.C. (1929)  
52. ARONIMINK G.C. (1928)
55. BALTIMORE C.C. (East) (1926)
69. SALEM C.C. (1926)
91. PASATIEMPO G.C. (1929)


1931-1939
==========
2. AUGUSTA NATIONAL G.C. (1933)
6. SHINNECOCK HILLS G.C. (1931)
12. PINEHURST RESORT & C.C. (No. 2)(1935)
15. SOUTHERN HILLS C.C.(1936)    
23. CRYSTAL DOWNS C.C. (1931)  
25. PRAIRIE DUNES C.C. (1937)
30. BETHPAGE G. CSE. (Black) (1936)  
35. COLONIAL C.C. (1936)  
« Last Edit: December 03, 2003, 11:09:50 PM by Brian_Gracely »

T_MacWood

Re:C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2003, 11:20:19 PM »
I suspect if you took that poll in 1915 you'd have a very different result...my unofficial guess would be:

1.NGLA
2.Garden City
3.Myopia
4.Brookline
5.Ekwanok

Probably followed by Merion, the darkhouse Mayfield (I wouldn't be suprised if it ended up closer #4), and then maybe Oakmont.

Mike Cirba

Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #2 on: September 25, 2010, 10:50:29 PM »
Thank you, Mac Plumart.

Funny how times change.

I only stated by by 1910 ALL of the very best courses in America were designed by amateurs who did the work for their own clubs, but I see that Tom MacWood has already previously extended that date to 1915.

I probably would argue with him, citing a few courses built between 1910 and 1915 by professional golfers, but oh, well...what the hell.

I'll let him win this time.  ;)  ;D

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2010, 11:33:56 PM »
Mike Cirba,

Some of us actually learn something with years of research and analysis.  We just don't keep chanting the same old stories and ignoring everything else.   

But even you have learned something, at least when it suits your argument.  Shall we all we pull up some of the threads where you went on and on about Hugh Wilson must have known all about quality golf course architecture because of the terrific American courses he played around 1901?   My guess is you are bashing many of those same courses now. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #4 on: September 26, 2010, 01:04:02 AM »
"Shall we all we pull up some of the threads where you went on and on about Hugh Wilson must have known all about quality golf course architecture because of the terrific American courses he played around 1901?"



You said it Moriarty but why do we all know you can't pull up a single thing to support that?   

Go ahead and try it though. If you don't I will ask you agaian tomorrow and the next day and on and on ad infinitum!  ;)

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2010, 01:53:41 AM »
Well on the off chance it will mean less posts by TEPaul . . .

. . . Second, as far as a complete novice, he was in terms of construction and agronomy.

On the other hand, going back as far as  the 1890s when he won the first club championship at what is today Aronimink, to his years at Princeton playing many of the best courses in America at the time, including a stint on the Green Commitee there while they were building a new golf course, to his days playing as one of Philly's top amateurs against other cities, Hugh Wilson was well versed in the game and probably in the top 5% of golfers in the country as far as being well-travelled.
. . .
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Ronald Montesano

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #6 on: September 26, 2010, 07:32:01 AM »
"we're forever burdened with the yearly rankings that are subject to speculation, bias, opinion and politics."

Let it die.  What ranking wouldn't be subject to speculation, bias, opinion and politics?  There is no holiest of holies because it doesn't matter.  There are golf courses, one has one's opinions, sing them loud and far and don't shy away from those who care enough to offer affirmative or negative criticism.

Point of this thread is...?
Coming in 2024
~Elmira Country Club
~Soaring Eagles
~Bonavista
~Indian Hills
~Maybe some more!!

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #7 on: September 26, 2010, 07:45:05 AM »
RM. If u notice, this thread is 8 years old. It gained no traction then because it would appear CB not protesting enough is not a good argument. He was likely sick and tired or arguing for finer points that fell on deaf ears. Besides was GD even around then? Let alone have a list?
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Mike Cirba

Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #8 on: September 26, 2010, 08:05:26 AM »
David,

That statement about Wilson's experience playing the best courses in this country is very true, and news accounts also mentioned he played the best courses both here and abroad.

That doesn't mean the "best courses" here were necessarily great architecture, because most of them weren't.   Still, there is something to learn in every experience on every course, don't you think?

Besides, I'm just tickled to death to see that Tom MacWood and I are FINALLY in 100% agreement, even if it means I had to resurrect the guy from way back then who made good sense and wasn't simply out to prove the rest of the world wrong.  ;)  ;D

TEPaul

Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #9 on: September 26, 2010, 08:18:46 AM »
Mac:

I don't remember who Brian Gracely was but I would take his initial post you put on here and put it to some close chronological scrutiny.

I wouldn't stake my life on it but I think GOLF DIGEST was founded by William Davis in 1950 and so I really do wonder what Brian Gracely was talking about in that post when he mentioned Macdonald and Golf Digest in 1923.




"RM. If u notice, this thread is 8 years old. It gained no traction then because it would appear CB not protesting enough is not a good argument. He was likely sick and tired or arguing for finer points that fell on deaf ears. Besides was GD even around then? Let alone have a list?"



Adam:

I believe you're right about that. In the 1920s and on it appears Macdonald was not willing to get involved in much of what was going on in golf and architecture at the time. Those so-called "agronomy letters" are a very good information source to confirm that in a number of ways. They even mention his book (which would become "Scotland's Gift Golf") that he had apparently been intending to write for quite some time. It seems when he finally went to Bermuda and wrote it (1926) that was pretty much the end for his involvement in golf and architecture other than with improving NGLA.

« Last Edit: September 26, 2010, 08:29:07 AM by TEPaul »

Mike Cirba

Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2010, 09:09:00 AM »
Boy, that MacWood guy was very astute and even presciIent back then.

Did I say how much I agree with his post?!  ;). ;D

Michael Blake

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2010, 09:52:58 AM »
Mike,

Aren't you teeing off at Hackensack in an hour?
Dude, you should be stretching/warming up.

PLEASE STEP AWAY FROM THE KEYBOARD. 
It'll be there when you return.

 :)

TEPaul

Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2010, 09:58:18 AM »
I'm not so sure I would say that about MacWood, Michael. It just may be that back then in 2003 he had not quite gotten around to inaccurately foisting A. Findlay into the design of GCGC, Willie Campbell into the original design of Brookline and Myopia and HH Barker into the original design of Merion East!

I am actually waiting expectantly to see which professional MacWood is going to try to foist into the original design of the Fownses' Oakmont.  ;)

You know the drill in MacWood's world-----all those guys were "amateur/sportsmen" NOVICES and consequently they just had to get some professional who knew so much more than they did to do it for them and then expunge him from the club records and minimize his contribution for the sole purpose of glorifying themselves!
« Last Edit: September 26, 2010, 10:00:50 AM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2010, 10:54:48 AM »
Today, this would be my top 20 in 1915 in no particular order:

NGLA
Myopia
Brookline
Mayfield
CC of Detroit
GCGC
Pine Valley
Ekwanok
Baltusrol
Chicago
Old Elm
St. Louis
Oakmont
Piping Rock
Pinehurst #2
Brae Burn
Columbia
Merion
Inwood
Interlachen

PS: NGLA & Myopia would probably be the consensus top two in 1915, but in another couple years the consensus top 3 would be NGLA, Lido & Pine Valley. That reflects very well on CBM in my opinion.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2010, 11:12:26 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2010, 12:27:36 PM »
"PS: NGLA & Myopia would probably be the consensus top two in 1915, but in another couple years the consensus top 3 would be NGLA, Lido & Pine Valley. That reflects very well on CBM in my opinion."


Well, that would at least reflect CBM's actual opinion, as that happens to be exactly what he said his opinion was. He even got a bit detailed about some of the comparative or contrasting aspects of those three.

And you should know, MacWood, that one will not find THAT in Cornish and Whitten!  ;)

Mike Cirba

Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #15 on: September 26, 2010, 06:27:36 PM »
Michael,

I was simply so excited to see that TMac and I completely agreed that the very best courses by 1910, nay.1915, were ALL designed by amateur members doing it for their own clubs that I was just swept up and took the risk of texting that post at 75mph on route 80 en route to Hackensack, where we had a great time. ;). ;D

Tom's much less focused and really very watered-down list he posted today either means he is sadly getting much older or he simply doesn't love me any more.  In either case, it's sad to see.  ;)

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2010, 11:29:50 PM »

Tom's much less focused and really very watered-down list he posted today either means he is sadly getting much older or he simply doesn't love me any more.  In either case, it's sad to see. 


Mike
Very watered down? I think the list is pretty strong, but then again I've spent some time studying the period. Which courses would you remove/change? Maybe I should start a new thread so you can continue to show off your knowledge of the era.

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2010, 02:49:55 AM »
One of the many myths that certain posters repeatedly return to is that CBM turned his back on the golf architecture and the game in the 1920's.   Here is the latest version . . .

 
I believe you're right about that. In the 1920s and on it appears Macdonald was not willing to get involved in much of what was going on in golf and architecture at the time. Those so-called "agronomy letters" are a very good information source to confirm that in a number of ways. They even mention his book (which would become "Scotland's Gift Golf") that he had apparently been intending to write for quite some time. It seems when he finally went to Bermuda and wrote it (1926) that was pretty much the end for his involvement in golf and architecture other than with improving NGLA.

So far as I can tell there is very little if any factual support for this claim. Sure there are vague references to a single snippy comment someone made about CBM in an Ag letter, but nothing at all to support the claim that he turned his back on the game.  So far as I can tell, it is nothing but unsubstantiated gossip.  And the known record certainly doesn't support it.  Here is a partial synopsis of what CBM was doing in Golf Architecture during the 1920's - the period during which CBM was supposedly not willing to get involved in golf or architecture . . .

1920-1921. Macdonald and Raynor designed and built Ocean Links.
1921-1922. Macdonald and Raynor designed and built Gibson Island Club.
1922-1923. Macdonald and Raynor designed and built Creek Club.
1922  Macdonald and Raynor designed and built a practice course for Eddie Moore.
1922 Macdonald and Raynor designed and built 9 hole course for H.P. Witney.
1922-1923. Macdonald and Raynor helped plan Women's National Golf & Tennis Club.
1922-1924. Macdonald and Raynor designed and built Mid Ocean.
1924-1925. Macdonald, Raynor, and Banks designed and built Deepdale.
1923-1926. Macdonald, Raynor, and Banks designed and built Yale University Golf Club.
1928.  Macdonald published Scotland's Gift.
1930.  Macdonald turned 75 years old.

Maybe it is just me, but that seems like a pretty productive decade for a guy who was supposedly not willing to get involved in architecture, especially when one considers that he was an amateur with a real job, and never accepted payment for any of his design work.   And he kept working on NGLA.  I'll bet there are some working designers today who would like to have an off decade like that!  Imagine what CBM might have accomplished if he hadn't turned his back on the game.   Was he supposed to go on providing free designing services into his 80s? 

As for other matters relating to Golf, NGLA hosted the first Walker Cup Matches in 1922 (the second was played at St. Andrews) and hosted the participants at NGLA's famed invitational tournament in 1924.  This annual tournament kept going strong.   CBM was also actively involved in issues relating to the rules and equipment and was corresponding about these matters with H.H. Hilton, Bernard Darwin, John Low, and W.C. Fownes in 1927-1928.  And these are just what he mentions.  Whatever else he was doing, he certainly hadn't become a recluse.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 02:57:33 AM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2010, 05:33:16 AM »
Tom,

Yes, your list is very watered down because uouve added a bunch of mediocre pretenders in an effort to make a point that the pro archies did some valuable work up til then, which is really farcical.

Btw...can you show us an example of any of Barker's work that has survived that you could point us to as an example of his seemingly singular talents? 

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #19 on: September 27, 2010, 06:37:32 AM »
NGLA
Myopia
Brookline
Mayfield
CC of Detroit
GCGC
Pine Valley
Ekwanok
Baltusrol
Chicago
Old Elm
St. Louis
Oakmont
Piping Rock
Pinehurst #2
Brae Burn
Columbia
Merion
Inwood
Interlachen

Mike
You see this list and you think Barker? That is a very strange reaction IMO...me thinks you protest too much, perhaps there is more to this Merion/Barker connection than your letting on to. But back to your question I would recommend Mayfield & Columbia. There have been changes to both (especially Columbia) but the routings remain the same, and that is their strength IMO.

By the way you didn't answer my question...I guess you were just blowing off steam. If anything the list should be longer in 1915; there were a number of very good courses I left off the list.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2010, 06:39:11 AM by Tom MacWood »

Mike Cirba

Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #20 on: September 27, 2010, 06:51:31 AM »
Tom,

Why do you think mayfield isn't mentioned in the same breath with those courses today?




Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2010, 07:15:41 AM »
I've mention it in the same breath, and have for several years. By modern standards it is relatively short, and most definitely on the quirky side. There are two or three blind drives that are not everyone's cup of tea....there is also a blind punchbowl green. Mayfield would be on my short list of the most fun courses I've ever played, and short list of best routings.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,1321.msg266146/

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,13083.msg223301/

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2010, 08:01:02 AM »
TMac and Mike,

Well, thanks for the civil discussion. I took a look at the Mayfield aerial. Basically, Mayfield looks like a nice course from the air, but probably just a solid course you could play every day. I can't tell much, of course, but a thought occurred to me, pre-coffee.

CBM certainly had blind shots and even a few blind punch bowls (STLouis has one if I recall).  Not to mention that Merion originally had one (the tenth as originally built).

So could it be similar to today, when if a favored gca does it, it is accepted, but if a lesser light (and as Ross construction guy, I feel Way probably never got his due, compared to his mentor) tries it, it is somewhat dismissed?  Or if a course is favored by a national tourney, like NGLA and MCC were, it automatically got brownie points even if architecture was similar?  And, even then, history (like Myopia being one of the first courses) and location (lets face it, Cleveland is no Philly on the national perception scale) may have affected rankings back then, just as I think it does today?  Maybe moreso, given travel difficulties?

I guess my point is that while its become a battle, in essence, TMac is simply trying to highlight other architecturally signifigant courses from the era.  And maybe Mayfield is a bit of homerism to counter same on other side.  However, his overall goal of highlighting other courses besides just the few we continually hear about is admirable.  The argument of which are the top of the top will never be settled among the couple of folks arguing, which is not surprising.

I think its clear that in that era, professional design was evolving and becoming accepted in most places, simply because it was becoming available, and because probably, most clubs recognized how bad most home made courses had been.  (or for that matter, many of the one day wonders, too)  So, while a few examples of great amateur designed courses exist, I doubt we could call that the trend, even at that time.  If it was, it ended quickly, around WWI.

Short version - on the 1910 thread, its probable that both sides are largely right, but arguing past each other.

And, I will make a trip to Cleveland on my next trip to Ohio to see a few courses there.  Like the rest of the nation, I have tended to avoid Cleveland, even if I go to Toledo to see relatives........
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2010, 09:37:38 AM »
Mayfield was advertised along with various top name clubs of the time. It was regarded as one of the best golf courses in the country. 

Mike Cirba

Re: C.B. MacDonald was not that great...
« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2010, 05:36:11 PM »
Tom,

Thanks for the description...I'm betting I'd love it.