[Ed Homsey]

TEPaul:    Not to belabor the point about Macdonald and Travis and the Schenectady, but I think your point about Travis and his position regarding the relationship between the R&A and the USGA is absolutely correct.  In "The Old Man" (pg 108), Bob Labbance wrote:  "But Travis called for the USGA to stand on its own in this matter and cited several examples of instances where the rules of the two organizations already differed."  He went on to describe a rule where the two organizations differed, i.e. taking a practice swing.  Apparently, the USGA permitted practice swings but they were banned by the R&A.  Turns out, the USGA agreed to support the R&A rule but left its interpretation to their Executive Committee with the proviso that the rule should be "interpreted in such a way as not to bar the Schenectady Putter". 

Occurs to me that this business about the Schenectady Putter really doesn't fit in a discussion of "architectural history in north america 1900-1915".  Is that what you GCA'ers call OT?   Sorry about prolonging it.

Ed

[TEPaul]

"He went on to describe a rule where the two organizations differed, i.e. taking a practice swing.  Apparently, the USGA permitted practice swings but they were banned by the R&A.  Turns out, the USGA agreed to support the R&A rule but left its interpretation to their Executive Committee with the proviso that the rule should be "interpreted in such a way as not to bar the Schenectady Putter"."

Ed:

You're probably right this kind of stuff may be OT to this thread.

However, if you look at the details of those types of Rules interpretations you cited above where the USGA may've agreed to support the R&A Rule but with the proviso that the rule should be interpreted by say the USGA Executive committee in such a way as not to bar the Schnectedy Putter I think you will find that very type of thing came out of the mind and off the pen of C.B. Macdonald.

Some think of him as the consummate curmudgeon but I believe he also could be and in cases like this the consummate politician or even fixer to keep together the thing that was most important of all to him for golf----ie UNITY or unification with the other side; unity in the Rules and hopefully other things even his old St Andrews concept of the "spirit" of and within the game. He seemed to be the consummate parliamentarian who could cleverly wrap some issue in complex resolutions or provisos or whatever just to avoid some major league rift.

Frankly, he went through the same thing with the USGA in their potential rift on Rules and membership and such with another organization from whence he came----The Western Golf Association.

At least one major golf magazine editor in the late teens advocated that the Western essentially take over as our national golf association for the simple reason they seemed more democratic than the USGA.

But in many ways Macdonald was not exactly democratically minded, that's for damn sure.

[Ed Homsey]

TEPaul:   A question I have, relative to this thread's title is:  What was CB Macdonald's start in golf course design.  What was the impetus for his interest in golf course design?  When did it occur?  I haven't read the book you referred to earlier.  Should do that.  Does it provide answers to my questions.  To me, that's one of the fascinating aspects of the early history of golf course architecture in North America.  Even with the most prolific "staker" of them all--Tom Bendelow.  How and why did he get into the business?  I admit to a large amount of ignorance about this early history--excluding my knowledge of Walter Travis.  So, if the answers to my questions have been addressed previously, or widely known, I'm sure someone will say so.

[TEPaul]

Ed:

Macdonald's interest in golf (and perhaps the emanation of design) began when he was sent from Chicago to college at St Andrews University in the early 1870s. There he was first introduced to golf, completely fell in love with it and got quite good at it in a short time.

He returned to America to Chicago after that and entered into what he referred to as his "Dark Age" in golf. What he meant by that is there were no golf courses in America then (to speak of), no golfers, no balls or equipment and for almost twenty years he really didn't or couldn't play golf basically for those reasons, not to mention the fact no one was interested in it because no one over here really knew it.

All that changed during the amazing Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893 (World Fair). A bunch of Brits came to it with their clubs and he claims they lit the spark for golf with him at that time in Chicago (he had laid out a rudimentary seven hole course in Lake Forest in the spring of 1892). From that he generated some golf interest in Chicago and laid out a course at Belmont and then the first 18 hole golf course in American, the Chicago Golf Club in 1895 in Wheaton.

You can find more detail in the chapter "Beginning of Golf in America" in his 1928 biography, "Scotland's GIft Golf."

Yeah, Ed, you do need to read that book to appreciate that even though Macdonald was by no means the first man to introduce golf to America he probably was its most important over-all participant in those early years for the simple reason he got into every single aspect of it more than anyone else had before or did at that time.

In 1900 he moved from Chicago to New York, quite quickly got the idea to build an ideal American course (which became NGLA) and the rest, as they say, is history.

By that time he was well known by that time as the first US Amateur champion, he had been one of the original vice presidents of the USGA (he proposed it should be formed) and with his connections abroad sort of a "go to" guy for golf organizational administration, tournaments, the Rules of the Game, and also an authority on golf architecture.

By the way, one could not technically say Macdonald was in the business of golf in any way or ever. He was always very much the inveterate and traditional "amateur/sportsman", with a real highlight on "amateur" and he always steadfastly refused to take any money for anything he ever did with or around golf or for golf.

I'm not sure one could say Macdonald necessarily had something against commercialism in golf or professionalism in golf but there isn't much question he certainly never saw a roll for himself in golf like that.

[Ed Homsey]

TEPaul--Thanks for your explanation of CB Macdonald's early development as a golf course architect.  Very informative for me.

Today, I had an exchange of emails with the historian at Garden City Golf Club.  I was wanting to check on my knowledge of the evolution of the Golf Club's course.  One of the things he shared was that Emmet and Travis were hired by CB Macdonald to go to the UK to do some detailed observations and measurements of signature golf holes to be used in his subsequent efforts to reproduce those holes.  Apparently, that took place in the 1890's.  What do you know of that?  It was news to me.

[TEPaul]

"One of the things he shared was that Emmet and Travis were hired by CB Macdonald to go to the UK to do some detailed observations and measurements of signature golf holes to be used in his subsequent efforts to reproduce those holes.  Apparently, that took place in the 1890's.  What do you know of that?  It was news to me."

Ed:

That's news to me too. I'd ask the GCGC historian to confirm what he means by that. If one reads Macdonald's book, sending Travis and Emmet abroad in the 1890s would seems to seriously skew Macdonald's own overall timeline of various events in his life and in the idea and preparatory events leading up to the creation of NGLA.

In the 1890s Macdonald still lived in Chicago. He said he didn't move to New York until 1900, and he began his own investigation and study tours abroad looking at courses and holes after that.

I do know from Labbance's book that Travis went to GB in the 1890s though, and I believe Emmet being the sophisticated guy he was probably went abroad regularly. Some bios about him said he went abroad regularly to buy or sell hunting dogs.

If the GCGC historian meant when he said Macdonald sent Travis and Emmet abroad that he paid them to do that to draw holes or whatever for the purposes of architecture I'd ask him again about that too. That kind of thing was generally pretty suspect back then in the world of amateur golf and particularly for tournament players.

On the other hand, I did mention to you the other day that someone wrote an accusatory letter to the USGA around 1901 claiming Travis had done some things to violate his amateur status standing.

[Ed Homsey]

re:  The Macdonald, Travis, Emmet 1890s connection:

I'll pursue that further, to try to get documentation for the claim that Travis and Emmet did some "paid" work for Macdonald in the UK.  Would have relevance for the "amateur" status, wouldn't it.

The early 1900's issue about Travis's amateur status had to do with his membership status at GCGC.  He was being accused of receiving a free membership at GCGC because of his status as U.S. Amateur status.  It was an accusation that was strongly dismissed by GCGC officials and Travis.

[TEPaul]

"I'll pursue that further, to try to get documentation for the claim that Travis and Emmet did some "paid" work for Macdonald in the UK.  Would have relevance for the "amateur" status, wouldn't it.
The early 1900's issue about Travis's amateur status had to do with his membership status at GCGC.  He was being accused of receiving a free membership at GCGC because of his status as U.S. Amateur status.  It was an accusation that was strongly dismissed by GCGC officials and Travis."


Ed:

One problem for us today would be to assume that the restrictions on "amateur status" back in those days (1890s-1900s) were the same as they are today and certainly that they were written anywhere within the purview of the R&A and the USGA.

Don't forget the USGA was not even formed until Dec. 1894 and the R&A did not actually agree to take on the roll of the leading amateur rules making organization until 1897. One should also appreciate that the roll or definition of an "amateur golfer" did not even begin until the British Amateur Championship was begun in 1885.

I think the idea or ethos of what a nonprofessional golfer (amateur?) was as opposed to one who played and used golf for financial remuneration may've been around for a while in perhaps a cultural or philosophical sense but I don't believe any formal rules had ever been written about it until quite a bit later, perhaps even well into the first decade of the 20th century or actually even later than that. One of the problems with some of the famous "amateur status" violation cases (exs Travis, Quimet, Tillinghast) was there weren't any real specific "amateur status" Rules written by either organization and that they began to sort of make them up as things went along! Most of the arguments or disagreements back then were over interpretation as there wasn't much to specifically point in the way of "amateur status" Rules being violated.

In that vein, it may be instructive to point out something that still exists today regarding "amateur status" that can be found in the R&A Rules on "Amateur Status" that I bet few today are aware of. That is it is certainly possible to violate "amateur" status and not be considered a professional golfer. The R&A itself says that golfers who fall into that category are sort of 'in limbo' (they cannot play as an amateur but they are not considered to be a professional).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()