If one looks back over the last 15-20 years it's undeniable the courses and architecture of many of the Golden Age architects have experienced real renewed interest and popularity.
Some say it all began with an article about Tillinghast by Frank Hannigan.
The result has been literally hundreds of old courses going through restoration and restoration interest. Books have been written about most of those old architects. Societies have been formed for them. In a phrase most all of them and interest in them has been riding higher than ever before.
One aspect that seems to be missing is real anlayses of the men themselves, their problems in both work and personally, their weaknesses, and perhaps the less grandiose realities of their lives, and not just their perceived strengths that tend to glorify them.
A few months ago in that architecture archive committee Michael Hurzdan mentioned that this aspect should be covered better and more comprehensively, if possible, simply because he believes it's interesting. He mentioned how much he enjoyed Philip Young's book on Tillinghast because it included so much more about Tillinghast, the man himself, and not only his architecture.
Tom MacWood wrote an interesting piece on here about George Crump, the man himself, and his background that basically noone had been aware of, and not necessarily his otherworldly single architectural project that's generally been considered the best course ever done. Obviously the denouement and essentially the theme of the essay is that Crump really did commit suicide---a reality that has been rumored forever but never investigated. Why that was, not to even mention that he died that way, is probably an interesting question in and of itself.
I think the one who should be analyzed personally first and the most right now is probably C.B. Macdonald. What most of us know about him personally is he was something of a curmudgeon. But we should know more, I think, about all that may've meant.
Macdonald is generally considered the "Father" of American architecture. But he was more than that. A good case could be made that he was the man most responsible for bringing golf to America in a formal sense---its association, the USGA, its Rules and administration etc---not just a renewed focus on golf architecture in this country.
To look carefully at Macdonald personally I think is to see some of the vague details of a helluva story about American golf, the way it went in many aspects which may not have been the way he wanted it to go. Why was that? What did he really believe about numerous things to do with golf in America?
Everywhere one looks at Macdonald's history in this country after NGLA one can see a man with extremely strong personal opinions, perhaps burning bridges, or withdrawing into some form of dissatisfaction, perhaps even depression, until in the end, apparently he was basically not even welcome at his own golf club--NGLA. Because of his inherent position, particularly early on, if any man should've been the president of the USGA, it was Macdonald. Why wasn't he?
The Merion thread has made it clear to me that more needs to be analyzed about Macdonald, the man. Knowing more about just him may even explain what the real meaning of this reported "advised" may mean. There are little tell-tale signs and indications all over the place---in letters and events that may've been swept under the rug or minimized for one reason or another.
I think analyzing them can and will tell a most interesting story not just about him but about the way golf and maybe architecture too really was in those days and the way it went and maybe even why.
In the end he may even emerge as a greater force than we ever realized. But, at least, he should emerge more real than we, of this era, have ever known him.