Confusion about golf's early multi-tasking immigrants to America

[TEPaul]

It seems the recent North Shore architectural attribution subject has given us another good example of how and why architectural attribution can become misunderstood and misinterpreted.

A number of the early immigrants from abroad who came to America in the 1890s and early 20th century to make a new and better life over here in golf were multi-taskers with golf. In other words, they often worked simultaneously as golf professionals, both teaching and playing and often greenskeepers, construction formen and such, as well as occasionally clubmakers and architects.

Robert White who was involved with North Shore GC as a multi-tasker seems to be another good example and I think one can see both how and why some people today may interpret what was written about him concerning North Shore to mean he was North Shore's architect.

I think that article in 1918 about White and by White in Golf Illustrated is a perfect example (posted on the North Shore thread). The article introduces White as the "creator" of North Shore apparently because he acted as the course's construction man and agronomist as its greenkeeper as well as its golf professional.

It is very easy for some of us today and in the past to assume that White was also North Shore's architect when one sees a word like "creator" or "constructor" in an article if there is no other mention of the course's architect (in this case Seth Raynor).

It might be a good idea to make a list of these early immigrants into what exactly they did in America in the beginning as well as how they evolved over here and what they ended up concentrating on----eg the ones who were early multi-taskers and the ones who weren't.

At this point, I'm not even sure which of them weren't multi-taskers in some ways---but some possibilities might be Willie Park Jr, Alex Findlay or Tom Bendelow. Others who came somewhat later such as Fowler, Colt, Mackenzie are a bit more obvious in that they were solely architects. Certainly Ross' career and evolution is much better known and recorded.

Those who are more complicated to understand are probably the likes of Willie Campbell, Willie Dunn and the Dunns, Willie Davis, Willie Watson, Robert White and perhaps numerous others like them.

[TEPaul]

And of course this whole thing raises another very interesting question about early American golf architecture which is who were the first American born golf architects, how they got into it and why?

But that's probably a subject for another thread.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEP,
A great place to read about these early 'multi-taskers' is found in Tom MacWoods excellent essays: 

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/in-my-opinion-the-early-architects-beyond-old-tom-by-tom-macwood

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/in-my-opinion-the-early-architects-beyond-old-tom-by-tom-macwood/the-early-golf-architects-beyond-old-tom-by-tom-macwood-pg-ii

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/in-my-opinion-the-early-architects-beyond-old-tom-by-tom-macwood/the-early-architects-beyond-old-tom-by-tom-macwood-pg-iii

I think you wrongly assume that others are content to stop looking for information when they hear something that they like. It was the Robert White article which led inquiring minds to dig deeper into the history of NSCC.  If the information in it wasn't questioned we would not know the part he played or the part Raynor played.
This type of information doesn't stop anyone who is serious from continuing to dig for more, and there is no reason to be scared of potential mis-interpretations as the process unfolds, that's just a part of how we learn the truth. As long as the players aren't scared of finding the truth and don't stifle information when they find it, everything will work itself out in the end.

[TEPaul]

"I think you wrongly assume that others are content to stop looking for information when they hear something that they like."


Jim Kennedy:

I'm not too sure why you think I'm wrongly assuming others are content to stop looking for information when they hear something that they like. If I assumed that I probably wouldn't have created this thread!

 
"It was the Robert White article which led inquiring minds to dig deeper into the history of NSCC."



Yes, it was and it was George Bahto who first mentioned White and the 1918 GI article as being part of his notes on NS. However, the discovery of the truth of the architectural attribution of NS would never have been resolved had Phil Young not told Steve Shaeffer about the NS club records at the Historical Society in NY and had Steve Shaeffer not gone to NY and read them carefully.

Another interesting facet to this may be forthcoming at some point----eg why Bill Quirin reported in his book on the course of the MGA that the architectural attribution was Tillinghast in 1914/1915 because Bill Quirin was contacted about this subject the other day.

[TEPaul]

And yes, I think Tom MacWood's essay on here entitled "The Early Architects Beyond Old Tom (Morris)" is an excellent one on this subject. I think it's particularly interesting in how he chose to deal with some of the heretofore not well known so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects abroad before even getting into the professional contingent over there---certainly an interesting historical parallel abroad to what actually happened over here to some extent when golf and architecture first came to America.

However, I think the entire subject needs to be expanding forward in time from what he covered so we can see how some of them and certainly the most important of those early multi-tasking immigrant professionals began to concentrate just on golf architecture itself solely and perhaps more importantly WHEN and certainly WHY.

I'm of the belief that no more of the types of projects of those famous courses (ex. Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, Merion, Pine Valley) of those early so-called "Amateur/Sportsmen" architects over here were begun again right about the same time the professionals over here were finally beginning to organize themselves and their careers over here to be solely dedicated to golf course architecture----eg seemingly right around WW1.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
How long was Robert White at North Shore and did he continue to tweak the course during his tenure?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
How long was Robert White at North Shore and did he continue to tweak the course during his tenure?"


Tom MacWood:

Good questions. I don't know if he continued to tweak the course architecturally during his tenure as all I've ever seen from White about North Shore is that single article which was mostly about agronomic maintenance after he explained how greens were built and seeded. As for how long he was at North Shore it looks like he might have been there from the beginning of the Raynor course through most of 1918 when it appears he is saying he was moving on to the Montclair GC in New Jersey.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

According to the Minutes, see the February 18, 1918 notation that White was given a "consulting expert" appointment. My further note on that date reflects that NS hired a new professional- Alexander Pirie.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Since you are interested in Robert White's career maybe that is something you should follow up on.

Based on the fact that the design of North Shore was apparently a collaboration between Raynor and White I think there is a decent chance he did tweak it during his tenure (and perhaps afterward). One of the more interesting comments on the other thread came from Jim Nagle who said he observed similarities at North Shore with White's work elsewhere. It is also interesting to note the club continued to pay White as a consultant after he left for Montclair.

[TEPaul]

From Jeffrey Brauer on one of the North Shore threads:

"TePaul,
I think there is an interesting subject at hand in the evolving form of gca contracts and construction methods. I don't know that these affected the product on the ground all that much, but as we have discussed in other threads, before WWI they were all kind of feeling their way in design and particulary in construction and agronomy.  I suspect the contracts were less formal because it was an evolving field."

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Since you are interested in Robert White's career maybe that is something you should follow up on.

Based on the fact that the design of North Shore was apparently a collaboration between Raynor and White I think there is a decent chance he did tweak it during his tenure (and perhaps afterward). One of the more interesting comments on the other thread came from Jim Nagle who said he observed similarities at North Shore with White's work elsewhere. It is also interesting to note the club continued to pay White as a consultant after he left for Montclair."


Tom MacWood:

It's an interesting subject of course and probably one that somewhat belongs on this thread too. However, the other threads on North Shore were only about actual architectural attribution and it seems like the club was very clear on that.  For you or anyone else to suggest, at this point, that White actually got actively involved in his own designing of the architecture of North Shore rather than just construction of Raynor's design and then the greenskeeping maintenance of it for the next several years would seem to require some facts to support that suggestion, don't you think?

Consequently, if anyone is going to assume or conclude White did more than we know from the club or from White's article it seems those assumptions and conclusion can be nothing more than merely speculative, at this point.

I thought contributors like you and Moriarty demanded "Verifiable Facts" for things claimed as historically accurate on this website. Therefore, where are they with White contributing to the architectural design of North Shore? Are you aware of any that any of us have not seen yet or are you just speculating and trying to make mere speculation look something like accurate historical events and facts?  




"It is also interesting to note the club continued to pay White as a consultant after he left for Montclair."

It is, isn't it, but a "consulting expert" on what? 

Previously his job description had been as a greenskeeper, construction man and golf professioinal at NS and not their golf architect. Unless NS mentioned that he was to be NS's "consulting expert" with their golf architecture and design when he moved to Montclair or unless there is some other documentation to indicate that why are you assuming or even trying to conclude with what we all have so far that that was the case? What you are doing is merely speculating. Nothing wrong with that really as long as we all know that you admit that is what you are doing.