"old Dev Emmet is getting brushed aside."

I don't think so. Old Dev Emmet and the subject of his architectural involvement at NGLA has been dealt with on this thread as comprehensively as it ever could be at this point and with what's out there that points to what his involvement may have been. The fact is there just isn't enough to make a case for what he did, if much at all, and so it seems at this point from what's available he probably didn't do that much.

Everyone seems to understand that except you of course. And why that is I think I alluded to in the way you analyze both Emmet and others.

This certainly doesn't mean that something may come up or be found somewhere at some point to indicate otherwise. So, as to Old Dev and his involvment at NGLA I'll just wait for that time, if it ever comes.

I never said I thought he did nothing, although I'm quite sure you probably thought I did for some unknown reason. My best guess with what we have so far was that his architectural interest was one of a 'kindly' nature just as Macdonald said it was!

What would that architectural advice and involvement have likely been out there, in my opinion?

Probably something 'kindly' like this;

"Oh Chuck, that's such a swell road hole green there although that right front upslope may be a bit severe and in need of toning down just a teeny eeny weeny touch."

"Chaz, you are such a stud-muffin to produce a green-site like this "Bottle Hole" one!"

"C.B. this cape hole carry is so buffo and tempting I could just scream wth ecstasy at the thought of some hairy He-man like you potentially driving it and I think we should just go ahead and start floating the story that you really ARE the "Father of American architecture."

At which point C.B may have said to Dev;

"Look here you foppish little dandy fly-boy, if any man drives that green I'm going to personally punch him out or disinherit him and then I'm going to move that green inland and build a driveway to the clubhouse where it is now. Now get out of my sight and go back to GCGC and see if you can stop that ass-hole Travis from screwing with your golf course before he sets that ridiculous hat of yours on fire with his cigar!"

"Perhaps you can now recreate the conversation between CB & HJ and the Merion committee. After that Colt and Crump."

Tom MacW:

I don't know who HJ is but if you're as inaccurate as you have been about these things so far perhaps you mean HW (Hugh Wilson). I can't recreate a conversation between Wilson and Macdonald but here's an interesting exhange between Wynant Vanderpool and Wilson in Dec 1920 and January 1921 about Macdonald which is quite interesting regarding his state of mind towards golf and golf architecture I've been alluding to for a couple of years.

Vanderpool to Wilson;

"Charlie Macdonald has refused to serve, putting his refusal on the ground that he has practically dropped out of active golf. If you think it wise, I am sure that I can persuade him to serve in the formation of the committee whether or not he resigns afterward."

Wilson to Vanderpool;

"Charlie Macdonald unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way you look at it, will not serve but all the others have accepted."

And as far a conversation between Crump and Colt this is documented and about as close as it could get to a conversation between the two over PVGC.

Harry Colt:

"Mr. Crump, how do you like how I slide your 2nd green about fifty yards left on the topo and put the tee to #3 in the middle of your green site for #2?"

George Crump:

"Mr Colt, that is no good!"

Thought this would be helpful:

This is from a CBM "state of the club" address about NGLA, it is detailed in "18 Stakes on a Sunday Afternoon" by Geoff Cornish.

(an excerpt form the book follows a section on costs)

McDonald then touches on topics related to its architecture, thanking several notable figures for assistance in this area. "For the aid in the origional purchase of the land in laying out the golf course we must thank Mr. H.J. Whigham and Mr. Devereux Emmet"

(He then thanks Raynor in great length and finishes by thanking Horace Hutchinson)

SPDB,

Absent any citing of DE's specific involvement in the design and construction of NGLA, CBM's comments are nothing more then polite remarks.

You may wish to perpetuate a myth, I have no interest.

This was a fishing expedition that came up empty handed.  

Ian:

CBM's thanking of Whigham, Emmet, Raynor and Horace Hutchinson is completely consistent with what he wrote in his book "Scotland's Gift Golf" published in 1928.

For the remark 'aiding in the purchase', that's consistent with his listing of the seventy founders who presumably put up $1000 each. That includes Emmet and Whigham. Saying they helped 'lay out' the course is a bit more about Emmet than he said in his book about him which just mentioned his 'kindly interest'. Of course he devotes more time and space to Whigham in his book calling him his 'associate' (one of two, although he mentions he 'eventually dropped' his other associate, Travis).

SPDB:

There's no reason I can think of not to believe Tillinghast when he wrote specifically what he felt his contribution to the design of PVGC was. It involved the green site movement on #13 and HHA on #7 (according to him). Unfortunately Crump didn't write articles and such as Tillinghast did (thankfully) and apparently didn't keep much in the way of written records--although there may be some interesting letters from him in the archives). Personally, I think there was probably more to Tillinghast's involvement or his design influence on #7 as the record shows pretty clearly that Crump was evolving #7 into a double dog-leg hole around the time he died suddenly. It looks quite clear that he's already angled the green for the purpose which was a change from the way that green (and it's bunkering) was originally built by him). It's certainly no secret that Tillinghast was well known for both writing about and drawing the double dog-leg concept hole and it's no secret that Tillinghast and Crump were friends and that Tillinghast was down there a number of times with him.

I suggest you integrate puppets and then take your show on the road.

TEPaul,
I wish you would, I really wish you would.  Your dialogue made me laugh  so hard I . . . well, not in mixed company.  Not only would I buy tickets to this show, if you'll promise to bring it to KPIV, I'll bring the kids!

Incidentally, you are right.  I hate to be a wet rag, but without primary sources documenting Emmet's role, we're reduced to speculation.  Anyone can theorize upon a couple of vague public references, and that can be exciting, the way it's exciting to find a new Bach (or is it?) piece.  But if a scholar wishes to do more than that, primary sources need to be found, examined, and cited.

Tom and Darva

We all know that the victors get first crack at writing the history of wars (and other more important human projects, like building golf courses), but shouldn't an historian be more sceptical than to just take their word for what really happened?

After all, wasn't the working title of CB's book:  "Scotland's Gift--MacDonald" ?

Frankly, in my opinion, there's probably an extremely interesting book waiting to be written on another aspect of C.B. Macdonald's life in golf in America, and I've suggested a number of times that George Bahto should consider writing it.

It seems to me there's not much question that Macdonald can definitely be seen as not just the "Father of American Architeture" but as the man who almost singly tried to transport so many of the things about golf that it'd for so long been to this country from Scotland---primarily that thing he called the "spirit" (of St. Andrews). It was not by a long shot just the idea of consistently good golf architecture that he brought here by being the first to see the benefits in copying and mimicing the architectural concepts of age old proven European golf holes.

There's so much more to what he was doing or trying to do in those very early days, in my opinion. Being one of the few founders of the USGA is significant and his roles in that organization and his voluminous writing about the things that were going on during that approximately 30 year time are frankly fascinating if one would simply track and analyze them properly. His strong positions on both the overall concept of how the rules of golf were to be transported and interpreted by the USGA as well as the direction of the new American golf organization (USGA) is really significant, in my opinion.

I believe the key to it all is what it appears he went through in those decades and ultimately what it did to him, which few, it seems to me, have heretofore explained, acknowledged or perhaps even understood.

There's little question in my mind that many of these things upset him, eventually depressed him, and perhaps in a massive way, and caused him to virtually withdraw from golf beginning around 1921! This is not speculation as I have letters between Wynant Vanderpool and Hugh Wilson mentioning that he said as much.

The interesting question about Macdonald would be to find out why. It looks to me like it was a lot more than simply the oft stated fact that he had a large ego. Analyzing this 30 year evolution in the USGA particularly and Macdonald's part in it---from rules (an area he was initially extremely significant in), to the organizations management, the question of it future membership and how it conducted it's business could probably show a great deal about how American golf got to be the way it did and has.

I don't think it's that accurate to simply say Macdonald was an out and out curmudgeon with an over arching ego that caused him to probably ultimately withdraw from golf outside NGLA for almost the last 20 years of his life. He may have been that to some extent but if one pays close attention to the tenor of his voluminous letters on USGA issues (and this from a man on the inside of the organization) one can't help miss a certain resignation (and not necessarily a continuously battling one).

Macdonald seemed to sense early on (the less than confrontational tenor of his USGA writng) that he was not going to successfully fight "City Hall" (strong opinions of various controlling board members  within the USGA that ran counter to his). It's also interesting that he never became the President of the USGA---as he certainly was a logical choice with all that he was and had been. It also seems if he'd been willing they may have offered it to him--at least early on!

It also seems evident to me from all this, that although those in power in golf beginning around 1920 still had real respect for Macdonald in many ways they didn't have much desire to try to approach him!

It looks like he just withdrew from most all things golf and back into NGLA for perhaps the last 15-20 years of his life. If that had never happened would golf be different today? I think it probably would have, but by how much is the interesting question.

In the beginning and potentially C.B Macdonald could've been a whole lot more than just what he's now known to be---the "Father of American Golf Architecture".

Pat:

I looks to me pretty obvious that a number of people had something to do with NGLA architecturally or it'd seem odd that Macdonald himself would've mentioned that they had.

The only real question or issue here, it seems to me, is what their involvment was and how much it was. It could've been just a little with Macdonald doing most everything himself or it could've been something more than than that from those people he mentioned as 'helping' him with NGLA.

The idea here, in my opinion, is for some of the contributors on here NOT to say that those people he mentioned, including Emmet did something really significant unless they can point to facts that prove it. So far nobody has done that. And a few articles from that time that've been mentioned on here say nothing more about the involvement of Emmet and others architecturally with NGLA than Macdonald already said. Macdonald does, however, seem to say and imply much more about Whigham's involvment, particularly when they both "went over" the ground on horseback for 2-3 days finding sites for "alps" holes, a redan, a cape hole etc.

Rich Goodale,

Tell me what laying out the golf course means, and then tell me specifically what DE's role was, OR did he like 70 other members, pony up the $ 1,000 allowing the land to be acquired, and in so acquiring that particular parcel, that unique stretch of land, was CMB alluding to that act as being a contributing factor in laying out the golf course.  
Absent specific or detailed information I don't see how anyone can claim DE was intimately involved in the design and construction of NGLA.

Goodnight Gracie

In almost all cases I've seen and read about regarding these early courses and that early time when they were first started the term "laying out" almost always meant what we refer to today as "routing the course".

A routing, in that day and age anyway, was almost always a pretty basic hole and course plan---very often in the form of a "stick routing" which shows the length of hole, the basic direction of the play of it using simple pencil lines, generally a dot or very small circle for the green and tee and often an X or dot for what was expected to be the LZs for good players! The old LZ distance used in that early time was generally about 220-240 yards and 250 at most---the distance a good player hit it.

Throughout most of the early "modern age" the tee shot LZ was generally 267 yards for an interesting and probably very simple reason---most of the topos were and are 1"=200' (they were almost always 1"=100' in the old days) and it just happens that on the 1'=200' topos 4" on the ruler equals 267 yards on the ground!!

What I've always called the "designing up" phase of architecture generally followed that initial "laying out" or "routing" phase and sometimes, in the cases of NGLA, PVGC, Merion, Oakmont and many of the other greats it took years to do and complete the "designing up" phase.