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.


TEPaul

Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #25 on: March 26, 2007, 09:14:25 PM »
MikeY:

I thought you were going to say that any "amateur" architect was and is inherently a turd and should not even put himself in the same zip code as a professional---at which point I was going to come down there and beat the tar out of you. It would've been convenient since, as you know, I'm coming down there anyway next week.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2007, 09:21:30 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #26 on: March 26, 2007, 09:24:19 PM »
MikeY:

I thought you were going to say that any "amateur" architect was and is inherently a turd and should not even put himself in the same zip code as a professional---at which point I was going to come down there and beat the tar out of you. It would've been convenient since I'm coming down there anyway next week.
Tom Paul,
A few things you should know b4 coming here
1. yes, you are a turd when you cross the city limit sign
2. We burned Atlanta ourselves
3. Deliverance and the sexual experience it portrayed was not a lie but a fact of life for turds down here
I think you will enjoy your stay...
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #27 on: March 26, 2007, 09:29:09 PM »
tom,
I think what you will enjoy most of your trip to the Masters is the NO SMOKING policy they have while on the property.....just another reason it is one of the best tournaments around.....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

TEPaul

Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #28 on: March 26, 2007, 09:34:37 PM »
No smoking at the Masters?

Bullshit.

I'm a recon Marine, MikeY. I know how to smoke and field-strip and eat the filter so they enemy never knows it happened.

What about pissing at the Masters?

If you can't piss on a golf course it definitely deserves to plummet right off the top 100. That type of criteria is in the Top 100 ranking, isn't it?

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #29 on: March 26, 2007, 09:47:45 PM »
No smoking at the Masters?

Bullshit.

I'm a recon Marine, MikeY. I know how to smoke and field-strip and eat the filter so they enemy never knows it happened.

What about pissing at the Masters?

If you can't piss on a golf course it definitely deserves to plummet right off the top 100. That type of criteria is in the Top 100 ranking, isn't it?
A true Recon Marine would not risk smoking in the first place if in a situation....
you will find the restrooms quite accomodating
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

TEPaul

Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #30 on: March 26, 2007, 10:23:09 PM »
"A true Recon Marine would not risk smoking in the first place if in a situation...."

Yeah, you're probably right about that, and that's why the recons aren't what they were back in the 1960s.

"you will find the restrooms quite accomodating"

Restrooms on golf courses are both unecessary and unnatural!  
 
 

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #31 on: March 27, 2007, 07:13:48 AM »

Restrooms on golf courses are both unecessary and unnatural!  
 
 
Tom,
You are correct again...so just go where ever you please while at the tournament.....it will be an "overlooked" and "small" event I am sure
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2007, 09:47:20 AM »
John -

Agreed about Bendelow.

My question is simply who were the people working as professional architects in the US (without regard to their country of birth) during the first 20 years of golf in the US. Say, 1890 to 1910.

It seems that there were very few of 'em. Which suggests that almost all the early American courses were local amateur jobs. Because there were a lot of new courses built during those years.

Bob

Bob,

TP's lists looks very complete and I did not find any others in C&W book.

Is there an estimate on the number of courses that existed year by year ?

C&W states 80 courses in 1896 and then 982 by 1900 in the US.  Doing a monster of a SWAG,  it would seem about 3/4 would have been done by amateurs.

But after this initial boom,  I would guess that most courses would have been done by 'professionals' as the game grew out of mowing the pasture, putting in some chocolate drops architecture, and cutting 9 or 18 holes.

Look at Bendelow's list again.   It looks like his goal was to prevent any amateurs from getting a chance to do any work. He designed many, many courses in 1900-1910.  Just look at the volume, depth, and areal extent of his work. And most were 9 hole courses.  He was also re-modeling during that period.   He went to over 30 states in early 1900s and designed over 250 courses.

Maybe the amateurs did the courses if your town didn't have a railroad for a Bendelow visit.

With TP's list, which includes Bendelow,  I'm not sure how much would have been done by any amateurs after 1900.

My guess is much, much less work by amateurs after the very early period 1896-1900.  

Certainly by 1910, the amateurs were 'out' in the major metropolitian areas.  And while CBM was an 'amateur'  I don't consider him an amateur as an architect.

John

RSLivingston_III

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #33 on: March 27, 2007, 10:26:16 AM »
Add to Mr. Paul's list (design/build pre-1910):
Alex Smith
Jack Daray
"You need to start with the hickories as I truly believe it is hard to get inside the mind of the great architects from days gone by if one doesn't have any sense of how the equipment played way back when!"  
       Our Fearless Leader

RSLivingston_III

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #34 on: March 27, 2007, 10:29:15 AM »
John -

Agreed about Bendelow.

My question is simply who were the people working as professional architects in the US (without regard to their country of birth) during the first 20 years of golf in the US. Say, 1890 to 1910.

It seems that there were very few of 'em. Which suggests that almost all the early American courses were local amateur jobs. Because there were a lot of new courses built during those years.

Bob

Bob,

TP's lists looks very complete and I did not find any others in C&W book.

Is there an estimate on the number of courses that existed year by year ?

C&W states 80 courses in 1896 and then 982 by 1900 in the US.  Doing a monster of a SWAG,  it would seem about 3/4 would have been done by amateurs.

But after this initial boom,  I would guess that most courses would have been done by 'professionals' as the game grew out of mowing the pasture, putting in some chocolate drops architecture, and cutting 9 or 18 holes.

Look at Bendelow's list again.   It looks like his goal was to prevent any amateurs from getting a chance to do any work. He designed many, many courses in 1900-1910.  Just look at the volume, depth, and areal extent of his work. And most were 9 hole courses.  He was also re-modeling during that period.   He went to over 30 states in early 1900s and designed over 250 courses.

Maybe the amateurs did the courses if your town didn't have a railroad for a Bendelow visit.

With TP's list, which includes Bendelow,  I'm not sure how much would have been done by any amateurs after 1900.

My guess is much, much less work by amateurs after the very early period 1896-1900.  

Certainly by 1910, the amateurs were 'out' in the major metropolitian areas.  And while CBM was an 'amateur'  I don't consider him an amateur as an architect.

John
I assume by "amateur" you mean golf professionals.
"You need to start with the hickories as I truly believe it is hard to get inside the mind of the great architects from days gone by if one doesn't have any sense of how the equipment played way back when!"  
       Our Fearless Leader

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #35 on: March 27, 2007, 11:20:32 AM »
Ralph,

What is an amateur ?      In my context, I was thinking of the fellow who didn't make his living, and was not heavily involved, in course design.  It would be someone who did a limited number of courses and was done.  The course could be world famous or one that was abandoned in a few years.

The 'architect' could be the local golf professional or local amateur champion who was  'done' after working on a few courses.

From TPs initial list,   I would think that  Leeds, Fownes,  Wilson, Crump would be 'amateurs.'     These are amateurs in the sense that I thought Bob was approaching the subject.

In the overall context of the thousand of courses created in the early 1900s,  very few were done by amateurs of the status of Leeds, Fownes, Wilson, and Crump.  But, maybe many were done by the local pro or local amateur who we may never know.

If the number of courses,  86 in 1895 and then 982 in 1900,  is correct in C&W,  then about 900 courses were built in the early boom.

The list of architectural credits from C&W seems pretty comprehensive even in the early days.  This book seems to fall very short of 900 architectural credits in the US from 1895 to 1900.  

Seemingly then,   many were designed by folks who didn't go on to design many more courses, did not establish even a regional name, and did not develop as an architect as we know that profession today.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #36 on: March 27, 2007, 12:32:52 PM »
It seems that part of the amateur architects job was to inform the client of what they wanted, whereas the professional architect was hired to provide the client what he wanted. Although that may be too broad a generalization.

I just get the sense that the amateur architect had more freedom and autonomy. For one thing he was working for free, and in many cases he was a good golfer too. In either case, the expectations of golfers in those pioneer years were not developed, and this allowed all of the early architects, amateur and professional alike, to work without as much interferance; they were the experts, and in those days when you wanted something done well you secured the services of an expert and you trusted his judgement.

It just seems that the amateur, was given the most generous measure of trust in those times.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #37 on: March 27, 2007, 03:47:47 PM »
John -

Bendelow "did" a lot of courses during the era, but I'm not sure what "did" means.

His primary mission was to promote golf on behalf of his boss The Spalding Sporting Goods Company. His secondary mission was to design as many golf courses as possible.

So I'm not sure where he fits. He gets a bit of a bad rap. He did some good courses and, I understand, actually oversaw the construction of some and, in some cases, hung around long enough to worry about design quality.

But his main mission was quantity. He was not paid by the clubs but by Spalding. He was there less to share his design expertise than to show a club where their holes ought to go.

My guess is that even as late as 1910, most new courses were still handmade jobs. And there were a ton of courses built during that decade.

But I'm winging it. I'll dig through C&W tonight.

It is an understudied era with some unique forces at play. You had a booming US economy, clubs with money to burn, a wildly popular sport and very few experts to show them how to build golf courses. So most of them just made something up as best they could.

Bob



   
« Last Edit: March 27, 2007, 03:48:58 PM by BCrosby »

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #38 on: March 27, 2007, 04:48:51 PM »
Bob,

Bendelow did as much 'field work' as any architect in those days, including Findlay, White & Ross, as C&W briefly discusses.  'Did' in the early American days would mean staking out the greens (routing), tees, hazards and leaving construction to others.

If you look thorugh SEGL, you find quite a few references which are somewhat tedious to sort through. Found his name quite a bit but really no description of the work to any extent, or for any architect for the numerous and less glamerous courses.

While much or all was done for Spalding, another prolofic designer  Alex Findlay also worked for Spalding, Wanamaker, and a Florida railroad company.  JD Dunn also did work for the railroads.  However it was done,  the work was done.

Bendelow later taught at U of Illinois so he learned something. Plus he never drank, observed the Sabbath, and maybe remembered to 'stake out' 9 holes rather than 8  ;).

Much of the work was primitive in those days (1895-1910) by comparison to the process used later, like in the 1920s.

A new 9 hole course was often laid in a day or two. C&W reports that the Country Club budgeted $50 to build its first 6 holes, whatever 'builds' means.

Maybe the rich amateur architects, such as Leeds at Myopia, Macdonald at NGLA, set the stage for the period of the 1920s when American architecture became more formalized.  In the 1895-1910 period,  the work was certainly less involved then the model developed in the 1920s.

Maybe as you alluded, when the economic boom spread,  the methods of the 1895-1910 were much less used more money became available.

Maybe everyone believed Macdonald and others when he ranked his course as the best and others decided to make more of the whole 'design' effort.

TEPaul

Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #39 on: March 28, 2007, 12:38:25 PM »
"Certainly by 1910, the amateurs were 'out' in the major metropolitian areas.  And while CBM was an 'amateur'  I don't consider him an amateur as an architect."

John:

To use the term "amateur architect" correctly in this thread I think we need to attempt to use it as best we can in as much of the context of the way they used the term back then.

So what did it mean to them back then?

First of all, obviously an "amateur" in those days was one that did not benefit financially IN ANY WAY from golf and that included playing, teaching, architecture and even writing---the latter perhaps more theoretical than actual.

But back in those days the Americans and the USGA were really stringent on what the term and concept of "amateurism" meant and what the term and concept of "professionalism" meant in golf generally. The USGA appeared to be much more stringent on amateurism than the other side.

It was not until around 1920 that the USGA Amateur Status code made an exception for professional golf architects. Essentially that let off the hook the likes of Tillinghast, Travis and perhaps Emmet. Quimet too, although they questioned his amateur status for his relationship with a sporting goods store, not for architecture.

But the others such as Macdonald, Crump, Wilson, Fownes, Thomas, Behr, maybe Hunter etc never took a dime for anything they did in golf course architecture.

They obviously never did because they didn't want to compromise their amateur playing status but they all also seemed to believe a so-called "amateur sportsman" just should not profit from the game in any way. The fact that most of those mentioned were independently wealthy might have had something to do with it too, although that was never mentioned.  ;)

But it struck me as significant the extent Alan Wilson went to in his report on the creation of Merion in explaining that the club did not use an "architect"---that they only used "amateurs" (The Merion Construction Committee that included amateur members including Hugh Wilson) and "sportsmen" (referring to Macdonald and Whigam) to design and build their course.

It almost appeared from the tone of Wilson's report that the term "architect" denoted professionalism.

So it's interesting to reflect on exactly what they meant by the term "amateur" or "amateur sportsman" or even the term "architect" in those early days.

One thing they apparently did not mean by the term "amateur" in architecture was someone who necessarily did not have the knowledge or the talent of the professional architects of that time.

Thomas made that pretty clear when he described Hugh Wilson as one of the most talented in architecture in America whether amateur or professional.

Peter Pallotta

Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #40 on: March 28, 2007, 07:46:46 PM »
TE
I've been reading a little in the archives about the period and issues you describe here (mostly in the NY Times archives, which I know can't be considered a 'definitive' source). Three things strike me: 1) how rarely the term architect is even used, let alone the distinction made between the amateur and professional architect, 2) how the marked exception is CB Macdonald, who gets mentioned constantly, and in reference to anything even remotely golf-related, and 3) how prominently Emmet and Tillinghast figure in the USGA debate about amateurism, going back to about 1916-1917; yes, officially it was because they were also 'players', but there seems to be a sense that they were 'symbolic' (for the USGA) of the new/emerging concept of 'professionalism' in American golf...and that, whether this new professionalism manifested itself in terms of playing the game or designing the courses, the USGA wanted to nip it in the bud.  

Peter  

TEPaul

Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #41 on: March 28, 2007, 08:05:57 PM »
Peter:

You should know that C.B. Macdonald I believe was still on the board of the USGA in the teens and appears to have been a staunch supporter of strict rules on the amateur status question. Macdonald also seemed to be one helluva parlimentarian offering all kinds of nuancy motions and amendments. He seemed to like that kind of organizational give and take although he did state that, in his opinion, the indicator of success of an organization like the USGA was how little it had to deal with.  ;)    

In my opinion, Macdonald was the man on the early USGA that was probably more imbued with the Scottish (or St Andrews) "spirit" of the game than any other.

Peter Pallotta

Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #42 on: March 28, 2007, 08:44:03 PM »
TE
thanks.

The "bifurcation" of golf course architecture in America seems to have started right from the start.

I can imagine Macdonald feeling that only an 'amateur' could afford to spend the vast amounts of time a quality design required. He had St. Andrews as his ideal model, and that took decades/centuries to "get right"... so what was a few years spent on a course here in America in comparison.

Meanwhile, "green committees" were laying out new courses by the hundreds, and quickly...but those were a different kind of amateur

Peter  

TEPaul

Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #43 on: March 28, 2007, 11:32:24 PM »
You're pushing me Peter.

Push me far enough and I'm just going to come right out and say it!  ;)

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2007, 07:53:44 AM »

The "bifurcation" of golf course architecture in America seems to have started right from the start.

I can imagine Macdonald feeling that only an 'amateur' could afford to spend the vast amounts of time a quality design required. He had St. Andrews as his ideal model, and that took decades/centuries to "get right"... so what was a few years spent on a course here in America in comparison.

Meanwhile, "green committees" were laying out new courses by the hundreds, and quickly...but those were a different kind of amateur


Peter - I disagree a bit. Yes there was a sort of bifurcation.
 
Certainly there were regional differences. The NE had more money and a longer connection with the game. Thus people spent more time and money on the early courses there.

It was different in the SE, MW and W. The vast majority of courses built up to 1910 were homemade jobs. They never joined the USGA and they don't show up in C&W. And most were gone by WWII (or totally rebuilt).

But without regard to region, the thing that disinguishes early American golf architecture is that everyone - from C. B. MacD on Long Island to Otey the cotton farmer in Georgia - everyone thought that they were perfectly capable of building a golf course. Without the assistance of professionals. Even when they had the money - and MacD, Fownes, Wilson, Leeds, all of them had the money to hire the best professional designers in the world - they didn't do so.

I don't think the British had the same attitude.

All this points to one of the reasons why American golf courses have always been - from the very beginning - different from golf courses in the UK. Americans (for better or worse) figured they could build them themselves.

However you may bifurcate early American gca, the one attitude everyone shared, from MacD the aristocrat to Otey the redneck, was that they thought could (and they did) build 'em themselves. And that made a big difference in how gca evolved in the US and the UK, I suspect.

Bob
« Last Edit: March 30, 2007, 03:19:45 PM by BCrosby »

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2007, 02:37:36 PM »
Since the topic has tipped toward early courses, 1900 or so, I would like to add a tidbit here.

While Bendelow was derided by some for his 'simple methods' according to C&W,   a review of his work at Van Cordlandt & in NYC might suggest otherwise.

USGA bulletin provides a good read on Bendelow's work at Van Cortlandt.     He did quite a bit of work in remodeling the course as it would called today.  Moved tees, greens, strategically placed bunkers, etc.  He was also on site for the work.  Tom 'did' a lot at Van Cortlandt.  The article was long, and clearly held up the work as some sort of model for the cities.

You can also note the inferences in the bulletin that other cities would soon be following the lead of NYC in using what I would call a 'professional.'

Another bulletin provides that Bendelow had the best plans for another NYC course 'Fox Hill.'   It implied some sort of a review of plans or competition if you will.   It is clear that those in charge thought Tom had the best plan.  Bendelow also had the  'staying power'  as he went on to design many, many more courses.

At least in the bulletins, you definitely get the feel of the 'professional' (yet to be called an architect) was the way to go,  to have a proper course.

Most of the northeast and the midwest (Chicago) work may have been tipping toward mostly 'professional work' by very early 1900s.

Having said that,   we still have courses in east Tennessee being designed today by amateurs in a midsize (400,000) metro area like Knoxville.

Peter Pallotta

Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2007, 09:25:17 PM »
You're pushing me Peter.

Push me far enough and I'm just going to come right out and say it!  ;)

TE
only because you don't know me very well, the worst thing I could push you to say is "Peter P, you don't know the first damn thing about early golf course architecture."  To which I'd reply "Whew, I'm glad someone said it - it takes the weight right off my shoulders." But I AM hoping it's about something else.... :)  

Peter

Peter Pallotta

Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #47 on: March 30, 2007, 09:40:55 PM »
"But without regard to region, the thing that disinguishes early American golf architecture is that everyone - from C. B. MacD on Long Island to Otey the cotton farmer in Georgia - everyone thought that they were perfectly capable of building a golf course. Without the assistance of professionals."

Bob C
A couple of questions about that interesting comment:

1) It doesn't seem to have been "arrogance" exactly that had them thinking that....or was it? (I mean, Macdonald at least was singing the praises of the Scottish courses, if not exactly 'defering' to them)  
 
2) Does the large number of quickly-forgotten or totally re-built courses you mentioned earlier mean that most early American architects were flat-out wrong, i.e. they COULDN'T build the courses themselves?

Thanks
Peter    

TEPaul

Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #48 on: March 30, 2007, 11:48:52 PM »
"TE
only because you don't know me very well, the worst thing I could push you to say is "Peter P, you don't know the first damn thing about early golf course architecture."  To which I'd reply "Whew, I'm glad someone said it - it takes the weight right off my shoulders." But I AM hoping it's about something else....   :)

Peter:

Not at all.

Don't sell yourself short---you have asked more great questions and made more good points on here recently than almost anyone else on this website

Bob Jenkins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The early American "amateur" architect....
« Reply #49 on: March 31, 2007, 01:27:10 PM »
Tom,

Wasn't Neville a good amateur golfer, who had never before designed  a course, when he was asked to design Pebble?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back