I'm really not too sure why the word, the term, the definition etc, etc, of "architect" is getting worked over on here bigtime in the last few days.
Nevertheless it is.
In a way a part of me says it's a ridiculous subject and topic for discussion but another part of me says it isn't.
The reason I think the latter may be true---eg that discussing on here the meaning of "architect" may NOT be ridiculous is because I'm beginning to believe that the term or designation ("architect") to some, such as those men back in that day who created the likes of NGLA, Merion, Oakmont, Pine Valley, Myopia, Riviera et al very much felt the term "architect" connoted professionalism in golf and the very last thing any of those men who created the likes of those courses wanted to be connected to in golf was professionalism.
The reason is obvious. If you were suspected of having any professional connection to golf in that day your amateur status---playing status or otherwise, was definitely in jeopardy or suspect.
If any of us really comb the records back then we will likely find references in writing from people like Alan Wilson who actually made the point and distinction that Merion, for instance, did not involve the services of an "architect"---that the people who were responsible for the design and creation of the course were known and referred to as "sportsmen".
Clearly the latter word and phrase ("sportsman") connoted amateurism or at least a lack of professionalism.
On the other hand, if the term or definition of "architect" was, back then, or is today, supposed to connote requisite talent in designing and creating great golf courses, isn't it really ironic that those who did not want to be referred to as "architects", but preferred to be referred to as "sportsmen" created the likes of Myopia, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley, Riviera et al----the courses that still today are considered to be some of the best golf architecure in American history.
