[Thomas MacWood]

Bradley
I would agree to a certain extent, but one needs to judge architecture relative to its era. The situation in 1894 was not the same as the situation in 1911 or 1921. And I don't believe you mentioned anything about capital when you said Colt was the first expert to come to these shores. The majority of the best courses in America in 1890s and 1900s were either designed by Scots or partially designed by Scots. I'm not a fan of the generalizations that TE is so fond of.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

I did mention Macdonald who began NGLA in 1907 and continued to work on it for the rest of his life.

Now, you be a good little contributor and just add some addendums to the issues that others JUST generated. That's what you seem to be best at---the minor details.  It's only when you find those minor details BEFORE a discussion like this one in the last few hours that you become really dangerous and a true waste of time.

Try not to deflect this thread again with trivialities as it definitely just got a new life.

SAVY?

[SPDB]

The low regard that the professional was held in America (and in the UK) is common knowledge.  And bear in mind that in the early days, a professional was many things to a club, including greenkeeper, instructor and architect. Is it beyond belief that in these early, early days, the contribution/role of these "amateur/sportsmen" might be elevated, intentionally or unintentionally, at the expense of the professional?

[TEPaul]

"The majority of the best courses in America in 1890s and 1900s were either designed by Scots or partially designed by Scots. I'm not a fan of the generalizations that TE is so fond of."



That remark, is just a massive factual inaccuracy in the history and evolution of golf architecture in America in this incredibly fascinating era, and it can be, and frankly has been proven.

Get out of the way, Mr. MacWood, there are far better men onboard at this point on this thread than you!

The real deal is not JUST those so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects themselves of that remarkable transitional era, it's the way they went about it! And following that----the reasons WHY!

[TEPaul]

"Is it beyond belief that in these early, early days, the contribution/role of these "amateur/sportsmen" might be elevated, intentionally or unintentionally, at the expense of the professional?"



SPDB:

Could you expand on or elaborate on that point?

[TEPaul]

Jeeeesus Christ, my faith in GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's DG has just been restored in the last few hours! What the hell happened?

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

The first wave of Scotsmen to come over here began as servants of clubs in various capacities before they were given a chance to remodel and build great golf holes. It seems to me that only Colt was regarded as an expert before he even got off the boat. Most of the others made their own names for themselves. Ross and White are good examples.

If things were as you describe, then what sort of credit to you think one of these "servants" would have received had he been the creative force behind the design or remodel of a golf course?   Remember even though they were considered "servants" here, these Scots grew up with golf on real golf courses, in comparison in 1896 very few Americans had any clue about what they were doing when it came to playing golf, much less designing courses.   Given these men had Scots at their service, do you really believe they wouldn't have gotten a bit of help?

These were the kind of men who would figure things out on their own or hire the experts they needed to tell them what they needed to know.

From what I can tell it was the latter.  And from what I can tell, while the expert may have been paid, he was not necessarily credited.

The question might be asked? What happened to the gentleman architect? His breed was for a brief time because after the likes of Ross and MacKenzie began to gather steam, no group of other gentlemen would ever give their support to a gentleman architect again. Which is kind of a shame, because so many of them did such incredible work.

The accomplishments of such men were great, but we might ask whether there was ever a "gentleman architect" in the sense that we credit them.  Crump had Colt, Leeds apparently had Campbell, Merion had both Barker then Macdonald and Whigham (both amateurs themselves, but ones with a vastly more sophisticated understanding of the discipline) and then later had Flynn.   

__________________________________

"The majority of the best courses in America in 1890s and 1900s were either designed by Scots or partially designed by Scots. I'm not a fan of the generalizations that TE is so fond of."



That remark, is just a massive factual inaccuracy in the history and evolution of golf architecture in America in this incredibly fascinating era, and it can be, and frankly has been proven.

So prove it.  With facts, not pontification.

[DMoriarty]

Jeeeesus Christ, my faith in GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's DG has just been restored in the last few hours! What the hell happened?

You apparently have very low expectations.

[TEPaul]

Bradley, Peter, SPDB:

Can we just keep it going and pretend like post #157 isn't even there?

[SPDB]

TEPaul:

I wasn't so much making a point as I was posing a question, which I do not believe needs further elaboration. But, nevertheless I will try. 

Assume, if you will, that one of these amateur/sportsmen embarks on a design or redesign of a club's course, perhaps with the assistance of that club's professional.  Without knowing the precise respective divisions of labor or input, I think it is entirely plausible that the members of such club, and indeed the golfing public at large, which at that time was a fairly insular bunch, might be more inclined to give attribution, in some cases total attribution to the amateur-sportsman, at the expense of the professional, even if it isn't warranted. My point was, given the regard the professional was held in as compared to the amateur-sportsman, this isn't so farfetched.

And in time, the true contribution of the architect vanishes - with your experience at Kittansett, you have to concede that this is at the very least plausible.

As the saying goes - one generation's myth becomes the next generation's history.  

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: Bradley Anderson on Today at 08:43:21 pm
Tom,

The first wave of Scotsmen to come over here began as servants of clubs in various capacities before they were given a chance to remodel and build great golf holes. It seems to me that only Colt was regarded as an expert before he even got off the boat. Most of the others made their own names for themselves. Ross and White are good examples."





"If things were as you describe, then what sort of credit to you think one of these "servants" would have received had he been the creative force behind the design or remodel of a golf course?   Remember even though they were considered "servants" here, these Scots grew up with golf on real golf courses, in comparison in 1896 very few Americans had any clue about what they were doing when it came to playing golf, much less designing courses.   Given these men had Scots at their service, do you really believe they wouldn't have gotten a bit of help?"



David Moriarty:

Frankly, I did not think the time would ever come again when I would want to respond to you on here, but I must make an exception now.

Your response to Bradley Anderson on post #156 contains a couple of really good and really important questions, and that makes the difference to me! I'm gratified we are finally seemingly stripping through the bullshit and getting to some truly important issues. I hope they don't get diverted, dismissed or discounted and that it continues as it has been in the last few hours.

[Peter Pallotta]

David M - you mention those with a "vastly more sophisticated understanding of the discipline." But that begs the very question I've tried to ask (and that I wonder about in general), i.e. how was that discipline understood 75 or 100 years ago? Was it the same discipline as it would be 30 years or 75 or 100 years later? What was considered sophisticated understanding in 1900 or 1910, i.e. what were its characteristics? In the quote from Tom D that I used before,  it appears that much of what is now considered the important abilities and understanding and even goals of golf course architecture (e.g. heavy earthmoving, drainage, irrigation, cart paths,) weren't a big consideration back then, or at least not nearly as big as designing "cool golf holes", which Tom describes as "the single focus of golf course design" back 75 or 100 years ago. Did the Crumps and Leeds and Wilsons etc have a vastly LESS sophisticated undestanding of THAT discipline than the professionals?  In other words, it seems to me that the wealthy amateur-sportsmen - who, as I think Bradley has tried to suggest, could dream of creating the GREAT golf courses BECAUSE they were wealthy -- were perhaps very understandably and correctly crediting with being the main and driving CREATIVE force behind the courses now considered great.   

Peter 

[DMoriarty]

David M - you mention those with a "vastly more sophisticated understanding of the discipline." But that begs the very question I've tried to ask (and that I wonder about in general), i.e. how was that discipline understood 75 or 100 years ago? Was it the same discipline as it would be 30 years or 75 or 100 years later? What was considered sophisticated understanding in 1900 or 1910, i.e. what were its characteristics?

This has been covered many times on here, including in MacWood's Arts and Crafts Essay.  But generally, straight holes with cop bunker placed across fairway for drive and another a bit short of the green.  Traps along the outside.   Flat greens.  Little or no concern for strategy, options, or alternate routes.   

In the quote from Tom D that I used before,  it appears that much of what is now considered the important abilities and understanding and even goals of golf course architecture (e.g. heavy earthmoving, drainage, irrigation, cart paths,) weren't a big consideration back then, or at least not nealy as big as designing "cool golf holes", which Tom describes as "the single focus of golf course design" back 75 or 100 years ago.

Was the range of "75 or 100 years ago" your contribution or his?  Because things were much different 75 or 80 or 90 years ago than they were 100 or 110 years ago.     Around 1896,the goal was not to design "cool golf holes" but merely to create a place to play golf.   It was pretty rudimentary.   For example, according to MacDonald, golf came to Boston in 1893 when a visitor from abroad brought her clubs and her hosts and their friends tried it.    They then buried some flower pots across a couple of adjacent estates, and they had a golf course.   Most of the time they did not know what they were doing, and needed someone to teach them.    Likewise they had no idea how to make a  course, so they had someone tell them how to do it.   So as they got more into it they turned to those who knew something about golf, the Scottish golf professionals.

Did the Crumps and Leeds and Wilsons etc have a vastly LESS sophisticated undestanding of THAT discipline than the professionals?  In other words, ot seems to me that the wealthy amateur-sportsmen - who, as I think Bradley has tried to suggest, could dream of creating the GREAT golf courses BECAUSE they were wealthy -- were perhaps very understandably and correctly crediting with being the main and driving CREATIVE force behind the courses now considered great.   

Peter 

I don't think this has much basis in reality, at least not in the accounts or reports I have found.  Generally, an "expert" was brought in to plan the course.  Then, if there was even anything to build, the greens committee or the chairman or some other clubmen then laid it out and/or built it.  Over time, one or a few members often took a special interest in the process and become the person in the club responsible for just about everything to do with the course. 

[Sean_A]

I know its easy to lump stuff together to make a flowing argument, but I find it hard to believe that things were so cut and dried as is mapped here.  While it is most likely true that the proper archies of say 1910 (Colt, Fowler, Park Jr., Dr Mac and maybe a few others) were head and shoulders above the rest of the bunch in terms of creating a consistently good product, it is hard to believe that there was a discernable difference as groups between the lesser lights (pros who fiddled about in the dirt - jack of all trades chaps) and amateurs.  Its was a quick learning curve for those that stuck at it.  The Scottish pros didn't have much of a jump on the folks living in the States as is evidenced by their fairly quick and virtual disappearance from the the field of design - so far as quality design goes - the stuff that endured.  To put it bluntly, I think many of these guys were cowboys cashing in on the fact that they were Scottish. 

There is a reason that courses continued to evolve in the early years - because the courses were far from ideal.  Some of this is due to changes in equipment, though some of the best of these days has survived despite equipment changes.  Some of this is due to groundbreaking designs done by the proper archies which included technical aspects such as drainage design.  This doesn't bode well for the reps of the early Scottish pros or the early amateur archies. 

Things were slightly different in the States so long as respect for the top pros (golfers and archies) was concerned.  Folks like Vardon came over to huge fanfare.  I am sure he suffered some indignities, but he did alright.  The pro archies who came over were very well received because of their acknowledged expertise in the field.  I don't think this can be claimed of the first wave of pros (the jack of all trades chaps) to come over.   Maybe if Old Tom himself came he would have been an exception because he was far and away the most accomplished jack of trades chap.  Nobody from the period came close.   Sort of like when Vardon came over at the turn of the century, but strictly as a player. 

Ciao

[Thomas MacWood]

"The majority of the best courses in America in 1890s and 1900s were either designed by Scots or partially designed by Scots. I'm not a fan of the generalizations that TE is so fond of."

That remark, is just a massive factual inaccuracy in the history and evolution of golf architecture in America in this incredibly fascinating era, and it can be, and frankly has been proven.

TE
What were the best courses in America in the 1890s and 1900s?

I'll start by listing all the major championship sites, and few other notable courses:

Newport
Shinnecock Hills
Chicago
Myopia
Baltimore
Garden City
Baltusrol
Glen View
Onwentsia
Philadlephia Cricket
Englewood
Morris County
CC of Atlantic City
Nassau
Euclid
Apawamis
National
Ekwanock
Brookline
Pinehurst
Oakmont

Are there any others I should include?

[TEPaul]

Quote from: TEPaul on Yesterday at 09:46:20 pm
"The majority of the best courses in America in 1890s and 1900s were either designed by Scots or partially designed by Scots. I'm not a fan of the generalizations that TE is so fond of."

That remark, is just a massive factual inaccuracy in the history and evolution of golf architecture in America in this incredibly fascinating era, and it can be, and frankly has been proven.




"TE
What were the best courses in America in the 1890s and 1900s?

I'll start by listing all the major championship sites, and few other notable courses:

Newport
Shinnecock Hills
Chicago
Myopia
Baltimore
Garden City
Baltusrol
Glen View
Onwentsia
Philadlephia Cricket
Englewood
Morris County
CC of Atlantic City
Nassau
Euclid
Apawamis
National
Ekwanock
Brookline
Pinehurst
Oakmont

Are there any others I should include?"







"In 1904 I drew up an agreement, which in time was subscribed to by seventy friends interested in golf;


"Any golfer conversant with golf courses abroad and the best we have in America, which are generally conceded to be Garden City, Myopia and Chicago Golf Club, knows that in America as yet we have no first class golf courses comparable with the classic golf courses in Great Britain and Ireland."



Mr MacWood:

When it comes to what was good in architecture in America in the era you mentioned I believe I would rather take C.B. Macdonald's opinion and word for it in 1904 and not yours on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com in 2008. After-all he was there and there were not many in a better position to know.

[TEPaul]

"I don't think this can be claimed of the first wave of pros (the jack of all trades chaps) to come over.   Maybe if Old Tom himself came he would have been an exception because he was far and away the most accomplished jack of trades chap.  Nobody from the period came close.   Sort of like when Vardon came over at the turn of the century, but strictly as a player."


Sean:

I think you have this just right. That a couple on here are apparently trying to promote Willie Campbell as some great shining light in architecture or that he was recognized as such over here or as America's best "expert" in golf architecture by the likes of a Herbert Leeds and those of that crowd like him is just rubbish. To "that crowd" like Leeds you can also add Charles Blair Macdonald.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - yours was a good post it seems to me.

David M - only the "75 years" was Tom's point, I added the "100" years to bring us back to the time we're talking about, not thinking that there was a big difference and change (but as soon as you mentioned it I realized/remembered the difference).  But I still have trouble with this, i.e. if those earliest courses were so rudimentary, and if the goal was simply to create a place to play golf on, then we are talking about something quite different from the concept of "golf course architect" (i.e. his talents, goals, aspirations) that would emerge/develop 10 or 20 years later. Again, it seems to me that at some point the CREATIVE (as oppossed to merely 'functional') role became key, and it was those men who thought in those terms who designed the great golf courses. And by the same token, if the earliest courses were so rudimentary (and didn't involve the need to think about cart paths and earth-moving and irrigation), what was left for the golf professionals/experts to even bring to the table? In that scenario, it does seem very plausible to me that a few of the earliest professionals were skipping around to various places and 'laying out' a golf course in one day, and then moving on. But would we call that process, and them, golf course architects? Did they even call themselves that? And if their aspirations were so modest, they seem to me well worth remembering, but not necessarily in terms of granting them more credit for the creation/design of a golf course than was originally granted them.

Peter   

[Mike_Cirba]

Even though Philly Cricket got the dibs on the major championships in 1907 and 1910, it wasn't really believed to be a very good course, even locally.  What they did have was the political cache to land such events, and that is the case with many other of the courses listed on Tom MacWood's list, as well.

The only course even remotely considered as "championship" quality in Philly by 1910 was Huntingdon Valley, largely because of the continued work and toughening on the course by amateur/sportsman (and winner of the first Philly Amateur in 1897, which he followed in 1911) and head of the green committee A.H. "Ab" Smith.

This is recited in tons of old articles by Tillinghast and others.  There is even a 1910 article by Tillinghast where he picks the ideal 18 holes in the Philly region, bemoaning the fact that none of these courses had enough good holes to be worthwhile and that much, much more was needed.

It was the thinking that was soon to produce in short order Merion, Pine Valley, and Cobb's Creek, all intense ball-busters, and all "amateurishly" designed and led by the top players in the area.   Those were preceeded by Whitemarsh Valley, which was of championship length for the new Haskell ball (most of the others were not), also designed by an amateur, but also not of great quality initially, especially compared with the others.

I can't imagine the overall golf course quality situation before 1910 was much if any different in Chicago, Boston, et.al., much less out west.

The idea that courses beyond Garden City and Myopia were somehow noteworthy or even good before 1910 is simply not consistent with facts.

I believe the only reason Chicago golf made Macdonald's list is because he designed it.   It was not a good course by any measuring stick we'd use today.

[TEPaul]

"Again, it seems to me that at some point the CREATIVE (as oppossed to merely 'functional') role became key, and it was those men who thought in those terms who designed the great golf courses. And by the same token, if the earliest courses were so rudimentary (and didn't involve the need to think about cart paths and earth-moving and irrigation), what was left for the golf professionals/experts to even bring to the table? In that scenario, it does seem very plausibible to me that a few of the earliest professionals were skipping around to various places and 'laying out' a golf course in one day, and then moving on. But would we call that process, and them, golf course architects? Did they even call themselves that? And if their aspirations were so modest, they seem to me well worth remembering, but not necessarily in terms of granting them more credit for the creation/design of a golf course than was originally granted them."



Peter:

This is a point you continue to make, as you  should, in my opinion, because you do have the facts of history on the side of your point.

If a Willie Campbell was this great "expert" in architecture in America at that time and if he was considered to be such by those back then we are talking about then where the hell is the proof of it? Where ever was the proof of it? Where is the course or courses that stand testament to him and to that great "expertise" in golf architecture? They just aren't there and they never were.

You make an additional point above that I believe goes directly to the heart of this entire question---eg NOT JUST who had the talent but WHO showed it and how?

For all we know a Willie Campbell and early "jack of all trade" pro/greenkeeper/clubmaker/ 1-2 day peripatetic course "lay-outers may've had every bit as much architectural talent to produce great architectural products as the likes of "amateur/sportsmen" like Leeds, Emmet, Fownes, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump,Thomas, Behr did on the projects that made them famous but generally speaking what is the MARKED difference in the way those two vastly different groups went about it?

It is about as obvious as the noonday sun. That group of "Amateur/sportsmen" designers who became famous with their select courses spent years and in some cases decades on them and the likes of Willie Campbell probably never did spend more than a day or so and then they wer on to something else, probably back to theirs day jobs which were not exclusively golf architecture, that's for sure.

Could a Willie Campbell and some of the jack-of-all-trades immigrant Scots have produced something as great as Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion East, Pine Valley if they had the time and opportunities the "amateur/sportsmen" we are talking about who produced them had?

I see no reason at all to believe they couldn't but the historic fact is they did not and the reasons why are patently obvious, and they're basically the very reasons you just outlined and numerous people on here have out-lined before you.

It is getting maddening to see a few on here just continue to try and make so much more out of something than history itself very clearly shows!

[Thomas MacWood]

Mike
I took off Phila Cricket. Are there any others I should take off or add?

Newport
Shinnecock Hills
Chicago
Myopia
Baltimore
Garden City
Baltusrol
Glen View
Onwentsia
Englewood
Morris County
CC of Atlantic City
Nassau
Euclid
Apawamis
National
Ekwanock
Brookline
Pinehurst
Oakmont

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Besides Ekwanock,  which imo was more architecturally advanced than Chicago at that time (as well as Myopia & Garden City), I'd ask you which of the course you listed were somehow architecturally noteworthy or indicative of some architectural advancement that elevated the state of American golf before 1910?  Possibly Brookline or Oakmont?    I certainly don't see much else there.

NGLA didn't open until 1911, so even though it was the best course in America that no one had played prior to 1910, it shouldn't count for our purposes here.

Actually, I'd probably put Woodlands on there before a number of courses listed.

[TEPaul]

"The idea that courses beyond Garden City and Myopia were somehow noteworthy or even good before 1910 is simply not consistent with facts."

MikeC:

This is the salient point we have continued to make and for some years now. It is a point that should not be dismissed, deflected or ignored by another of Mr. MacWood's list of courses from that early era. He keeps making those lists because he is simply trying to get back to this larger point of his and this is just another back door way of trying to accomplish that. If someone as respected as Macdonald agreed with us then what more do we need really as justification for our point?

There are a number of letters and remarks in Edward Weeks' Myopia history book from the likes of Travis, Vardon, Herd, Smith, Hutchinson, Darwin, Bob Jones expressing their feeling that Myopia is one of the few best golf courses in the country or even the world.

[Sean_A]

Mike
I took off Phila Cricket. Are there any others I should take off or add?

Newport
Shinnecock Hills
Chicago
Myopia
Baltimore
Garden City
Baltusrol
Glen View
Onwentsia
Englewood
Morris County
CC of Atlantic City
Nassau
Euclid
Apawamis
National
Ekwanock
Brookline
Pinehurst
Oakmont

Tommy Mac

I am not sure many of the courses you list would have been considered good by 1910ish - a sort of cutoff date I use because by then Colt was firmly on the scene and folks in the know could get an idea of what proper inland courses were.  It strikes me as just a list of names with no value.  Jeepers, in most cases these courses don't exist in the form you celebrate - and often for good reasons. 

Peter, I do believe that the tuning point you are looking for in architecture, the point where form and function could go hand in hand was the emergence of Colt in 1910ish.  Really, Colt's completion of Swinley was his great calling card.  He was able to put it all together to great effect.  It was the first real big project he had.  Of course he did Stoke Poges before, but he had cleared land to work with in an established park.  The other courses he completed before 1910ish were of lesser note. 

It is no accident that both English and American architecture improved dramatically after the arrival of Colt - he can't really be given enough credit for what he accomplished in the field. 

Ciao 

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom,

Besides Ekwanock,  which imo was more architecturally advanced than Chicago at that time (as well as Myopia & Garden City), I'd ask you which of the course you listed were somehow architecturally noteworthy or indicative of some architectural advancement that elevated the state of American golf before 1910?  Possibly Brookline or Oakmont?    I certainly don't see much else there.

NGLA didn't open until 1911, so even though it was the best course in America that no one had played prior to 1910, it shouldn't count for our purposes here.

Actually, I'd probably put Woodlands on there before a number of courses listed.

Myopia
Brookline
Chicago
Myopia
Ekwanock
NGLA
Garden City
Oakmont ?

Mike
They were playing at NGLA in 1909, so it should be included IMO. I don't know much about Woodland, was it highly regarded nationally? What about Baltusrol and Pinehurst? Was Oakmont considered one of the best courses in 1909?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()