The Evangelist of Golf - Read it!

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

The more time one spends in the NGLA clubhouse, the more one becomes overwhelmed by the enormous contribution to golf's initial foothold in the U.S. made by CBM and his fellow founders. Their statues, busts and portraits are everywhere looking down, and their scrapbooks fill the tables. Not only did they build the first great course; they made sure that the rooms in which they were memorialized would befit what they had accomplished for American golf. And they are revered by me.

Agreed.
NGLA understands what they have and who was responsible for producing that Masterpiece.  The loyalty to CBM is well deserved.

One can quibble about CBM's copying holes from the UK all one wants, but one should never forget that these men really started the modern game here, and the holes they emulated were the only great holes in the world at the time.

JKinney,

Those that have never actually experienced NGLA don't understand the enormous difference between the words, "copy" and "template" and what CMB accomplished on that site.

Anyone who plays the 3rd at NGLA, who has played the 17th at Prestwick realizes that the two holes are so incredibly different from one another that the use of the words "copy" and "template" are misnomers.

The 3rd at NGLA and the 17th at Prestwick bear very little resemblance to one another in topography, visual perception and play.

Stating that # 3 at NGLA is merely a copy/template of # 17 at Prestwick indicates that the person making that statement is totally uninformed when it comes to CBM and NGLA.

The same can be said of many holes at NGLA.

When someone who has NEVER set foot on NGLA attempts to diminish CBM's ability as an architect, stature in American Golf and what he produced at NGLA, you have to view them in the same context that you view the three blind men examining an elephant.   One examines the elephants ear, the other examines the elephant's trunk and the third examines the elephants tusk.

Individually and collectively they don't understand what an elephant is.
They have no clue, no concept as to what's in front of them.
The same applies to those who have never experienced NGLA and rely on word of mouth and something they've read.

NGLA is kinda like sex, you can read about it all you want, but, boy is it different when you actually experience it.   And, once you've experienced it, you know you want to do it again.

Did it take a monumental and often arrogant ego to build The National ? Of course. It never would have happened without those character traits, IMO.


I don't know of any shrinking violets that produced anything remotely similar to NGLA, especially in the context of their peers and the membership ranks at NGLA.  It took a strong willed individual, a visionary, and he WAS the man for the job.

[TEPaul]

"One can quibble about CBM's copying holes from the UK all one wants, but one should never forget that these men really started the modern game here, and the holes they emulated were the only great holes in the world at the time."

jkinney:

While taking nothing at all away from C.B. Macdonald or NGLA one just cannot say something like that above and be historically accurate----eg the holes they emulated were the only great holes in the world at the time.

If one does the research they will see those holes he primarily emulated were just the holes that won a magazine or newspaper competition of a select group of golfers in GB back around 1900-04.

It has always been interesting to me that the primary "template" holes Macdonald used at NGLA were not necessarily the holes he may've thought the best. Basically he relied on a poll. 

And this is precisely why The Lido may've been even more interesting vis-a-vis Macdonald himself. The guys who started the club (many of the same guys he seemed to always get involved with on Long Island) basically got him involved promising him that he could create anything he wanted by giving him a total blank canvas. I think for this reason the famous "Channel Hole" (#4) becomes most interesting because Macdonald claimed it was a basic copy of a hole abroad that just did not use the natural potential it had (for a high risk alternate fairway). Macdonald felt he totally improved the concept at The Lido.

[David Stamm]

"One can quibble about CBM's copying holes from the UK all one wants, but one should never forget that these men really started the modern game here, and the holes they emulated were the only great holes in the world at the time."

jkinney:

While taking nothing at all away from C.B. Macdonald or NGLA one just cannot say something like that above and be historically accurate----eg the holes they emulated were the only great holes in the world at the time.

If one does the research they will see those holes he primarily emulated were just the holes that won a magazine or newspaper competition of a select group of golfers in GB back around 1900-04.

It has always been interesting to me that the primary "template" holes Macdonald used at NGLA were not necessarily the holes he may've thought the best. Basically he relied on a poll. 

And this is precisely why The Lido may've been even more interesting vis-a-vis Macdonald himself. The guys who started the club (many of the same guys he seemed to always get involved with on Long Island) basically got him involved promising him that he could create anything he wanted by giving him a total blank canvas. I think for this reason the famous "Channel Hole" (#4) becomes most interesting because Macdonald claimed it was a basic copy of a hole abroad that just did not use the natural potential it had (for a high risk alternate fairway). Macdonald felt he totally improved the concept at The Lido.

Tom, is it your opinion that CBM's selections (templates) were not because of his own personal opinion, but rather what others thought ie a poll?

[jkinney]

TEPaul - I should, of course,  have said "among" the only great holes in the world at the time. I was only amplifying for effect.

[John Mayhugh]

Those that have never actually experienced NGLA don't understand the enormous difference between the words, "copy" and "template" and what CMB accomplished on that site.

Anyone who plays the 3rd at NGLA, who has played the 17th at Prestwick realizes that the two holes are so incredibly different from one another that the use of the words "copy" and "template" are misnomers.

The 3rd at NGLA and the 17th at Prestwick bear very little resemblance to one another in topography, visual perception and play.

Stating that # 3 at NGLA is merely a copy/template of # 17 at Prestwick indicates that the person making that statement is totally uninformed when it comes to CBM and NGLA.

The same can be said of many holes at NGLA.

When someone who has NEVER set foot on NGLA attempts to diminish CBM's ability as an architect, stature in American Golf and what he produced at NGLA, you have to view them in the same context that you view the three blind men examining an elephant.   One examines the elephants ear, the other examines the elephant's trunk and the third examines the elephants tusk.

Individually and collectively they don't understand what an elephant is.
They have no clue, no concept as to what's in front of them.
The same applies to those who have never experienced NGLA and rely on word of mouth and something they've read.

NGLA is kinda like sex, you can read about it all you want, but, boy is it different when you actually experience it.   And, once you've experienced it, you know you want to do it again.

Those that don't understand how different so-called template holes are from each other can't have actually seen and played very many of them.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, is it your opinion that CBM's selections (templates) were not because of his own personal opinion, but rather what others thought ie a poll?"

David:

Macdonald went into the whole thing in pretty fair detail in his book. He said he'd thought about an "ideal" golf course for some time but he was inspired by the controversy started by "The Best Hole Discussion" that took place around 1900-01 in London's Golf Illustrated. Twenty to thirty well known people in golf responded and the top par holes were the primary template holes he used at NGLA.

He also said he personally made twenty to thirty sketches and drawings of distinctive features of holes abroad in two separate extended study tours and he also wrote an article in Outing magazine in 1906 explaining his thoughts on an "Ideal" golf course complete with a sampling of eighteen holes at the end of the article (which he did qualify could be used providing the land was suitable). It appears he wrote that article to generate interest and a membership for the idea of an Ideal course that would shorty become the beginning of NGLA.

Interestingly, I have now found that Marion Hollins did somewhat the same thing in 1922 when she set about creating Woman's National GC in Long Island. Marion knew NGLA well having played it many times as her father Harry Hollins was one of the founding members of NGLA. Marion made notes and drawings and even moving pictures abroad but she also used holes on Long Island that she knew and liked. As a distance barometer for her course she did not use herself (she was remarkably long) but her good friend, Alexa Stirling who had won three US Amateurs.

I wonder if it was just a coincidence that when George Crump determined that he would build a woman's course at Pine Valley he also used Alexa Stirling as his primary consulter.