Rich,
I could have said the British experts
of which I am aware, but I thought that was obvious. But really in both quotes I am speaking about those who were knowledgeable about the British links and who had seen NGLA and perhaps some of the other "nearly good" courses in America. In addition to the quotes by Darwin, see the various quotes by Whigham, who may have seen a wider variety of courses across the world than anyone. Also you must have missed this quote by Ben Sayers, who I am sure you would agree knew something of the quality of golf courses in Scotland . . .
I had three days golf over the National course, and I was very highly impressed indeed. I came to the conclusion that the National course is the best course I have ever seen, in fact, I was sorry that I went to see it, because I always thought that St. Andrews was the very best test of golf in the world. But after seeing the National my opinion was altered: I cannot now say that Scotland possesses the best course. Not only is every hole on the National course perfect, but every shot is perfect, and has to be played with great judgment. The architecture of the course is so good and the formation of the greens so natural that the whole place looks as if it was a hundred years old. The course is full of what I call Scotch golf: thinking golf is required for every shot, even more so than at St. Andrews, and I have not played a course where I had to use so many different kinds of clubs, which of course only goes to show what a grand test of golf it must be. Horace Hutchinson also sang the praises of the course:
My own opinion of the qualities of this course is so high that I am almost afraid of stating it to strongly. . . . [W]hen the National Links is opened next year it will be far and away the best in the United States. . . . It has no weak point. Who of the British experts did not see NGLA as head and shoulders above what else was in America?
_______________________________________
Sean,
Thanks for the attempted clarification.
My argument was never about aesthetics. I raised this issue as an area in which CBM's ideals didn't last long and thus questioned how influential he was in this area.
Not sure I understand the difference between your
argument and an
issue you raised, but whatever. Your argument/issue on aesthetics fell short because of a lack of understanding of what came before and even NGLA's aesthetic style at the time.
1. The melting pot was anybody creating anything worthwhile before and during the creation of NGLA.
So in America, who were these anybodies? We know that numerous changes at Myopia and Garden City and made them "nearly good." But who else?
We know the CBM essentially borrowed parts of British design, added a bit of his know how and determination, looked for a site in which he could house these borrowed ideas (I think this was the part he should be given tons of credit for) and created an "ideal" course which by many accounts was acclaimed one of the very finest in all the world upon its opening. So, this is a melting pot which includes CBM.
We agree on all this, but you do neglect the importance of CBM's intellect in being able to discern what it was that made these British holes great, and the incredible artistry of putting these things together in a single course that worked.
Crazily, you give CBM all the credit of an American design because it happened to be built on American soil. That is like calling a car American because its built in America when much of the concept of the car and many of its parts are imported.
I do what? No way. As far as I know, I give CBM all of the credit for building was was essentially
a Scottish links-like course on American soil. That is the entire point. You seem to be caught up on this notion that CBM got his ideas from elsewhere as if this diminishes what he did. To the contrary, it was
the application of the Scottish links ideals that made him great.
Arguably, Henry Ford didn't have too many original ideas concerning the automobile, with at least some of the major design and engineering concepts being borrowed from the French. However, can there be any doubt that he revolutionized automobile design and production by discerning what worked and figuring out how to produce automobiles quickly, efficiently, and inexpensively?
2. Much of the reason the course was likely better than anything known in the US up until that time is because archies didn't use the best design aspects from the UK. CBM thought it was silly to try and reinvent the wheel when it could be transported across an ocean, rolled off the ship and across the right landscape with ease and grace. You know what, he was right!
Yes, he was right, and him realizing this and pulling it off significantly changed golf course design in America from that point on. Thus the revolutionary nature of his work and words.
3. I never denied or reduced CBM's impact on architecture. I merely stated that he was one of many who had a tremendous impact on architecture. For instance, I think Colt had a big impact because he laid the ground work for what we now consider good parkland courses. And if this is the case, then Park Jr and Fowler have to have some credit in this melting pot evolution. That doesn't mean by any stretch that CBM wasn't important, he was terribly important.
You are backtracking here. You did deny or reduce his impact by your strange focus on aesthetics. You also diminish his importance when you label him as just one more person in the melting pot. Park Jr. and Fowler do deserve some credit, but for whatever reason they did not change the way Americans approached golf design in America. CBM did. And that was an incredible accomplishment and when combined with the excellence of NGLA, CBMy went well beyond building nearly good but not great golf courses. As for Colt, his impact in America came AFTER and at least in part as a result of CBM changing the way Americans looked at golf design.
4. Finally, I don't think its terribly valuable to try and separate out American architecture at this time because I don't see it as distinctly American. CBM was a direct product of the UK and he would be the first to say that British ideals of the game and architecture should hold strong. That is why he built NGLA from the mould of the British. CBM wanted to continue the British ideal of the game both in terms of how it was played and the sort of course it should be played over.
You confuse CBM's experiences with American golf course architecture. CBM was a product of the Scottish ideals, but for the most part American golf course was NOT. Therein was the problem as CBM saw it, and that was what he set out to change.
5. Finally, finally, this entire thing we call golf architecture and what we deem as the best and worst of it is completely subjective. Never lose sight of that. To rely on so called expert opinion too much is a game I not interested in. To some degree, I should be challenging that sacred cow wisdom because no one is infallible.
Huh? Just because something is subjective does not mean it cannot have real world impact. I happen to like some of the dark ages stuff, but my subjective opinion of it doesn't change the fact that CBM's ideas and example virtually wiped those courses off the map.
In other words, yours and my opinion may be subjective, and the opinion that many held at the time may have been subjective, but the tangible impact that CBM's approach and work had on American golf design was not subjective. That is why it is more important to understand their opinions than our own. Their subjectivity changed the direction of golf design in America.