Was Charles Blair Macdonald really the father of Golf Architecture in America

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
No one has ever said it was all hype, they have said what I wrote, a marketing job."


Jim:

Once again, I agree, no one ever said it was all hype; I certainly didn't.


BTW, Jim, remind me how old you are because I have something perhaps sort of interesting to tell you or at least to mention about Long Island and all the Macdonald architecture I grew up around and the way it seem to be percieved in what might be called the middle years.

[DMoriarty]

I've read this thread with great interest, especially the responses of those arguing that CBM was NOT the father of GA in A.   Interesting arguments but I am not convinced.  

Sean,  As I understand it, you think that one of the main reasons that CBM was not the father of Golf Architecture in America is that his aesthetic style did not remain in vogue for long, but was replaced by subsequent aesthetic styles and these dominate the landscape still today.    Isn't that a bit like arguing that George Washington is not the Father of this Country because his powdered wigs, ruffled shirts, and buckled shoes fell out of fashion?  

1. As you might have guessed, my first point and most important point is that "aesthetic style" is picayune when we consider the totality of CBM's impact on golf architecture in America.  It wasn't about aesthetics.  It was about fundamentally altering the manner in which we approached golf course design.

2. As far as I can tell, your understanding of CBM's "aesthetic style" is inaccurate and misleading.  You cannot look at a Macdonald course today and draw conclusions about CBM's aesthetic sensibilities from a century past.   Yet that is apparently what you are doing here, only you are including Raynor as well!  Looks change.  As the photos on the National Bunkers thread indicate, the look at has NGLA changed rather dramatically over the past century.

3.  Your comparison of CBM's supposed aesthetic style with the courses today (or even  courses 10 - 20 years later) is inapt.   It is like drawing conclusions about the Ford Model T and its impact on automobile product by looking solely at how cars are produced today.   To study the revolutionary nature of the design and construction of the Model T, we must first understand the state of the art at the time this car was introduced.   Likewise, to understand how CBM changed even the aesthetics goals of golf design in America we must consider the predominant aesthetic style of his own time.   And generally what existed at the time was pretty abysmal.  Rather than emulating nature, many seemed to be going out of their way to make the features on the courses look unnatural.  Compared to much of what was going on in golf course design in America at the time, CBM's work was a giant leap toward a more natural aesthetic.  

4.  I said above, the issue of aesthetic styling is picayune when considering the big picture, but it does hint at what might be CBM's most contribution, his overall approach to design.    And that brings me to my fourth point.   Whatever the appearance of his courses, there is no denying that CBM's goal was to emulate the principles and features found on the great links golf courses, even aesthetically.   And to CBM this largely meant making his features look as natural as he could.   This was a huge departure of much of what had gone on in golf architecture in America up until this point.    When it came to aesthetics, many of those who you think were heading in their own direction were actually following CBM's lead.  This is true whether or not they agreed with all of his aesthetic sensibilities.  

Enough about aesthetics already.    

Your point about a cross-continental melting pot is more compelling.  If I understand you correctly, you believe golf design in America is a mix of ideas and influences from here and abroad.   I agree with you, if you meant that during the so-called golden age, America became melting pot of architectural ideas, but pre-golden age I don't think this was the case.  

There was a disconnect between links courses and American courses, and the ideas that applied to one weren't really applied to the other.   CBM set out to change this by bringing as much of the Scottish links to America as he could reasonably carry, and by convincing American clubs and golfers that the fundamental principles of great golf course design were discoverable within the traditional links courses, and while one couldn't necessarily recreate the links, one could apply those fundamental principles to create classic or even ideal courses in America.  Surely some of his contemporaries shared his ideas and even acted on them to some degree.  But CBM didn't just act on it, he did so in a manner that sold his ideas to mainstream golf in America.  And by so doing he gave all who followed a base on which to build.  

But perhaps we disagree on the state of things in America in the first decade of last century?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Some others suggested that the fathers of Golf Architecture in America were the Scottish professionals and others (largely immigrants) who built the first wave of golf courses in America.   If one understands father of Golf Architecture in America to me those who staked out the first courses, then these guys are the answer, by definition.   While some seem to have excluded CBM from this grouping, I couldn't because CBM was one of those influential men who was spreading golf and building courses (in and near Chicago) very early on.    

As I said, it is reasonable to define it this way, but I think of this early generation more as the fathers of Golf in America, but not necessarily golf course design.  The were instrumental in spreading golf.   Sure they were building courses, but generally these courses were considered far inferior to what existed on Scottish links land, and most of them were wiped off the map just before or during the supposed "Golden Age."    

I don't think golf architecture in America really came into its own until we started creating our own world class courses.   And that began with NGLA.  

[DMoriarty]

To fairly gauge CBM's (and NGLA's) impact on golf course design in America we must first understand the state of golf course design at the time.   

According to H.J. Whigham's 1909 Article in Scribner's there were only a few courses in all of America that were "nearly good."  From the article . . .
It is certainly a great proof of the adaptability of the American character that in less than twenty years the youth of the country has taken up golf, learned the game, produced one world-wide champion and a new generation of golfers who could hold their own in Scotland where the game has been played for centuries. And nothing could prevent golf from becoming by far the most popular game among the grown men of the country if it were not for one drawback. Whereas in Scotland and England seaside golf courses existed before the early Britons wore clothes and require little or no preparation, an American course can only be made and kept up at considerable expense. There is no such thing as a "natural golf course in America; and if there were very few people would benefit, since the vast majority of the population live so far from the sea. Thirty years ago the number of golf courses abroad which were not on the sandy dunes by the sea was a negligible quantity. I believe that the first really good inland courses were made in America.  England learned from America that while you could never make a St. Andrews or a Prestwick away from the sea, you could produce something which was almost as good a test of golf. But it takes money to do it, and consequently golf can never be as inexpensive a game here as it is in Great Britain.

And there is another hindrance to the popularity of the game which is really the subject-matter of this article. We started well enough twelve or fifteen years ago by showing how to make a good golf course inland. Yet there has been practically no improvement in that direction since then, although in every other way the game has made great strides. Ninety per cent, of the courses in this country are not to be compared with the real golf links abroad. And the worst of it is that an entirely erroneous standard has grown up so that it is the most difficult thing in the world to introduce reforms. Everything now is sacrificed to the older players who want the path made easy for them, and for some strange reason the younger players are dumb. There are a few golfers in the country who have steadily set themselves to keep up the real standard, like Mr. Herbert Leeds, who, I believe, was responsible not only for Myopia but for the nine-hole course at Bar Harbor, and the winter course at Aiken. There is an excellent inland course also at Manchester, Vermont, and there is Garden City, which lately has been much improved. When one has mentioned these one has included practically all the links in the country which approach in interest and quality the best courses abroad, and even these fall a long way short of perfection. Is it not strange that with all the vast sums of money expended on golf links in America, so few courses should be nearly good?

The defects in most courses I should attribute to two reasons. First of all, since money is an essential, the affairs of the different clubs are generally in the hands of the older men who supply the funds. The older men not only want things made easy for them, but they lack the imagination of youth. The Wheaton and Onwentsia courses in Chicago were the two best in the country when they were laid out, because they represented the last word in making artificial courses at that time.  But positively no advance has been made since then.  In fact, if anyting they have gone backward, because, as turf has improved, both courses have become far too easy.  Their main difficulty is the long grass, which is the worst feature of golf the game in America.  Take Garden City as another example.   Here conditions are most favorable and no one can doubt that with the Long Island soil and climate a really interesting course might be constructed.   As it is, nearly everything is either wrong about the course or else not quite right where it could so easily be right.   Walter Travis did a great deal when he put in about fifty new bunkers and imitated the eleventh hole at St. Andrews on the last green.   That one change in itself has been a tremendous improvement.   Yet he had to risk any amount of hostile criticism, and even now the course is hardly within measurable distance of what it ought to be if properly laid out. 

When we come to particulars it will be observed that most American courses consist of a long strip of turf about sixty yards wide laid out like a race course, with long grass or trees, or bushes, on either side. Hazards are placed at stated intervals, generally about 120 yards and 260 yards from the tee, in the form of ditches and cops stretching at right angles across the course. The only difference between one hole and another is the difference of length. Any shot off the tee suffices as long as it carries 120 yards and keeps within a width of sixty yards, unless it is an exceptionally long and straight shot, when it goes into a bunker intended to catch a second. The putting greens are large and flat expanses with no hazards near them so that the approach shot becomes as simple as possible. The one thing the player has to worry about is the chance of a bad slice or pull. If he goes a yard off the course to left or right he will probably lose his ball and his temper. There is no variety or finesse about the game under such conditions. The advantage of skill is reduced to a minimum and the wonder is that the game has remained so popular as it is. A spirit of trade unionism seems to have invaded the game. Just as it is made impossible nowadays for a good bricklayer to lay bricks as fast as he wants to, it is considered wrong that the golfer who can hit the ball far and straight should have any advantage over the short and inaccurate driver. As for the finer points of the game—putting spin on the ball to stop it, etc.—the idea of developing those points is firmly discouraged. I have already mentioned a few courses which do afford opportunities to the fine player and variety to all classes. It must be confessed, however, that this is not the case with the majority.
. . .

The abomination of most courses in this country is long grass. I believe that golf would be twice as popular in America today if long grass and bushes were absolutely abolished and the possibility of a lost ball practically eliminated.


And a few photographs . . .

Merion's Haverford Course in 1909 . . .


Two of Huntington Valley from 1909 . . .





Baltusrol in 1909 . . .


Nassau in 1909 . . .


And some others . . .
Midlothian


Ontwensia  . . .


And a whole bunch of places . . .

















This was what existed in America.   Sure it wasn't all this bad, but a surprising amount was, and many of these were considered good courses.   

[David Kelly]

The "Wee Drop" looks awesome.

[DMoriarty]

The "Wee Drop" looks awesome.

Doesn't it?  Reminds me of one of those optical illusion cube drawings one might find on a kid's menu.  (Tells you where I dine.)

[Sean_A]

I've read this thread with great interest, especially the responses of those arguing that CBM was NOT the father of GA in A.   Interesting arguments but I am not convinced.  

Sean,  As I understand it, you think that one of the main reasons that CBM was not the father of Golf Architecture in America is that his aesthetic style did not remain in vogue for long, but was replaced by subsequent aesthetic styles and these dominate the landscape still today.    Isn't that a bit like arguing that George Washington is not the Father of this Country because his powdered wigs, ruffled shirts, and buckled shoes fell out of fashion?  

1. As you might have guessed, my first point and most important point is that "aesthetic style" is picayune when we consider the totality of CBM's impact on golf architecture in America.  It wasn't about aesthetics.  It was about fundamentally altering the manner in which we approached golf course design.

2. As far as I can tell, your understanding of CBM's "aesthetic style" is inaccurate and misleading.  You cannot look at a Macdonald course today and draw conclusions about CBM's aesthetic sensibilities from a century past.   Yet that is apparently what you are doing here, only you are including Raynor as well!  Looks change.  As the photos on the National Bunkers thread indicate, the look at has NGLA changed rather dramatically over the past century.

3.  Your comparison of CBM's supposed aesthetic style with the courses today (or even  courses 10 - 20 years later) is inapt.   It is like drawing conclusions about the Ford Model T and its impact on automobile product by looking solely at how cars are produced today.   To study the revolutionary nature of the design and construction of the Model T, we must first understand the state of the art at the time this car was introduced.   Likewise, to understand how CBM changed even the aesthetics goals of golf design in America we must consider the predominant aesthetic style of his own time.   And generally what existed at the time was pretty abysmal.  Rather than emulating nature, many seemed to be going out of their way to make the features on the courses look unnatural.  Compared to much of what was going on in golf course design in America at the time, CBM's work was a giant leap toward a more natural aesthetic.  

4.  I said above, the issue of aesthetic styling is picayune when considering the big picture, but it does hint at what might be CBM's most contribution, his overall approach to design.    And that brings me to my fourth point.   Whatever the appearance of his courses, there is no denying that CBM's goal was to emulate the principles and features found on the great links golf courses, even aesthetically.   And to CBM this largely meant making his features look as natural as he could.   This was a huge departure of much of what had gone on in golf architecture in America up until this point.    When it came to aesthetics, many of those who you think were heading in their own direction were actually following CBM's lead.  This is true whether or not they agreed with all of his aesthetic sensibilities.  

Enough about aesthetics already.    

Your point about a cross-continental melting pot is more compelling.  If I understand you correctly, you believe golf design in America is a mix of ideas and influences from here and abroad.   I agree with you, if you meant that during the so-called golden age, America became melting pot of architectural ideas, but pre-golden age I don't think this was the case.  

There was a disconnect between links courses and American courses, and the ideas that applied to one weren't really applied to the other.   CBM set out to change this by bringing as much of the Scottish links to America as he could reasonably carry, and by convincing American clubs and golfers that the fundamental principles of great golf course design were discoverable within the traditional links courses, and while one couldn't necessarily recreate the links, one could apply those fundamental principles to create classic or even ideal courses in America.  Surely some of his contemporaries shared his ideas and even acted on them to some degree.  But CBM didn't just act on it, he did so in a manner that sold his ideas to mainstream golf in America.  And by so doing he gave all who followed a base on which to build.  

But perhaps we disagree on the state of things in America in the first decade of last century?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Some others suggested that the fathers of Golf Architecture in America were the Scottish professionals and others (largely immigrants) who built the first wave of golf courses in America.   If one understands father of Golf Architecture in America to me those who staked out the first courses, then these guys are the answer, by definition.   While some seem to have excluded CBM from this grouping, I couldn't because CBM was one of those influential men who was spreading golf and building courses (in and near Chicago) very early on.    

As I said, it is reasonable to define it this way, but I think of this early generation more as the fathers of Golf in America, but not necessarily golf course design.  The were instrumental in spreading golf.   Sure they were building courses, but generally these courses were considered far inferior to what existed on Scottish links land, and most of them were wiped off the map just before or during the supposed "Golden Age."    

I don't think golf architecture in America really came into its own until we started creating our own world class courses.   And that began with NGLA.  

David

No, I believe in the melting pot theory because I don't think its reasonable to select one man out of many very talented people from both sides of the pond and declare him The Father blah blah.  The evolution of architecture is far more worthwhile and complicated than just a simplified figure head which doesn't convey any real meaning.  

BTW I: Aesthetics are a very important aspect of gca even if you think of it as inconsequential.

BTW II: I don't believe George Washington was the father of our country.  In this area, I also believe in the melting pot theory. Americans like quick clean sound bites and "father of ..."  is a one of our favourites.  I always take these sorts of pronouncements with a pinch of salt.

BTW III: People before CBM practiced his methods of "science meets art" only they were much quicker about getting the job done. Because they weren't American means absolutely nothing to me.  

BTW IV: You make too many assumptions on my part.  Stick to reading the words I wrote - it makes dialogue easier to conduct.

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

 

[V. Kmetz]

Sean,

I thought I had made my last post on this thread two days ago, but I was struck by your investment at undermining the premise and the language of the thread...that, "nobody is the 'Father' of nothing in even an esoteric sense."  I guess I say "struck" because I thought the original titular thread question, "Was CMB really the father of GCA." was not only valid, but pretty fun.

I say "valid,' because if we were in another realm of scholarship (science, history, math, literature) or one of their provincial disciplines (plant bilogy, Roman history, governing dynamics, the poetry of the Spenser) these type of amorphous, unanswerable questions about the context of the discipline come up all the time, they are the subject of books, educational materials, lectures and the like, that advance that knowledge of the subject.

If the infinitesimal amount of people (<2000?) who post and visit these discussions and who are golf architects, architectural critics, GCA afficiandos, or (people merely looking for the great courses to play) DON"T ask this type of question, who will?  This is it, right here, this (imo) is the leading colloquy for the examination of GCA.

From that obviously speculative titular question we get supports for the premise and refutations of the premise, we get photos of early American architecture some have never seen and we are exposed to direct biographical snippets and contemporary context that we may have never encountered.  This is as it should be, imo.

Of course George Washington isn't the actual Father of Our Country, it would only be so if we were all direct descendants of him but he can be summarized in that way and was so well before there was a sound bite for Americans to consume.  Yet I have both seen and read scholars debating that very point, often times in agreement, in differing degrees with the occasional new bird chirping about Alexander Hamilton in preference to GW.  These dialogs and books are amongst the most entertaining and enlightening I encounter. why shouldn't it be so for our area of concentration

As for the lesser matters in GCA, I will merely paraphrase a portion of my original post:  In all the ways that a father can be taken to mean: co-author, co-creator, financier, protector, physical link to the ancestors and their deeds, authority figure, planner, developer CBM, more than anyone else, can be accurately construed as the Father of Golf Architecture in America.

Cheers

vk

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I thought I had made my last post on this thread two days ago, but I was struck by your investment at undermining the premise and the language of the thread...that, "nobody is the 'Father' of nothing in even an esoteric sense."  I guess I say "struck" because I thought the original titular thread question, "Was CMB really the father of GCA." was not only valid, but pretty fun.

I say "valid,' because if we were in another realm of scholarship (science, history, math, literature) or one of their provincial disciplines (plant bilogy, Roman history, governing dynamics, the poetry of the Spenser) these type of amorphous, unanswerable questions about the context of the discipline come up all the time, they are the subject of books, educational materials, lectures and the like, that advance that knowledge of the subject.

If the infinitesimal amount of people (<2000?) who post and visit these discussions and who are golf architects, architectural critics, GCA afficiandos, or (people merely looking for the great courses to play) DON"T ask this type of question, who will?  This is it, right here, this (imo) is the leading colloquy for the examination of GCA.

From that obviously speculative titular question we get supports for the premise and refutations of the premise, we get photos of early American architecture some have never seen and we are exposed to direct biographical snippets and contemporary context that we may have never encountered.  This is as it should be, imo.

Of course George Washington isn't the actual Father of Our Country, it would only be so if we were all direct descendants of him but he can be summarized in that way and was so well before there was a sound bite for Americans to consume.  Yet I have both seen and read scholars debating that very point, often times in agreement, in differing degrees with the occasional new bird chirping about Alexander Hamilton in preference to GW.  These dialogs and books are amongst the most entertaining and enlightening I encounter. why shouldn't it be so for our area of concentration

As for the lesser matters in GCA, I will merely paraphrase a portion of my original post:  In all the ways that a father can be taken to mean: co-author, co-creator, financier, protector, physical link to the ancestors and their deeds, authority figure, planner, developer CBM, more than anyone else, can be accurately construed as the Father of Golf Architecture in America.

Cheers

vk

VK

The questions should absolutely be asked because these lead to discovery, but when a conclusion as clean cut as simple one man answer is offered, I am highly dubious.   Which of course means I have more questions! Thats fair enough no? 

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

Sean,

I agree with you that declarations like "the father of . . ." are often hollow and rarely tell the whole story, but at least the question gives us a chance to discuss a crucial yet often misunderstood period in the development of golf architecture in America.  So I agree with VM.  

And for me this isn't really an issue of semantics, but an issue of understanding what really happened.  While your melting pot concept is appealing in an everyone is a winner sort of way, and it keeps peace among those trying to prop up their pet dead guy, it just didn't happen that way, at least not initially.  With NGLA, CBM profoundly altered the approach taken toward golf course design in America, and on a massive scale.  Virtually every decent course was significantly altered or entirely rebuilt as a direct result of this sea change.  

Sure there were a few talented guys with similar ideas on both sides of the pond-- many of them were directly aiding CBM in his quest.  Some of these guys (Travis at Garden City for example) had begun tinkering with various existing courses to bring about positive change, and some links-like sophistication had begun to appear on new courses.  But CBM espoused and implemented the ideas on a much grander scale and on a much larger stage.    

Who were these other guys to which you refer?   Where were their courses?  Were writers on two continents writing about any of these courses years before the land had even been purchased?  Did clubs across the country plead for their help?  Did other clubs send their professionals or chairs on pilgrimages overseas because these guys had?   Did other clubs across the country try to build or change their own courses with the same hole types as theirs?   What did these guys do to convince the golfing establishment in America that that the fundamental principles of great golf course design were discoverable within the traditional links?  Did Hutchinson proclaim that these courses challenged even St. Andrews for the best course in the World?  

Speaking of Darwin, in 1913  Bernard Darwin had the honor of acting as Quimet's marker in the historical playoff, and had also toured many of the country's top courses during the visit.  Here is what he had to say about the trip in 1921:

When I came back from America after seeing that memorable battle there were two questions which I was asked by all my golfing acquaintances. The first was, "What is Ouimet like?" the second, "What is the National Golf Links like?" The first I have endeavoured to answer, and Mr. Ouimet has answered it himself by coming here, as we all hope he will again. As the National Golf Links cannot be brought here, and as it is one of the two or three finest courses I have ever seen, I will try to answer the second question now.

No surprise that these were the two questions.  When Francis Quimet beat Vardon and Ray in the legendary playoff at the Country Club for the US Open Championship it was a watershed moment for golf in America and it sent shockwaves around the world.   American golfers had not only arrived, they now challenged (and occasionally even beat) the best golfers in the World.  Likewise with NGLA.  America now had a golf course that was widely considered to be among the very best in the world.  

CBM and NGLA had captured the imagination of golfers and even some non-golfers, for example, future great Perry Maxwell of Oklahoma.  And much of that was just the news, descriptions, and debate about the place!  Once more saw the course the hype only grew.  In the process of imagining, discussing, building NGLA, CBM had started a revolution in golf course design that spread to every corner of America.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean Arble,

Orville and Wilbur Wright might argue with you regarding the "paternity" of motorized flight.

David Moriarty,

Phrased another way, was NGLA the new benchmark or gold standard for American golf in 1909 ?

Fast forward 100 years.

Has NGLA retained any/most of the attributes, in the context of modern golf, that established it as the benchmark or gold standard in 1909 ?

While Sean wants to argue semantics, the gist of the query seems to ask whether or not it was CBM who launched a new direction and product in GCA, a product of such quality that it remains mostly intact, and highly relevant, a century later.

I too am interested in knowing what other architects, who preceeded CBM, influenced American GCA to the degree that CBM did.

CBM's influence was perpetuated vis a vis, Seth Raynor and Charles Banks.

When one aggregates the body of their collective works, it occupies an enormous segment of GCA in America for two to three decades, paralleling the early growth of golf in this country.

Even courses subsequent to NGLA, not designed by CBM, were influenced by him.
Is not Merion a perfect example ?

How many other courses introduced their version of his templates ?

His/their influence was so monumental, so far reaching that a century later, a prominent modern day architect is replicating/paying homage to his work at a new course in Bandon, Oregon.

Doesn't one have to play NGLA to appreciate and understand CBM's influence on golf in America ?

 

[V. Kmetz]

Sean:

Fair enough

PM:

I agree with your responses and last summary of the topic.  Because I'm ambivalent about a lot of our classic designs being invested in ultra-exclusive clubs, I wish I had a better argument to refute the very last rhetorical question you posed: "Doesn't one have to play NGLA to appreciate and understand CBM's influence on golf in America ?"  

That's a hard call because I can think of many GCA scientists and eager-to-learn critics not getting the opportunity.  I had all the local golf juice and well-heeled friends you could ever want (without being a PGA member) and National was a tough "get."  Tougher still if you really wanted to have the experience of the course with a couple of regular friends, which is as important to me as the whole damn enterprise.

cheers

vk

[TEPaul]

V Kmetz:

It amuses me that both Moriarty and Mucci, perhaps among others on here, tend to play up the singular importance of NGLA as the absolute beginning of quality golf course architecture in America. There is no question the public splash NGLA made at the time of its creation certainly did make a very big splash and got a lot of public notice all over the place, seemingly as much for Macdonald's revolutionary model for it and its architecture (that it pretty much was a must in architecture to either copy what Macdonald called "classical" holes abroad or the accumulated "principles" of classical holes abroad). That in and of itself was the meat of Macdonald's REVOLUTIONARY idea and HIS new model for quality architecture in America, and including the novel idea that all 18 holes must each be of a high architectural standard (no "weak link" holes as Macdonald even said at that time even the best of the famous linksland courses had).

I don't think anyone denies this was the case with NGLA, but the question is, and my point is, did NGLA represent the FIRST example of quality architecture in America?

I think we know it did not (in the minds of even the top experts on the subject of that time) and we know it from the likes of Macdonald and Whigam and a bunch of others of the significant minds on architecture and abroad at the time.

They ALL seem to say that Myopia and GCGC and even CGC preceded NGLA with quality architecture in America and the only real difference was that the likes of Leeds and Emmet/Travis simply were not anywhere near so public about promoting those clubs and their architecture compared to Macdonald and his NGLA!

So the question becomes was the architecture of NGLA just miles better than either GCGC or Myopia for instance, both of which came some years BEFORE NGLA?

I think we need to deal with that question alone if Macdonald is going to be promoted on here as being the absolute first in America to create quality golf course architecture (again what Macdonald himself said about quality architecture in America before NGLA is obviously a significant indicator to answer this question).

For that answer on here I should note that to my knowledge neither Moriarty nor Mucci has ever even seen Myopia. I think the same is true for MacWood even though he does not seem to be particpating in this subject in the same way and in the same vein the other two are.

[TEPaul]

"Doesn't one have to play NGLA to appreciate and understand CBM's influence on golf in America ?"


Patrick:

Of course they would. In the same vein, wouldn't one have to play and become familiar with Myopia to have an informed opinion on that course and its architecture to appreciate and understand how Leed's influence with it effected golf in America since Myopia came before NGLA by a number of years?


I think the same can and should be said about both Emmet and Travis with GCGC since it also came before NGLA.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Can it aid the conversation?, yes, but that idea is one of the biggest red herrings that gets floated on this site. No one talking about these clubs was even a gleam in their father's eye during the architectural period being discussed.

Different story when the discussion comes around to modern times.

[Kirk Gill]

If "father" is a word that causes such trouble, then howzabout "The Johnny Appleseed" of golf?

The Mary Curie of golf?

[Jim_Kennedy]

If "father" is a word that causes such trouble, then howzabout "The Johnny Appleseed" of golf?
Tom Bendelow has that one 

The Mary Curie of golf?

Marie Curie was a pioneer in the field of radioactivity. Probably several guys could have that one.

"All of golf paused to marvel at Macdonald's magnificent creation."

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think anyone denies this was the case with NGLA, but the question is, and my point is, did NGLA represent the FIRST example of quality architecture in America?

I think we know it did not (in the minds of even the top experts on the subject of that time) and we know it from the likes of Macdonald and Whigam and a bunch of others of the significant minds on architecture and abroad at the time.

They ALL seem to say that Myopia and GCGC and even CGC preceded NGLA with quality architecture in America and the only real difference was that the likes of Leeds and Emmet/Travis simply were not anywhere near so public about promoting those clubs and their architecture compared to Macdonald and his NGLA!

So the question becomes was the architecture of NGLA just miles better than either GCGC or Myopia for instance, both of which came some years BEFORE NGLA?

Tom:

Indeed that is the operative question.  And I do think that National was miles better than GCGC or Myopia.  My evidence is that no one in Britain spoke highly of them and no one in Britain was asking Darwin what he thought of those two.

Plus, of course, I've just done a tribute to NGLA and not to Garden City! 

[V. Kmetz]

TP:

They ALL seem to say that Myopia and GCGC and even CGC preceded NGLA with quality architecture in America and the only real difference was that the likes of Leeds and Emmet/Travis simply were not anywhere near so public about promoting those clubs and their architecture compared to Macdonald and his NGLA!

So the question becomes was the architecture of NGLA just miles better than either GCGC or Myopia for instance, both of which came some years BEFORE NGLA?

I think we need to deal with that question alone if Macdonald is going to be promoted on here as being the absolute first in America to create quality golf course architecture

My response to the underlined meat of your posit(s)

1.  I have little scholarship and no playing experience of Myopia and slightly more scholarship but only 1 playing/2 caddyings of GCGC.  Due to these limitations and the significant course changes to today's appearance, I really cannot correlate which architecture represented more or less quality and exemplar of style (not in the "steeplechase," "perpendicular" form) for designs executed prior to National.  Sorry if that leads to a charge of "cop-out." but I would be a fool to answer conclusively.  My halting answer to whether National was miles ahead of the other two, I can only answer..."I think so."

2.  I was trained in school to resist agreeing with anything that was proffered as an "absolute" so of course CBM was not the absolute first to create quality golf course architecture in America.  For example, while it is a matter of opinion, I think that the Wee Drop looks like quality golf architecture, as an individual hole.  CBM may be the first to create quality golf course architecture "experience" sustained throughout the playing of an entire course, and with an intellectual component unifying that entire experience.  I don't know that Leeds, Travis, Dunn, Campbell performed a hard search for particular property to site their course, like CBM did or utilized any of the scholarship and study of existing British architecture as CBM did...which would bolster a CBM claim in all the things that "First" or "Father" represents.

3. I don't completely dismiss the element of "public promotion."  I agree that it has nothing to do with factual architectural design history, but I think CBM's status as one of - if not THE leading - agitators of GCA culture (ie; critical articles, contests, consultations, dialogues) can speak to the question about how we summarize the period.  What I mean is that we will never know the exact first father of Julius Caesar's actual assassination, but it is it historically inaccurate to put Brutus at the lead of that?  Brutus was but one of 60 senators purported to be involved in the stabbing, yet will following the career of Brutus not lead us to essential and corroborated knowledge of the event?  Are we missing an important truth by making little mention of the Senator, Tillius Cimber, omitted from the generality of a history - though he is reported to be the Senator who first trapped Caesar with a ruse, so that the victim could be engulfed and surrounded.

Again, I apologize for whatever ignorance this demonstrates.

Cheers

vk  

[TEPaul]

"My evidence is that no one in Britain spoke highly of them and no one in Britain was asking Darwin what he thought of those two."


TomD:

First of all, I'm not so sure one could say no one in Britain who had seen or played particularly Myopia did not speak highly of it, and even if most in Britain didn't (speak of it) it was probably for some logical reasons---eg it was quite a bit earlier than NGLA and Leeds did not create his course by touting it as a virtually borrowing of "classical" holes and their concepts from abroad as Macdonald did so publicly for so long with his project that would become NGLA.

But obviously, this kind of question is one of architectural taste both back then and today because one must remember that fortunately both NGLA from the time of Macdonald and Myopia from the time of Leeds are actually very little changed----thankfully.

Consequently, it is more than possible for one today who knows both well to compare and contrast their architectural qualities and in some pretty good detail at that.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I agree with you that declarations like "the father of . . ." are often hollow and rarely tell the whole story, but at least the question gives us a chance to discuss a crucial yet often misunderstood period in the development of golf architecture in America.  So I agree with VM.  

And for me this isn't really an issue of semantics, but an issue of understanding what really happened.  While your melting pot concept is appealing in an everyone is a winner sort of way, and it keeps peace among those trying to prop up their pet dead guy, it just didn't happen that way, at least not initially.  With NGLA, CBM profoundly altered the approach taken toward golf course design in America, and on a massive scale.  Virtually every decent course was significantly altered or entirely rebuilt as a direct result of this sea change.  

Sure there were a few talented guys with similar ideas on both sides of the pond-- many of them were directly aiding CBM in his quest.  Some of these guys (Travis at Garden City for example) had begun tinkering with various existing courses to bring about positive change, and some links-like sophistication had begun to appear on new courses.  But CBM espoused and implemented the ideas on a much grander scale and on a much larger stage.    

Who were these other guys to which you refer?   Where were their courses?  Were writers on two continents writing about any of these courses years before the land had even been purchased?  Did clubs across the country plead for their help?  Did other clubs send their professionals or chairs on pilgrimages overseas because these guys had?   Did other clubs across the country try to build or change their own courses with the same hole types as theirs?   What did these guys do to convince the golfing establishment in America that that the fundamental principles of great golf course design were discoverable within the traditional links?  Did Hutchinson proclaim that these courses challenged even St. Andrews for the best course in the World?  

Speaking of Darwin, in 1913  Bernard Darwin had the honor of acting as Quimet's marker in the historical playoff, and had also toured many of the country's top courses during the visit.  Here is what he had to say about the trip in 1921:

When I came back from America after seeing that memorable battle there were two questions which I was asked by all my golfing acquaintances. The first was, "What is Ouimet like?" the second, "What is the National Golf Links like?" The first I have endeavoured to answer, and Mr. Ouimet has answered it himself by coming here, as we all hope he will again. As the National Golf Links cannot be brought here, and as it is one of the two or three finest courses I have ever seen, I will try to answer the second question now.

No surprise that these were the two questions.  When Francis Quimet beat Vardon and Ray in the legendary playoff at the Country Club for the US Open Championship it was a watershed moment for golf in America and it sent shockwaves around the world.   American golfers had not only arrived, they now challenged (and occasionally even beat) the best golfers in the World.  Likewise with NGLA.  America now had a golf course that was widely considered to be among the very best in the world.  

CBM and NGLA had captured the imagination of golfers and even some non-golfers, for example, future great Perry Maxwell of Oklahoma.  And much of that was just the news, descriptions, and debate about the place!  Once more saw the course the hype only grew.  In the process of imagining, discussing, building NGLA, CBM had started a revolution in golf course design that spread to every corner of America.

David

You miss my point entirely.  I am saying that the artificial divide created by stating Father of American Architecture is meaningless in the big scheme of things because the line between architecture from the UK side of the pond to the American side of the pond was and remains direct and interconnected.  I am not sure why this is a difficult concept to grasp.  You choose to focus on where the architecture was practiced where I prefer to talk about architecture as a linear progression in which there were influential American designers - one of the most influential being CBM.  Hence, I want to hear about the elements CBM brought to the table which were original - not merely original in the US at the time.  Then, like now, architecture was a small world regardless of where an archie practiced.

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

VKmetz,

Far from demonstrating your ignorance, you post makes a lot of sense.  A few comments.

1.  In his previous post, TEPaul attempts to change the question.  The thread is largely about impact and influence, and with NGLA CBM's impact and influence was massive.   While I am sure that Garden City and Myopia were solid courses for their time, I don't think anyone would reasonably argue that their impact and influence remotely compared to NGLA.

2.  TEPaul also attempts to play his favorite trump card.  The "I've played it so I know more than you card."   But he didn't play Myopia in 1907 or 1908.  Plus as to the question of impact and influence on golf course architecture in America it is irrelevant what you, me, or TEPaul might think of Myopia.   What matters is what they thought at the time, and I don't think many at the time thought that Garden City or Myopia compared to NGLA.

3. While it isn't really the issue, any reasonable person studying what was written at the time would have to conclude that at the time NGLA was considered to be much better than either Garden City or Myopia.   As Whigham noted, these two courses were only "nearly good."   While they might have been the best that America had to offer, they were by no means considered great by those who knew better.  Take a look at Whigham's description of Garden City in 1909:


Take Garden City as another example.   Here conditions are most favorable and no one can doubt that with the Long Island soil and climate a really interesting course might be constructed.   As it is, nearly everything is either wrong about the course or else not quite right where it could so easily be right.   Walter Travis did a great deal when he put in about fifty new bunkers and imitated the eleventh hole at St. Andrews on the last green.   That one change in itself has been a tremendous improvement.   Yet he had to risk any amount of hostile criticism, and even now the course is hardly within measurable distance of what it ought to be if properly laid out.  

Nearly everything is either wrong about the course or else not quite right where it could so easily be right?  Hardly high praise, and this was a course that he thought was decent!   NGLA was intended to take golf course design well beyond what passed for decent golf course architecture in America, and it succeeded.   As Tom Doak points out, one need only look at the reception NGLA received on the world scale.    NGLA wasn't considered to be as good as the other substandard courses that existed at the time, it was WORLD CLASS.   Hutchinson raved about it and compared it favorably to Saint Andrews.  Darwin raved about and noted that none were better in the world.  Even Travis, the one responsible for the positive changes at Garden City, thought NGLA "the finest."

Ben Sayers, the long time professional at North Berwick, had this to say about NGLA after touring America's courses in 1914:

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.

He was rather dismissive of the rest of the courses he saw, only noting that if America had more quality courses it would produce better golfers.

_________________

Sean,  I didn't miss your point.  It wasn't a linear progression in America.  It was many steps backward followed by a huge leap forward.  NGLA was that leap.

As for CBM 's originality, you've completely missed MY point.  America didn't need original; it had plenty of original and most of it bad.  America needed tradition,  it needed to connect with the links, it needed excellence.   CBM gave America all that, and started the continuum which you mistakenly think had been going on all along.

[Bill Brightly]

Sean,

I would postulate that Macdonald's greatness was not in his architectual ininovations, but rather, his careful study of what was already really great golf course architecture in the UK. He recognized it as a player. Then he studied it,  drew schematics of it, and brought it all back to the masterpiece that he built at NGLA.

And once that was in the ground, and it was promoted the way it was...the "architectural game" could not possibly remain the same. There was a new standard, a new definition of greatness, even if others may have surpassed what Macdonald built.

As a side note, Macdonald's efforts to develop the proper turfgrass to play golf on was also very revolutionary, although probably impossible to quantify.

Maybe "father" is the wrong word. Perhaps "game-changer" or "master catalyst" or some other better word that I can't think of...Wait, I have one: The Evangilist!

[Sean_A]

Sean,

I would postulate that Macdonald's greatness was not in his architectual ininovations, but rather, his careful study of what was already really great golf course architecture in the UK. He recognized it as a player. Then he studied it,  drew schematics of it, and brought it all back to the masterpiece that he built at NGLA.

And once that was in the ground, and it was promoted the way it was...the "architectural game" could not possibly remain the same. There was a new standard, a new definition of greatness, even if others may have surpassed what Macdonald built.

As a side note, Macdonald's efforts to develop the proper turfgrass to play golf on was also very revolutionary, although probably impossible to quantify.

Maybe "father" is the wrong word. Perhaps "game-changer" or "master catalyst" or some other better word that I can't think of...Wait, I have one: The Evangilist!

Bill

Its ironic you choose the apt term "Evangelist".  What exactly was CBM evangelizing about other than sticking to the imported aspects of the game and architecture as he learned them in the UK?  CBM would have been one of the last guys to think architecture in America needed a radical turn of events.  I also agree that with NGLA came new standards of excellence in design, design methods and a furthering of the understanding of the importance of the playing surface.  But, what CBM accomplished could only have been the case with many, many great people from whom CBM learned from.  I have always believed that the idea of an excellent playing surface was CBM's major triumph because that can't necessarily be well translated from across the pond like design concepts on paper can.  CBM realized that his concepts relied heavily upon the playing surface and American architecture greatly benefited from these efforts.

Ciao

[Bill Brightly]

Sean,

First of all,  I think he really disliked the golf courses that were in the US prior to 1900. Geeze, he goes to Scotland for school and learns the game on TOC, then returns to Chicago where there are no good courses...Is it hard to believe that he was spoiled? Did he ever fail to give credit to the courses in the UK were be borrowed principles?

Secondly, I did not choose the term evangilist..George Bahto used it in the title of his book. I was making a small joke.

However, enangilist probably is the best term when discussing Macdonald's influence on golf in the US (not the world.) I will grant you that he learned almost everything in the UK. But he not only studied good architecure, he documented it in a way far more powerful than the most gifted writer ever could. He put it in the ground!

I don't think all golf courses were bad in the US at the time, but I believe there were LOTS of terrible golf holes and lots of really bad golf courses. So by building NGLA, Macdonald was saying: LOOK, THIS IS HOW A GOLF COURSE SHOULD BE BUILT.

An evangilist does not invent what he preaches, he but rather, preaches what has been passed down to him over time, what he believes furvantly is the absolute truth.