As for the Travis article, it is
wishful thinking to find any sort of reference to using British holes as templates in America or copying the strategic concepts, or anything else remotely similar to what CBM had begun working on in 1901.
1. Travis contrasted GB's abundance of quality golf holes with the dearth of quality golf holes in the US.
2. Why list the holes to make this point? How better to demonstrate the contrast? Plus, consider the context. Travis was writing for a British audience shortly after the well-publicized discussions about the best and most difficult golf holes, and was writing for the same magazine that had served as the epicenter of that discussion/debate. So it should come as no surprise that Travis listed out many of the same golf holes that Golf Illustrated had been discussing. The best and most difficult golf holes were a hot topic, and he weighed in or glommed on (depending on whether he had actually played all these holes.) To read any more into it than this is a leap beyond logic, and not supported by the articles.
3. His description of the problems with American holes and courses has nothing to do with fundamental strategic principles, or usable hole concepts, or anything resembling CBM’s critique. Rather , he complained that American holes were too easy; (“of the Kindergarten order” . . . “too easy” . . . laid out along the same lines “to suit the game of the average player” where “a premium is placed on mediocrity.”) He also said British soil was better, and the undulations were better. Nothing about the arrangement of the features. Nothing about the transferability or the universality of the fundamental strategic principles of the great holes. No coherent plan or concept whatsoever, beyond improving American courses by making them harder.
4. Ironically, there isn’t even anything original in the article that I can see. If discussing the fact that the golf courses were better abroad was all it took to preempt CBM, then many others preempted CBM (including CBM himself!) Same goes for noting that the soil was worse in America, and the undulations weren’t as ideal.
5. In fact, most of the ideas in the Travis article could have been cribbed from Whigham’s writings from 1897. The difference is that, unlike Travis, Whigham actually does contemplate that
American Clubs should model thier courses after the best courses abroad, and not just is soil or undulations, but it detail. So if you are looking for someone that was talking about these things first, then here is your man (or one of them.) But then crediting Whigham won’t quite serve your purposes in this discussion, will it?
6. And crediting Whigham isn’t quite accurate either, because while he was leaps and bounds closer than Travis, his ideas were a far cry from what CBM was starting to work on. Not only that, but CBM’s weren’t just ideas. He did it.
___________________________________________________
Rich Goodale,
That's a good point except for one thing.
As an architect, CBM was a nobody in the latter part of the 19th century and early years of the 20th century, so, I don't know if he'd get that much press.
But, I would like to know which courses he studied and which courses he didn't study.
Interesting, Pat. Even his arch enemy Travis acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago (Wheaton). Was he the only one?
If CBM was really a "nobody" in 1902-1906, how did he get access to the great courses and the great thinkers in his study-trips abroad? Or are you implying that maybe he didn't?
Patrick,
I am not sure I agree. CBM was very well known in golf circles during that time period, and I don't think they made any sort of "as an architect" distinction, but had they he still would have been very well known, as Chicago was widely considered the best course pre-1900.
Along with H.J. Whigham and probably a few others, CMB seems to have been considered one of the foremost experts in America on all things golf, including golf courses. In 1897 Caspar Whitney described him as "
so expert a golfer and so accurate an observer as Charles B. Macdonald" and "
Mr. Macdonald should know whereof lie speaks, since he is as familiar with the courses of Scotland and England as he is with those of America."
Rich,
As you can see above, CBM was considered an expert on golf courses in America and Abroad long before his trips in preparation abroad. That doesn't specifically answer your question, though. I don't have a list of courses seen by CBM, although that would be interesting. I imagine that he could have seen quite a few courses on his three trips abroad to study courses, and that is on top of his time in St. Andrews and whatever other trips he may have taken between the two periods.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Sorry to disappoint you, Tom MacW, but I also read Travis' 1901 paragraph reproduced above to advocate "template" holes, both the first time it was posted, and after several re-reads just to make sure. "Templates" are simply exemplars of "best practice" that can be imitated, and that is what Travis is saying about those holes and features developed by their British brethren that he believed US architects should focus on. That Macdonald developed a similar idea (and more importantly, acted on it) a few years later does not detract from the incontrovertible fact of Travis' statement.
Rich, it seems you have stripped much of the substance out of the concept of a "template" at least when it comes to golf holes, and even still the Travis article cannot fit. You say he "advocate[d] template holes." Which template holes did he advocate, and what was it particularly that he advocated using from these holes? Where exactly does he say anything about "imitating" these exemplars, and how, and to what degree? What exactly is it that the "US architects should focus on?"
It is not enough to say they were "exemplars" or "best practice." (Not sure this term applies because of the way those holes came about.) Sure they were exemplars, but exemplars of what, specifically? If these were indeed exemplars or templates, then please tell us just what exactly was exemplified, and to what degree, and how?
Generally, I think they were "examplars" of an abundance of quality golf holes. That's it. Nothing more specific than that, but lets try to break it down: At best Travis thought these holes were . . .
1. Built on better soil and have better turf.
2. Had better natural undulations.
3. Built to be difficult, so that the could challenge the top quality golfer.
That's it, isn't it? If not, then what more is there? And the Travis plan to apply the "best practice" here?
Make courses more difficult. Nothing else that I see. Hell, if all it takes to be a template advocate was that you wanted good soil, undulations, and difficulty, then about everyone was an advocate for templates.
By the way, CBM did not come up with this idea a few years later. He was contemplating an "ideal" golf course on the east coast since 1897 or before. He just did not know that that he would be the person to build it. Was the plan fully formed then? Surely not, but it was more formed than anything Travis writes in this article. He began working on the actual project about in 1901, not a few years after the Travis article which was published in November of that same year.
One more thing Rich, given your curiosity above about whether or not CBM actually knew a wide range of British holes, then you must really be curious about Travis. Do you have a record of what holes he played, because he doesn't even say he'd played those holes, did he? What holes had he seen at this point?