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

[Rich Goodale]

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?  

Based on the evidence I've seen, David, my guess is that in 1901 Travis had a more contemporaneous view of the great holes, based on his trips to the UK in 1895-6 (no post-St. Andrews/pre 1902 trips for Macdonald that I know of).  I suspect, however, that both of them at that time were relying mostly on Hutchinson's magnum opus of 1897(?) which laid out those "template" holes for any and all to see and study.

[Tom MacWood]

Based on the evidence I've seen, David, my guess is that in 1901 Travis had a more contemporaneous view of the great holes, based on his trips to the UK in 1895-6 (no post-St. Andrews/pre 1902 trips for Macdonald that I know of).  I suspect, however, that both of them at that time were relying mostly on Hutchinson's magnum opus of 1897(?) which laid out those "template" holes for any and all to see and study.

Rich
Travis did not play golf in 1896, literally, he did not learn the game until he retuned to the US. His visit in 1901 was his first experience golfing in the UK.

If you have any interest in CBM Scotland's Gift is a great resource; George Bahto's book is very good too. In those books you would learn Macdonald's father was a Scot and that CBM was educated at St. Andrews (I thought that was pretty much common knowledge). Beyond the years commuting to the U. of St. Andrews in the early 1870s I have found he made trips to the UK in 1879, 1881, 1884, 1886, 1888, 1890 (twice)...at that point I stopped looking.

Half the holes Travis listed were not in Hutchinson's book.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

This question is neither here nor there but do you think Travis thought he was a better architect than who you say was his associate, HH Barker? if you think so that is pretty heady stuff since you proclaimed or supported the super revisionist Moriarty's statement in his remarkably ridiculous essay, "The Missing Faces of Merion," that HH Barker was the second best architecture in America, right behind C.B. Macdonald? Would you like me to quote him mentioning you thought that in his ridiculously revisionist essay? Would you say, then, that it's fair to say that back then Macdonald was the #1 architect in American and Travis 2a and Barker 2b?

TEP
I don't understand your question. Are you familiar the Travis's architectural career? If you study their respective careers you will find Barker and Travis's career's did not overlap, with one exception, the GCGC redesign (a collaboration)....which you incorrectly dated on this thread to around 1901. Its very difficult to have a debate or an intelligent conversation with someone who does not have a basic understanding of golf architecture history.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Regarding the last part of your question. I said Travis and Macdonald were by far the most respected architectural authorities at the time (circa 1910) - based largely upon the redesign of GCGC and the creation of the NGLA, the two cutting edge designs in America. Travis was not actively designing golf courses at the time, so if you wanted Travis's ideas you got Barker instead, his associate at GCGC. That is my assumption based on the relatively unknown Barker getting a good number of premier commissions from coast to coast; it is also based on the fact that Travis himself later took some credit for Barker becoming a golf architect.

As far as Barker being on the two top practicing architects at the time, I don't know an architect practicing in America between 1908 and 1910 who had more impressive resume than Barker's....do you? My contention has been out there for a while now and no one has made the case for others, feel free to present the case for another golf architect or golf architects.

By the way, please do not turn this thread into another Merion thread (even though we all know Wayne and your participation in this thread and your odd interpretations have everything to do with Merion)

[Rich Goodale]

Based on the evidence I've seen, David, my guess is that in 1901 Travis had a more contemporaneous view of the great holes, based on his trips to the UK in 1895-6 (no post-St. Andrews/pre 1902 trips for Macdonald that I know of).  I suspect, however, that both of them at that time were relying mostly on Hutchinson's magnum opus of 1897(?) which laid out those "template" holes for any and all to see and study.

Rich
Travis did not play golf in 1896, literally, he did not learn the game until he retuned to the US. His visit in 1901 was his first experience golfing in the UK.

Thanks for that, Tom.  I knew about Travis' early golfing history, but not about the 1901 trip.  Can we assume that this was where he learned about (and then probably saw and even played) the holes he wrote about?  Did Macdonald ever write about playing golf on any of those trips that you discovered he took to the UK?

PS--I have read Scotland's Gift, and was not impressed, as I have said many times on this forum.  I don't remember a lot of interesting factual information in that book.  If and when I get more interested in Macdonald, I'll read the Bahto/Papazian book.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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?


Rich, WHEN did Travis acknowledge the architectural quality of Chicago ?
Was it pre or post 1902 and/or 1904 ?
In 1895 what other 18 hole courses existed in America that Travis could compare Chicago to ?

Travis didn't take up golf until 1897 and didn't design his first golf course until 1907, so I'm curious to know when he acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago, especially in terms of how it relates to CBM's trips to the UK in 1902 and 1904, and, in terms of his ability to discern quality golf course architecture.

Was 1904 the first year that he played golf in the UK ?

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?

CBM wasn't a "nobody" in terms of golf, but, he wasn't a "rock star" in terms of architecture in 1902-1906.
However, he was well connected in the social and business world in Chicago, New York and beyond.

TEPaul is not an "architect" of note, or even an architect of ill repute, but, I'll wager you that he could gain access to the great courses and the great thinkers in the UK.  CBM was probably better positioned to gain access than any practicing architect of his time.

Does that make TEPaul the equal of CBM ?

[TEPaul]

")....which you incorrectly dated on this thread to around 1901. Its very difficult to have a debate or an intelligent conversation with someone who does not have a basic understanding of golf architecture history."


Tom MacWood:

Following his use of the Haskell ball (that he referred to as "The Bounding Billy") in the 1901 US Amateur Travis returned to GCGC and was involved in the lengthening of the course from  6070 to 6400 yards thereby apparently making it the longest course in America at the time. He suggested the rebunkering of the course at that time. It is certainly understandable that Travis would be given the liberty of doing architectural work on GCGC in 1901-02 since he had already designed Ekwanok golf course in Vermont with John Duncan Dunn in the fall of 1899 and of course he had been the US Amateur champion in 1900. So much for having a conversation with someone who does not have a basic understanding of the subject. 

[Rich Goodale]

Interesting, Pat.  Even his arch enemy Travis acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago (Wheaton).  Was he the only one?


Rich, WHEN did Travis acknowledge the architectural quality of Chicago ?
Was it pre or post 1902 and/or 1904 ?
In 1895 what other 18 hole courses existed in America that Travis could compare Chicago to ?

Travis didn't take up golf until 1897 and didn't design his first golf course until 1907, so I'm curious to know when he acknowledged the architectural quality of Chicago, especially in terms of how it relates to CBM's trips to the UK in 1902 and 1904, and, in terms of his ability to discern quality golf course architecture.

Was 1904 the first year that he played golf in the UK ?

Pat

That was from his 1901 article (see above)

According to Tom MacW, he 1st played golf in the UK in 1901.

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich:

In answer to your question about Macdonald and his time and experience with architecture abroad----according to Macdonald he actually only PLAYED golf three times between his departure from St. Andrews in 1874 and the beginning of Chicago Golf Club in 1893! When he said those were his "Dark Years" he wasn't kidding, huh?

He played twice at Hoylake, once in 1878 and again in 1884. The only other time he actually played golf in those nineteen years was in some field at Camp Douglass in Chicago in 1875 with some friend of his after they pushed a few cans they found on the property into the ground as cups. But he claimed that wasn't a very gratifying experience as some hooligans harrassed the hell outta them apparently because they thought they were a couple of crazy people swinging clubs at a ball in some field!  

Macdonald did mention he was called abroad on business in those early years quite frequently but nevertheless he said he only played golf twice abroad in those nineteen years and both times apparently at Hoylake. I don't know if he went abroad again for golf after the beginning of Chicago Golf Club (1893) and before his first dedicated architectural study trip abroad in 1902 but if not then I guess we can assume that TOC and Hoylake were the only courses he knew abroad before that time (1902).

Travis, on the other hand, made a "golfing pilgramage" (Macdonald's phrase) abroad in July 1901 with the current USGA president, R.H. Roberston (a man Macdonald was definitely not fond of as a USGA president). So obviously all the courses and holes (about forty holes) that Travis mentioned in that British Golf Illustrated article in Nov, 1901 that he admired, he had played and was familiar with.

[TEPaul]

"By the way, please do not turn this thread into another Merion thread (even though we all know Wayne and your participation in this thread and your odd interpretations have everything to do with Merion)."


Tom MacWood:

This thread and the question of Walter Travis' knowledge and architectural ideas in 1901 with golf courses and golf holes abroad and how to emulate their architectural concepts and ideas in America to make golf, golfers and golf architecture better over here has nothing whatsoever to do with Merion, so I fail to see why you even bothered to mention it unless YOU are trying to use it to deflect discussing THIS subject. That (Merion) was a far different time and place (about a decade later).

But if you don't want to deal with or discuss the facts of Walter Travis' golf architectural knowledge and ideas in 1901 (including the significance of that Nov 1901 British Golf Illustrated article in that particular vein) because you might think it is too controversial or something then that is your prerogative!  

[Tom MacWood]

Getting back to the original question about the father of American golf architecture, could someone please explain to me why 1901 is such a significant date? They had been playing golf in the States for almost a decade at that point, with courses like Chicago, Onwentsia, Myopia, GCGC, Essex County, Brookline and Ekwanok in full flight.

In comparing Travis to Macdonald as the 'father' one should consider the fact CBM had laid out three golf courses in the States before Travis even began playing the game. CBM may or may not be the father of American golf architecture, but trying to claim Travis is the father is preposterous.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom MacW

Who has claimed (on this thread or elsewhere) that Travis was the father of American GCA?  Why does American GCA have to have just one father anyway?  What's wrong in giving credit to anybody who added significantly to its development?

[TEPaul]

"Getting back to the original question about the father of American golf architecture, could someone please explain to me why 1901 is such a significant date? They had been playing golf in the States for almost a decade at that point, with courses like Chicago, Onwentsia, Myopia, GCGC, Essex County, Brookline and Ekwanok in full flight.

In comparing Travis to Macdonald as the 'father' one should consider the fact CBM had laid out three golf courses in the States before Travis even began playing the game. CBM may or may not be the father of American golf architecture, but trying to claim Travis is the father is preposterous."


Tom MacWood:

Of course I can explain to you why 1901 and that article by Travis in the British Golf Illustrated magazine is potentially significant. Frankly, I already explained it to you a couple of times but as usual with you it seems you failed to understand it or perhaps you didn't even read it.

The significance of it, at least potentially, is that Travis may have come up with the idea of utilizing hole concepts and hole ideas from admired and famous holes abroad to improve golf and golfers and golf architecture in America BEFORE Macdonald did and BEFORE Macdonald even made his very first architectural study trip abroad which I think we all understand took place in 1902 and AFTER Travis' study trip abroad in the middle of 1901 that was comprehensively explained in that British Golf Illustrated Nov, 1901 which was BEFORE Macdonald went abroad to essentially analyze and familiarlize himself with GB courses and holes and architecture to be utilized with American architecture as Travis had done and had said before him!

If you can't understand that or the potential architectural historical signficance then one should fairly ask what kind of golf architectural historian you think you are?

I don't think anyone is saying Travis should be considered the Father of American architecture, that's not the point, but if it is true that Travis came up with an novel idea that Macdonald utilized later and that became the virtual advertized model for NLGA then THAT should be considered pretty significant------not to even mention the fact that Macdonald also picked Travis as one of two to serve on his first architectural committee to design and create NLGA itself!!

[Tom MacWood]

Rich
If you don't like the premise of the question no one is forcing you to weigh in. IMO it is legitimate question based on the fact that historically Macdonald has been dubbed the father. It seems to me TEP is trying to make that case for Travis or maybe he is just rying to make the case against CBM...its difficult to tell.  

In the last eight posts made by you and TEP (prior to your last post) you emphasized 1901. Why is 1901 a significant date when trying to identify the father of golf architecture in America?

TEP
Travis wrote a boat load of articles on golf course development from the early 1900s and beyond...can you point to a single article where he promoted the idea of copying famous golf holes? You are just grasping at straws.

CBM is not considered the father of GCA in America because he was the first to advocate the copying of holes. CBM is considered the father of American gca because he was the first to introduce the game to Chicago (and one of the first to introduce the game to America), and because he was first in America to plan, design and build a world-class course in America that garnered wide attention on both sides of the Atlantic.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I'm not trying to make any case AGAINST Macdonald as you keep saying and I'm not trying to make some case FOR Travis to be considered the father of American GCA. I'm only interested in a most important fact of who first came up with a pretty novel and significant idea that was utilized at NGLA.

Throwing up this smokescreen that me or Wayne or whatever are trying to say something AGAINST Macdonald is one you constantly use on these kinds of discussions that may involve Macdonald or his architecture because frankly you don't seem to know how to discuss this intelligently or you are apparently trying to avoid anything that might effect the legend and your iconization of Macdonald.

So despense with that same old transparent smokescreen of yours that me or Wayne are trying to say something AGAINST Macdonald and just let facts and history speak for itself!

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

Following his use of the Haskell ball (that he referred to as "The Bounding Billy") in the 1901 US Amateur Travis returned to GCGC and was involved in the lengthening of the course from  6070 to 6400 yards thereby apparently making it the longest course in America at the time. He suggested the rebunkering of the course at that time. It is certainly understandable that Travis would be given the liberty of doing architectural work on GCGC in 1901-02 since he had already designed Ekwanok golf course in Vermont with John Duncan Dunn in the fall of 1899 and of course he had been the US Amateur champion in 1900. So much for having a conversation with someone who does not have a basic understanding of the subject.  

TEP
Either you memory is shot or you are deliberately trying to mislead. You know very well (or at least you used to know) that Travis wrote his famous article "The Merits and Demerits of Garden City" in 1906 and it was the following year that he began redesigning the course, a process that carried on for several years.

[Tom MacWood]

Rich:

In answer to your question about Macdonald and his time and experience with architecture abroad----according to Macdonald he actually only PLAYED golf three times between his departure from St. Andrews in 1874 and the beginning of Chicago Golf Club in 1893! When he said those were his "Dark Years" he wasn't kidding, huh?

He played twice at Hoylake, once in 1878 and again in 1884. The only other time he actually played golf in those nineteen years was in some field at Camp Douglass in Chicago in 1875 with some friend of his after they pushed a few cans they found on the property into the ground as cups. But he claimed that wasn't a very gratifying experience as some hooligans harrassed the hell outta them apparently because they thought they were a couple of crazy people swinging clubs at a ball in some field!  

Macdonald did mention he was called abroad on business in those early years quite frequently but nevertheless he said he only played golf twice abroad in those nineteen years and both times apparently at Hoylake. I don't know if he went abroad again for golf after the beginning of Chicago Golf Club (1893) and before his first dedicated architectural study trip abroad in 1902 but if not then I guess we can assume that TOC and Hoylake were the only courses he knew abroad before that time (1902).

TEP
If you are going to know only two courses abroad TOC & Hoylake would be two pretty good ones don't you think? Are you trying to make the case that after one visit Travis was more familar with British golf than Macdonald, who had been exposed to British golf for thirty years? Wasn't CBM's son-in-law from Prestwick?

[TEPaul]

             "Travis' interest in revising the Garden City layout was a direct result of the 1901 US Amateur at Atlantic City Country Club, which he won while using the new rubber-cored balls for the first time. Believing that those balls, "bounding billies" as they were called, would soon make most existing courses obsolete, travelling, as they did, some twenty yards further than the old gutties, Travis returned to Garden City insisting that the course had to be lengthened if it were to remain a championship venue. As a result, the course was stretched from 6070 yards in 1900 to nearly 6400 yards for the 1902 Open, making it the longest course in the country at the time. The principal changes were a significant lengthening of both the sixth and seventh holes, and the doglegs at the 16th and 17th which added yardage to both holes.
             Travis' revised course required "thinking golf," including delicate slices and hooks on occasion. Just a couple of drives and approach shots required long carries over rough and sand. Travis' work spanned several years, with his final product unveiled for the 1908 US Amateur."
The Garden City Golf Club----A History"



I suppose you will now tell us that that history book is all wrong too as you have with Merion's, Myopia's, Pine Valley's and a number of others and that Tom MacWood knows their history better than they do.

[Bill Brightly]

TEP,

Are you saying that Travis was the father of Golf Architecture in America?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
If you are going to know only two courses abroad TOC & Hoylake would be two pretty good ones don't you think?"


Tom MacWood:

Yes I do think those two are very good ones to be exposed to if Macdonald had only been exposed to them before he began his dedicated study of GB architecture in 1902.


"Are you trying to make the case that after one visit Travis was more familar with British golf than Macdonald, who had been exposed to British golf for thirty years? Wasn't CBM's son-in-law from Prestwick?"


What I am trying to do is determine what GB golf courses Macdonald had been exposed to before he went abroad to study golf architecture in preparation to create NGLA. His own biography, in which he goes through his life in golf, should give us a pretty good idea about that at any particular point in time, unless you are now going to try to tell us that Tom MacWood actually knows more about Macdonald knew when he wrote his biography in 1927-28.

As for some of what Travis had studied in 1901 thankfully he tells us some of that in that British Golf Illustrated article of Nov. 1901 which you seem to be resisting so strenuously for some reason or failing to see the point of it. Travis listed in that article a number of courses he had obviously played during that "golfing pilgramage" (Macdonalds' phrase) he made abroad in July 1910 with current USGA president R.H Robertson.

[TEPaul]

"TEP,
Are you saying that Travis was the father of Golf Architecture in America?"


BillB:

You should try reading some of these posts. Tom MacWood has only asked me that question a couple of times on here and I've told him  a number of times that I'm NOT saying anything of the kind about Travis and I have not ever said such a thing even if I fully expect him to ask me the same question a number of times more. Do you BillB have any idea why he keeps asking me the same questions over and over again after I give him the answers? Is it possible that man can't read or comprehend what he reads or interpret what he reads very well for some reason? Maybe he's sick or something, but I have wondered for years why he does that on here-----eg just asking the same questions over and over and over again after he gets the answers each time. Maybe he sees it as some kind of debating ploy but if so it sure is transparent that he does it because he knows he has nothing to use to deal with it. And it certainly is incredibly boring and a waste of everyone's time!

What I am interested in is finding out if Travis had the idea to actually emulating GB holes and their features and concepts and ideas in America before Macdonald did.

At the moment it is beginning to look like that since it appears Travis may have made that golfing pilgrimage (architectural study trip) abroad before Macdonald ever did.

At this point the question seems to have become what golf courses abroad had Macdonald actually seen before he went on his first architectural study trip abroad in 1902. At the moment I'm certain he definitely knew at least two-----TOC and Hoylake because he said so in his own book. But I'll be glad to go through it again to see if he ever mentioned knowing any others before 1902.

Do YOU have any problem with that BillB?

[Bill Brightly]

I've read the posts. (This is the closest I will ever get to participating in a Merion-type thread )

My question to you stands as it relates to the title of the thread.

If Travis was not, who is?

Biologically, there can only be one "father" of anything, so you gotta pick one name...

[TEPaul]

BillB:

I think there is no question that Macdonald should be considered the Father of American golf architecture, as he basically always has been considered anyway and I have said that on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com for many years now.

But that does not mean to me that numerous others did not have some hugely important ideas and influences on American architecture both before and after NGLA and Macdonald (and I'm sure that's precisely why some on here mentioned they think this whole subject is sort of a "melting pot" anyway, and I agree with them on that).

And if it turns out Travis developed the basic idea to utilize GB famous holes and their concepts and ideas over here in America to create better golf and golfers and golf architecture in America before Macdonald specifically did, I think that is a pretty important item and issue since that idea is essentally what Macdonald based his model for NGLA (and American architecture?) on when he began NGLA which would not even begin until five years AFTER that interesting British Golf Illustrated Nov. 1901 article by Walter Travis about that very thing----the ideas from admired and really good GB holes used to improve American architecture.

[TEPaul]

".......than Macdonald, who had been exposed to British golf for thirty years?"


Tom MacWood:

Which British golf courses had Macdonald actually seen or played in those thirty years (1872-1902). I think we can be completely certain he knew TOC really well and apparently Hoylake too but which others do you think he knew well over there before 1902? Can you document any others?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Don't believe a word of it Bill, TomPaul has been throwing around the BS on this thread to further his one goal, tear Macdonald down so he and Wayne can sell some books that are based on their erroneous assumptions. Here he goes again, another faint praise of Macdonald (acquiescing to the Father title) while stating, as if it were a fact,  that Travis had CB's idea first. Unbelieveable, and sad in a way.

Listen to the total baloney he wrote in his lead in paragraphs when he was trying to tell us the of the signifcance of the Travis article. The bold-face is mine:

What is interesting or perhaps significant about Walter Travis' remarks on his impressions of British and American golf architecture in his 1901 statement posted above and posted again below that is from The British (London?) Golf Illustrated magazine (November, 1901)?
Well, first of all, that might be a very good question, or,  on the other hand, perhaps it's not. To determine the answer of whether it's an interesting question or not, I would say a few details surrounding his remarks need to be determined first.
I don't know the details surrounding his remarks but others on here might.
Even if they don't at the moment, the details surrounding that magazine article with Travis' remarks probably can be determined.

Have you ever read such non-sense? It smells from a mile away. This is like the guy who's talking aloud to himself, AND answering!
Anyone feeling the need to preface their remarks with such a ton of manure has nothing much to say, and the little they are saying should be seen for what it is.  

The saddest part is the denial. Even when it was shown to him that the Travis article post-dated the 'Best Hole Discussion' by many months he's STILL trying to say it should be Travis who thought of the idea first.  

What drives a man to continue along a path when he knows that it's a dead end? There are only three possibilities: he's bonkers, which wouldn't be a description of TEP;  he's pig-headed, which might be applied here to some degree; or he has an agenda. This is where we find TEP (and by extension, WM),  and neither one of them will ever be able to come to grips with the truth.