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

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

For instance, it does not appear Macdonald had ever seen North Berwick until 1906! As we can see Travis mentioned NB's redan (as well as two others at NB) in that British Golf Illustrated Nov. 1901 article as obviously he'd seen it and played it when on that golfing pilgrimage in 1901. I wonder if he explained what it was like architecturally to Macdonald at some point between 1901 and 1906 when Macdonald mentioned he first saw it himself?

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

With that last post of yours it would probably be a good idea for you to simply deregister yourself from GOLFCLUBATLAS.com!

That post speaks for itself----I don't think anyone needs to interpret it. It's about as anti-intellectual and lacking in GCA historical curiosity as is imaginable.

I did ask some questions about the significance of that Travis 1901 article and asked if anyone had any answers. Not too many offered them so I did some of the research myself and so far it turns out Macdonald may've only seen two courses abroad before 1902!!!

What do you make of that if it turns out to be true? Nothing? And why not if so many on here seem to have assumed in the past he was such an expert for so long on GB golf architecture?

I'm going to go back through his book and some other material I have here and see if he mentions any others before 1902 or why don't you try doing something like that yourself instead of writing incredibly dumb posts like the one you just did?  

Tom MacWood who is a great researcher (albeit disasterous analyst, in my opinion) doesn't seem to have come up with any other courses CBM knew abroad before 1902 but maybe he's researching that as we speak. I'm going to do the same thing. How about you?  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I'll stand by my remarks, you have an agenda when it comes to Macdonald and you always have, and it's been apparent for quite a while.
I've been on this site for about 8 years and in that time I have seen you pontificate in a number of issues, but without fail you have been most vociferous about CBM ever since he was associated with you-know-where.

This last post of yours is just another illustration of what you'd truly like to see happen to Macdonald. You aren't going to BS me Tom, I'm a week or so away from starting my 59th year and I've been smoked by the best of them. You're fair at it, but you're too obvious.
   

[TEPaul]

"......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."


Jim Kennedy:

Of course you stand by your remarks. You and at least two others on here always do no matter how ridiculous your remarks may be at any time.


Agenda?

What kind of agenda do you think I have if I'm simply trying to find out what golf courses and architecture abroad Macdonald had ever seen or played abroad prior to 1902 (which is after Travis made his pilgimage over there in the middle of 1901)?

My GOD, as a long as I've been interested in architecture and interested in C.B. Macdonald I have ALWAYS assumed he personally knew most all the best courses and architecture over there for many, many decades before that and that he certainly must have known more about it personally than Travis did in 1901. Apparently not so far, but I'm still trying to do the research on whether that is a fact or not.

What if that turns out to not be true? Don't you see any historical architectural significance in that at all? And if not, why not? Are you trying to hide the facts and truth about Macdonald and his actual life too?

I mean even though I've read C.B.'s biography so many times and so much else about him I never actually noticed and I certainly never THOUGHT he apparently never even saw one of the most famous holes extant and one he made additionally famous-----North Berwick's REDA---- BEFORE 1906!!

THAT just never occured to me. I thought he must have known it well and admired it and all the rest of those famous hole over there for decades before that. What if it's true that the only courses over there he actually knew himself were TOC and Hoylake prior to 1902? Don't you think that's odd when he tried to promote himself and his course as the expert on "classical" holes and architecture abroad?

And you and a couple of other of these Bowdlerizers don't even want to acknowledge this?

INCREDIBLE!! That is about as lacking in intellectual curiosity as is imaginable, unless of course you few guys have your own agenda which Wayne and I and a ton of others on here and all over the place have long suspected. We have been accused by MacWood and Moriarty for years of trying to defend at all costs the "LEGENDS" of the likes of Wilson or Crump or other Philly architects, and now THIS?   

Whose trying to defend a legend at all costs now and defend him against some documentable historical FACTS to boot??  

[Tom MacWood]

".......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?

TEP
Its difficult to say. CBM tells he played over TOC between 1872 and 1874 before returning to the States where there were no golf courses. He goes on to say, "Happily, for that time until 1892 there were a few oases in this desert. There were the occasions when I was called to Europe on business, which fortunately for me, were quite frequent." He mentions several trips to Hoylake, one to Cambridge (Coldham Common), another time or two around London, and on several occasions he just says he was in England. I believe at one point he said he spent a year in England on business. In 1879 he stayed at Royal Hotel at Liverpool and played every evening after business. He became a member of Royal Liverpool that same year.

Being introduced to the game at St. Andrews in 1872, having close ties to Hoylake, knowing numerous important golfing figures and the impressive quotes he kept from the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s its obvious he was completely immersed in the game and no doubt familiar with best courses abroad. I think you would be hard pressed to find an American who was more knowledgable about British golf than CBM in the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s. Can you think of anyone?

[Jim_Kennedy]

INCREDIBLE!! That is about as lacking in intellectual curiosity as is imaginable, unless of course you few guys have your own agenda which Wayne and I and a ton of others on here and all over the place have long suspected -Tom Paul

This is just another example of the boatload of BS you try to unload at every port you appear. You are an amateur, as a true professional BS'er wouldn't expose himself this way. I  have never heard from anyone on this site that what you just said is true.

If you can find my agenda, please print it on these pages. Yours is already known.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Its difficult to say."


Tom MacWood:

Well, for Christ's Sake, Tom, thanks for that at least! That seems like a start on your part anyway. At least you seem willing to consider this. I suspect the likes of Moriarty and Kennedy will just avoid this interesting issue altogether or just continue their constant screeching on here that some of us have some kind of an "Agenda" AGAINST C.B. Macdonald despite the fact we have sincerely said on here numerous times that is simply not the case at all---quite the opposite in fact.


Are you at least interested in this question and this issue or would you prefer to avoid it  or say for about the tenth time you don't understand it or perhaps just accuse others of having some kind of agenda here as Jim Kennedy just transparently did?

I don't know about you but I always thought Macdonald as an American with a great love of GB golf architecture knew just about everything there was to know about GB architecture and for years----for decades actually and now we may be finding out all he knew before 1902 was possibly just TOC and Hoylake? He admits he never even saw North Berwick before 1906. I obviously read that because I've read his book so many times but I guess I just wasn't paying attention to the historical significance at that point.

But now that I start thinking about it this is all beginning to make sense to me because it appears Macdonald never actually said he was imitating great holes and concepts and principles from abroad that he actually ADMIRED HIMSELF (as Travis did in that 1901 article), and no wonder---eg he man not have even known some of them at that point (1901)-----it appears he just took his template selections right off basically a popularity poll that had been generated in 1901 abroad by that "Best Hole Discussion," perhaps a number of which he had never seen himself until even a few years after that London "Best Hole Discussion" selections came in. Pretty clever way to cover himself, actually, from any criticism about what he used, but anyway, I guess that could be another subject for another time!  

Frankly, just thinking about that makes me realize C.B. was probably and even more clever promoter than I've always suspected he was!

[Tom MacWood]

             "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.

TEP
I'm certain there were a number of courses being lebgthened in the face of the Haskell. I knew Emmet lengthened the course by 600 yards just prior to 1900 Amateur but I wasn't aware Travis suggested any changes before his famous article in 1906 when he laid out what he would do to improve GCGC. Have you read that article?

What page will find your quote in the GCGC history?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Well, for Christ's Sake, Tom, thanks for that at least! That seems like a start on your part anyway. At least you seem willing to consider this. I suspect the likes of Moriarty and Kennedy will just avoid this interesting issue altogether or just continue their constant screeching on here that some of us have some kind of an "Agenda" AGAINST C.B. Macdonald despite the fact we have sincerely said on here numerous times that is simply not the case at all---quite the opposite in fact.


Another boatload of BS on your part TEP, you have never been sincere about Macdonald and you never will be. Same goes for your buddy. If you were you wouldn't have started your last post with the above, only to end it with this:

Pretty clever way to cover himself from any criticism about what he used

Have you fooled yourself that completely?

[JNC Lyon]

             "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.

From my visit to GCGC last year, I recall that the club is very devoted to their architectural history.  They have extensive collections on both Emmet and Travis.

This excerpt displays that Travis' Garden City was built with the primary purpose of accounting for modern technology.  Emmet's Garden City, Myopia Hunt Club, and the original layout at Chicago Golf Club were likely not built with rubber-core golf balls in mind.  Is Travis' version of Garden City the first example of architecture (in America or even in the world) that was built to account for the 20th Century game?

Furthermore, this history rejects my earlier proposal that Travis might have revised Garden City after seeing CBM's work at National Golf Links.  The "final product" phrase is critical here.  This statement implies that the 1908 version of the golf course provided some sort of closure to Travis' gradual revisions.  I would assume that the 1908 version is very similar to some of the features that exist on the course to today.  I am thinking particularly of the dual fairway at the first and, more importantly, the Eden replica at the 18th.  If 1908 found Garden City in its finished state, then these holes would have been on the ground in 1908.  Thus, not only did Travis talk about copying some of the British Isles' best golf holes in 1901, HE ACTUALLY COPIED THEM in the following years.

If Travis was replicating holes between 1901 and 1908, then he was replicating holes like the Eden BEFORE CBM did so at NGLA in 1910.  While other architects were likely influenced by the great courses of the British Isles, Travis was most likely the first architect to bring those principles into full existence in the United States.

Did Travis introduce the best of the British Isles to American golf before CBM?  The Garden City narrative says yes.  Was he the father of Golf Architecture in America?  That remains to be seen.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
You seem to be desperately grasping for straws and North Berwick is your latest straw. Why does it matter if CBM visited North Berwick in 1892 or 1906? Does that somehow alter his impact on golf architecture in America?

Since we're speaking of agendas, IMO your agenda goes far beyond CBM, your agenda is to preserve golf architecture history as you know it from your reading of C&W. And you will go to extraordinary means to protect that history including altering documents, hiding documents and personally attacking those honestly interested in uncovering new information.

[TEPaul]

"but I wasn't aware Travis suggested any changes before his famous article in 1906 when he laid out what he would do to improve GCGC. Have you read that article?"


Tom MacWood:

Yes I have. As the history book will tell you Travis worked on redesigning GCGC over a number of years perhaps logically those ten years he served on its green committee. Can't tell you the page numbers because the GCGC history book does not have page numbers but it is in the beginning of the chapter entitled "Dedicated to a Life of Golf."

[Tom MacWood]

JNC
Did Emmet or Travis create the 18th hole at GCGC?

This is what Travis wrote about the NGLA and copies:

"The original idea was to construct eighteen holes fashioned after the various holes in Great Britain which were generally recognized as being pre-eminent either as single-shot, two-shot or three-shot holes. There was nothing experimental...nothing creative--merely slavish imitations of these famous holes abroad in so far as physical limitations permitted. Physical limitations! There was the snag. For while certain holes might colorably lend themselves to such an undertaking in this, that or the other respect, it was a source of mortification to find that, after all certain essential features were totally lacking which were incapable of reproduction unless the whole topographical map was rearranged...which of course, was out of the question on account of expense."

TEP
What does Travis say about lengthening the holes in his 1906 article?

[Bill Brightly]

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.

TEP,

Thanks, that clears it up. As long as you give Macdonald the credit he is due, I am perfectly willing to consider what influenced him, whether they be small or large influences. What Macdonald put on the ground at NGLA is the single biggest event in the history of GCA in the US. Period.

Jim,

Although we seem agree on this issue, one rule I try to live by is to firmly argue an issue but never attempt to ascribe motives behind the other's person's argument.

I learned that lesson serving on a local school board and a golf club board, and I've seen it ruin friendships when not followed. That would be a great rule to follow on GCA.com. I would say that you guys can go at it as hard as you want, just pull back when you get to the "motive" part.

[RSLivingston_III]

Unless there is some disagreement in how "father" is defined, I don't see how anyone else could serious compete with the title.
Were courses laid out earlier then CB's attempts? Yes
Did these people influence the direction of architecture in the America's? Doubtful
Just my opinion based on limited research.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
You seem to be desperately grasping for straws and North Berwick is your latest straw. Why does it matter if CBM visited North Berwick in 1892 or 1906? Does that somehow alter his impact on golf architecture in America?"


Tom MacWood:

Not at all. Have I ever said on this website or these threads that this question of perhaps Travis coming up with the idea of imitating the ideas, concepts, principles, whatever etc of famous and admired GB holes somehow alters Macdonald's impact on golf architecture in America with NGLA or anything else he ever did over here??

How many times are you going to have to ask me that despite the fact I've given you the same answer for a few days and a few pages?

But don't you find it significant historically if it turns out to be Travis who may've put into Macdonald's mind the whole idea of using the features, ideas, principles or even copies of famous admired holes abroad over here in America to improve the quality of American architecture? After-all, THAT is essentially the revolutionary "model" that Macdonald used for his NGLA and later architecture and that is what he prevalently wrote about as a key to creating quality golf architecture in America. So wouldn't it be so interesting and historically significant with American architecture if it was Travis who essentially gave him that specific idea that became the basic model of a lot of the National School including Raynor and Banks and other of Macdonald's courses---eg the template hole or architectural "principles" emulating of famous GB holes in America?

Again, where can we find Macdonald mentioning such a thing specifically before Travis' article in the British Golf Illustrated magazine article of Nov. 1901 or before Travis returned from abroad which was in late August 1901?

Actually that article ran considerably after Travis had been abroad in 1901 on his "golfing pilgrmage" (as Macdonald termed it). Travis was over there essentially playing 36 holes a day for about a month between mid July and mid August and then he returned to the USA on August 20th to get readyto play in the US Amateur at Atlantic City GC and to defend his US Amateur championship which of course he did at ACGC.

Perhaps it was Travis in 1901 who inspired Macdonald to use the architectural template or feature or prinicple concept  or model from abroad with his ideal course idea that would not even begin until five years later as we now know when Travis was over there and where and what he played and admired over there which was the year proceeding Macdonald's first foray over there to do the same thing (an architectural study trip) in 1902.  This may help explain why Macdonald originally chose Travis to make up the three man committee that would create and design NGLA (that original three man NGLA design committee originally consisted of Travis, Whigam and of course Macdonald according to Macdonald's autobiography).

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bill,
Thanks for the reminder. I don't think you'll find me doing this anywhere else on this site and I just want you to know why I do it here. The complete post of TEP's that you are quoting said this:

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

Now maybe you look at that and see something different than I see, so be it. I see a man saying one thing and backing away from it before the proverbial ink dries. I don't think this is an isolated instance and I don't think this man's being genuine in his remarks or his feelings about Macdonald, if he was he would have stopped at the comma in his first sentence, which I posted above.

Thanks again.

[TEPaul]

"TEP,
Thanks, that clears it up. As long as you give Macdonald the credit he is due, I am perfectly willing to consider what influenced him, whether they be small or large influences. What Macdonald put on the ground at NGLA is the single biggest event in the history of GCA in the US. Period."


BillB:

Thank you sir, for that remark that indicates your understanding. Now you certainly do understand the questions I am asking and talking about on here as well as one I am not----eg should Walter Travis be considered the Father of American golf architecture? Hopefully Jim Kennedy may learn something from you in that vein instead of always screeching that I am somehow trying to say something AGAINST Macdonald due to some nefarious "AGENDA" that involves the likes of me and Merion's Wayne Morrison!

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
You are grasping for straws. This is what Travis wrote about the NGLA and copies:

"The original idea was to construct eighteen holes fashioned after the various holes in Great Britain which were generally recognized as being pre-eminent either as single-shot, two-shot or three-shot holes. There was nothing experimental...nothing creative--merely slavish imitations of these famous holes abroad in so far as physical limitations permitted. Physical limitations! There was the snag. For while certain holes might colorably lend themselves to such an undertaking in this, that or the other respect, it was a source of mortification to find that, after all certain essential features were totally lacking which were incapable of reproduction unless the whole topographical map was rearranged...which of course, was out of the question on account of expense."

[TEPaul]

"Now maybe you look at that and see something different than I see, so be it. I see a man saying one thing and backing away from it before the proverbial ink dries. I don't think this is an isolated instance and I don't think this man's being genuine in his remarks or his feelings about Macdonald, if he was he would have stopped at the comma in his first sentence, which I posted above."


BillB:

Well, there you go! Obviously, Jim Kennedy either does not know how to take your good advice of arguing an issue but not ascribing motives to others or else he simply refuses to because he doesn't want to take anyone's advice. Frankly, I think Kennedy seems to be on some real "Agenda" here, and it seems pretty obvious because it has been going on for months now on anything at least the likes of Wayne Morrison and I say on any subject in which C.B. Macdonald comes up.

But I say so what if he keeps these kinds of screeching accusations and posts up on the subject of Macdonald because I know damn well what I think of Macdonald and his architecture and always have or for just about fifty years now. As I mentioned on here some months ago I arguably grew up with it and on Macdonald and Macdonald/Raynor architecture to a degree or factor of probably about three compared to anyone else on this website!  


Nevertheless, I am certainly ready to recognize and admit that there are a few people on this website who constantly tell others they know what others really think and even better than the people in question. Frankly, when that goes on long enough as it has with a few on here I view it as actually humorous.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I am completely overjoyed with your post #243. THAT is the very thing that Wayne was trying to say and the very point he was trying to make on here some years ago about how others (who may've previously done it to some extent) eventually chose not to continue to endorse or ascribe to the architectural idea and concept or model of using and reusing endlessly template holes from abroad (or otherwise)! This was his very point about both how and why and even when American architecture and its architects' developing styles and types would go their own separate ways in the future with their own unique and developing architectural ideas and philosophies.

Wayne's point was for anyone to assume or conclude that American architecture continued to follow the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks model and type and style (generally referred to as the "National School of Architecture") in any really significant way into the future of American architecture is basically nonsense, and that anyone on here or elsewhere who contends such a thing really doesn't have much idea how to go about an intelligent analysis of "contrasting" types and styles and principles and models and such, but who only falls into the trap of looking at these things SO GENERALLY that in the end what they come up with is nothing much more that some kind of "comparison" or similarity!

To be honest that remark of Travis' is so on point and frankly brilliant, perhaps we should start another thread on here entitled "Re: Was Walter S. Travis really the father of Golf Arhitecture in America?" I am not at all implying where I may end up standing on a discussion on that question but given that brilliant remark you just posted of Travis' it should promise to be a great discussion and education on the history and evolution of American Golf Course Architecture!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Ralph,
That's really the crux of this whole thread, and you summed it up very nicely. It's really about the influence that Macdonald had on the architecture of the time and the continuing influence his work has on our modern day architecture.
Without question,  Macdonald should be considered the Father of American Golf Architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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,

With Travis having played his first round in 1897 and designing his first golf course in 1907, I don't see how anyone could logically claim that Travis was entitled to such accolades.

Wouldn't Emmett be in line ahead of him, having designed three (3) courses by 1901 ?

[DMoriarty]

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.

Rich,

In the process of sidestepping my questions you quoted above, you managed to completely avoid answering any of my other questions.   But let's start here.  

As TomM points out, his earliest exposure was 1901.  On that trip he reportedly played St. Andrews, Troon, and North Berwick before the Championship at Sandwich.  He could have played elswhere afterword, I don't know.  Do you?   If not then why are you acting like he knew all these courses intimately?  

What does a more comtemporaneous view of these courses mean anyway?   Does it mean he saw them more recently?  Or that he had a more contemporaneous understanding of them?     What difference would the former make?   What reason to do you have to believe the latter?  

Aside from being wrong, your assumption that CBM made no post St. Andrews pre-1902 trips abroad where he golfed is analytically and procedurally preposterous.  The basis for your assumption is that YOU DO NOT KNOW OF ANY TRIPS??    Are you some sort of Oracle on who traveled abroad and golfed during this long period?  Have you at least researched the issue? Obviously not, or you'd know that you were wrong.   I don't know whether or not have played golf this entire year, so by your logic is it safe to conclude you haven't.  

That is a very good example of the type of wishful thinking going on in this thread.   It's facts be damned, you guys will believe what you want.

Rich, you found that in the 1901 Article,  Travis was advocating that American designers use templates from the great holes in their designs.  I presume the "templates" or "exemplars" were the holes listed.  Is that correct?  
--If these were indeed exemplars or templates, then please tell us just what, According to Travis, each hole  exemplified, and to what degree, and how?
--How exactly how were American designers supposed to apply these templates?
--According to Travis, was there anything more to this "template" or "templates" than difficult holes on good soil and undulating land?  
______________________________________________________

Anyone:

-- Where in that article does Travis advocatecopying those golf holes in America or using them as templates in any manner?    Where in any of his early writings does he advocate this?  
-- What if anything did he advocate is except for making golf courses DIFFICULT, and preferably on good, undulating soil.   As far as I know, Travis was not considered to be a inventive architect, but rather a member of the penal school who did his best work tightening up existing courses.  
-- How were the views Travis' expressed in the article any different than the number of other writers who had noted that golf in GB was better and on better ground?   How was he different that the others who wanted to make courses in the US more difficult?    
--  Did Travis ever take credit for the template concept?   If so where?   If I recall he trashed it pretty hard, and I dont ever remember him advocating for it.  
-- Where is the plan to change in direction of golf design in America?  

I don't see it.    I see an advocate of more difficult golf courses, and this was not at all groundbreaking.   In fact, as understand it, Travis largely viewed their greatest attribute and distinguishing feature to be their difficulty.   So how can we view him as groundbreaking at this point and time?  

________________________________

JNC Lyon,    You place the date of the Eden hole at NGLA as 1910, but this is very misleading.  Off the top of my head, I believe the hole was found in 1906, built in 1907, and they were golfing on it in 1909.    More importantly, CBM had been writing about and talking about copying the great golf holes at NGLA for at least a half of a decade before 1910, had been working on the project for almost an entire decade, and had been writing about copying this particular hole for many years.    So it is not as if, out of the blue, Travis decided to build an Eden hole, and then CBM said, "Wow, what a great idea.  I think I'll try that."

Also, I don't recall the exact history of Garden City, but isn't more accurate to say that the hole was already there, and that Travis modeled the bunkers (particularly their depth) after the Eden?  

_______________________________________________

I think if you go back to the earlier comments on this thread (at least mine)  Travis is credited with being on the right track.  Even Whigham so credited him in 1909.   But his changes at Garden City were a far cry from what happened at NGLA.     That is what is so bizarre about this thread.

What is the point, really?  

[DMoriarty]

Tom MacWood:

I am completely overjoyed with your post #243. THAT is the very thing that Wayne was trying to say and the very point he was trying to make on here some years ago about how others (who may've previously done it to some extent) eventually chose not to continue to endorse or ascribe to the architectural idea and concept or model of using and reusing endlessly template holes from abroad (or otherwise)! This was his very point about both how and why and even when American architecture and its architects' developing styles and types would go their own separate ways in the future with their own unique and developing architectural ideas and philosophies.

Wayne's point was for anyone to assume or conclude that American architecture continued to follow the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks model and type and style (generally referred to as the "National School of Architecture") in any really significant way into the future of American architecture is basically nonsense, and that anyone on here or elsewhere who contends such a thing really doesn't have much idea how to go about an intelligent analysis of "contrasting" types and styles and principles and models and such, but who only falls into the trap of looking at these things SO GENERALLY that in the end what they come up with is nothing much more that some kind of "comparison" or similarity!

To be honest that remark of Travis' is so on point and frankly brilliant, perhaps we should start another thread on here entitled "Re: Was Walter S. Travis really the father of Golf Arhitecture in America?" I am not at all implying where I may end up standing on a discussion on that question but given that brilliant remark you just posted of Travis' it should promise to be a great discussion and education on the history and evolution of American Golf Course Architecture!

I agree, this was exactly what you and Wayne have been trying to say for years.   

And when Travis wrote this he had a petty and personal agenda that had little to do with the reality of what CBM had done at NGLA.