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

[Sean_A]

“The Biarritz question was posed because I thought it would be worth establishing the template concepts used at NGLA and when he might have seen them. Even though Brancaster, North Berwick, Prestwick, etc aren't mentioned in his book, we know he went to these places.


Now, as far MacKenzie and Macdonald comparisons, while both claim to have thought St Andrews to be the very best, I don't think AM went out of his way to try and duplicate anything from the UK, while CBM would look for the best areas of the property to implement a template, and if substantial earth had to be moved, he would. There are certain features on AM's courses that I think he had perhaps some features from overseas in mind, such as the 14th fw "trench" feature at Pasatiempo, but it was much more subtle. I don't think AM tried to compete with courses such as SA, whereas CBM tried to emulate or even tried to improve upon the original concept.”


David Stamm:

This is a very good point on your part and worth looking into (not that it hasn’t been before on here to some extent). I think there are number of things that have come forth perhaps even on this particular thread about the way CBM went about things to do with his architecture, when and even perhaps how and why that most have never considered before or at least not appreciated enough.

I would be glad to list what I think they are later. Would you care to?

Tom P

I don't know much about Dr Mac, but he most certainly did borrow concepts for projects.  One very blatant instance is the Weston - s Mare' s 15th.  The similarity to the Road Hole is uncanny and must be deliberate.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean:

That may be the case; I wouldn't know because I'm not in the slightest familiar with that particular hole at Weston. Do you know if Mackenzie ever actually mentioned that the 15th at Weston was some copy or even "architectural principle" emulation of the Road Hole at TOC? That might be quite important in the context of this particular thread and discussion.  

I've been thinking a lot about this basic subject recently and obviously because of this particular thread (although that sure doesn't mean I have not been thinking about this basic subject for quite a few years).

[Sean_A]

Sean:

That may be the case; I wouldn't know because I'm not in the slightest familiar with that particular hole at Weston. Do you know if Mackenzie ever actually mentioned that the 15th at Weston was some copy or even "architectural principle" emulation of the Road Hole at TOC? That might be quite important in the context of this particular thread and discussion.  

I've been thinking a lot about this basic subject recently and obviously because of this particular thread (although that sure doesn't mean I have not been thinking about this basic subject for quite a few years).

Tom

Here is a link to a very interesting thread.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean:

Is AM's mention that he copied the Road Hole on the 15th at Weston any more obvious than your link to that very interesting thread?  

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Is AM's mention that he copied the Road Hole on the 15th at Weston any more obvious than your link to that very interesting thread?  

Tom P

Ooops!

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38320.0/

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean:

Thank you. I am going to read that thread, AGAIN, with a great deal of interest!

[TEPaul]

The following is from post #238. There is a question in it about what CBM was referring to when he made his famous remark about American architecture-----"It makes the very soul of golf shriek." I asked Moriarty in #238 if he could produce a single example from app the last 7 years where anyone on here has mentioned what he was referring to. For some reason Moriarty seems to have avoided answering the question I asked him in post #238----eg "....can you find me a single example by someone or anyone on here of what Macdonald was referring to architecturally before I mentioned it on here in the last few months?" I wonder why he avoided answering it?  



He said to me:
"As usual, your discoveries come about 7 years after the rest of us have already moved on."


I responded in #238:
"I definitely did not know that. Can you show me a single example from anyone that explained what Macdonald was talking about when he made that remark-----eg “It makes the very soul of golf shriek?”

You think of yourself as a pretty good researcher, don't you? If so, can you find me a single example by someone or anyone on here of what Macdonald was talking about before I mentioned it on here in the last few months? If you can I would be more than happy to admit I did not know that and was always unaware he was talking about something other than the architecture that we have generally described as "Geometric" or "Victorian" or "Dark Age" etc in America.”

[DMoriarty]

Avoid answering it?   I'd have had to have read it first.  I am not here to entertain your research whims and I don't take my commands from you.   Besides, what makes you think that anyone but you would have made a big deal out of such a thing as knowing when a book was written? 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Again TEP, everything you just said in reply to my last post is conjecture on your part, you haven't provided one shred of corroboration for your assumptions so it doesn't surprise me that you must discount the facts.

Just think of how it sounds for you, supposedly an otherwise smart fellow, to be saying that CBM, who enjoyed 25 months of playing TOC while learning about the game and its environs from the like of Old Tom, his son, the Dunns and David Strath; made Hoylake his home when on his trips abroad between 1875 and 1892; and built the Chicago GC, all before Walter Travis even bought his first set of clubs or ever played the game; was given the idea for his "Ideal Golf Links" from an article Travis wrote in 1902, when Macdonald himself says it 'happened' for him 10 months earlier, with the publication of the best hole discussion.

Why do I say that you continually try to trash Macdonald whenever the opportunity presents itself? I think your continuous disregard for the facts in this matter, and they are well documented facts, shows just how truthful that statement is.

[TEPaul]

"Avoid answering it?   I'd have had to have read it first."


Moriarty:

That's right you would have had to have read it first!  So why don't you show me where you read that anyone on here mentioned what Macdonald was referring to with his remark "It makes the very sould of golf shriek" when you said, "As usual, your discoveries come about 7 years after the rest of us have already moved on."


Perhaps by that you actually meant I was the first on here to mention what he was actually referring to by that remark but you seem to want to make it look like the rest on here were aware of what he was referring to for 7 years before I mentioned it on here in the last few months.

[TEPaul]

".....when Macdonald himself says it 'happened' for him 10 months earlier, with the publication of the best hole discussion."



Jim Kennedy:

Macdonald said himself it 'happened' for him 10 months earlier than WHAT? 

Do you even know when the results of that "Best Hole Discussion" were announced? I don't but Tom MacWood has informed us that the "Best Hole Discussion" BEGAN on Feb. 15, 1901. Assuming that's true, and I don't know that it is, what again are you talking about with your statement that for Macdonald it 'happened' for him 10 months earlier? What exactly 'happened' for him? Is that when he became aware of the holes on the list some of which he was not familiar with? 

My point is if it is true what Macdonald himself said about the courses he played in his "Dark Ages" the fact is there were a number of holes on that best hole list that he had never seen before and from his own autobiography North Berwick's Redan, perhaps one of the most recognizable of his template holes at NGLA, was one of them. He didn't become familiar with that one personally until 1906 but Travis mentioned it from his trip abroad in July-August 1901.

Some on here are trying to say Macdonald could not possibly have mentioned in his autobiography all the courses and holes he was familiar with abroad in the 19th century!! Oh yeah, exactly why is that not possible?? I'm going with what Macdonald actually said in his autobiogrphy himself that he knew at that time while a few others on here are merely speculating on what they think he knew abroad. If Macdonald said something himself I would take it as much more of a fact than I would something someone like Moriarty says on here such as it is highly unlikely Macdonald mentioned in his autobiography all the holes and courses he knew at that time. That is total speculation on Moriarty's part and there isn't a scintilla of a fact to point to the truth of it. What I do know is Macdonald said he played TOC numerous times between 1892-1875, Hoylake numerous times in those years from 1872-1892 and he played Wimbleton at Cambridge a few times and a course called Colburn Commons at least once which he referred to as the worst excuse for a golf course he had ever seen in his life.

Again, that kind of thing is apparently part and parcel to why he referred to as those years from 1875-1892 as his "Dark Ages." 

[Jim_Kennedy]

You know the dates, but if you must play the role of ingenue:  The best hole discussion ran for several weeks from its start date. Even if 'several' meant 8, or 12, that still predates any commentary from Travis by 7 months.  Another fact you can't accept because it knocks your silly premise O.O.B.

I think you need to go back and read about the "Dark Ages" because they have nothing to do with the time he spent on the golf courses abroad between 1875 and 1892, just his frustration with the lack of any good places to play during his time in America.


I don't know if he visited any courses other than the ones he mentions during his DAs, or even during his time at school. I think it's likely that he did, but I don't think it matters if he did or he didn't. What does matter is the 2 year sojourn at St Andrews w/men who were the heart and soul of the game, his time spent in the wilderness of golf (the USA between 1875 and 1892), his trips back to Hoylake, et.al., during that period, and his subsequent revelation about the necessity of constructing an "Ideal Golf Links".

I don't think it's beyond the realm of belief to think that CBM eventually saw Travis' article, but if anything it probably would have suggested to Macdonald that here was a soul-mate who understood what the game and its playing fields were about. Given that Travis became a tremendously accomplished player, and had the same outlook as CBM,  it doesn't surprise me that Macdonald asked him to be a part of NGLA.

I believe that's a much more plausible construct then what you are trying to present.

 

[TEPaul]

"You know the dates, but if you must play the role of ingenue:  The best hole discussion ran for several weeks from its start date. Even if 'several' meant 8, or 12, that still predates any commentary from Travis by 7 months.  Another fact you can't accept because it knocks your silly premise O.O.B."


Jim Kennedy:

On that specific point, obviously you aren't looking at it that realistically in a historical  of logical context. Let's say that "Best Hole Discusion" did run for 12 weeks (as you just assumed) before the results or list was published which might've been some weeks before Macdonald in America at that time could've seen it. If it began on Feb 15, 1901 as Tom MacWood mentioned it did (assuming he's right), that would put the date the list may've been published by the London Golf Illustrated as late as the middle of May, 1901 and given publishing realities in those days perhaps even June. Travis was over there for what Macdonald referred to as his "golfing pilgrimage" from July to August 1901 and returned just after the middle of August.

Secondly, the golf club of Travis and Macdonald at that time was the same----GCGC and given they were both US Amateur champions at that time (1901---ie Macdonald in 1895 and Travis in 1900) one would have to assume they knew each other very well. And so if Travis spoke with Macdonald after he returned from abroad in August then we are down to a difference of 2-3 months between the publishing of that London Golf Illustrated "Best Hole" list and not to even mention the magazine needed time to trans-ship (not fly it;) ) across the Atlantic. Furthermore, we have no idea at all when Macdonald became aware of the London Golf Illustrated "Best Hole Discusion" in 1901 and its final published list of holes. Do you know if Macdonald even subscribed to that magazine in 1901? Of course you don't. I doubt anyone does at this point. Perhaps Travis brought him home a copy of it from abroad.

So your original 10 month and later 7 month assumption would not seem to be very historically or logically accurate when it came to both Travis and Macdonald.


So perhaps, in the future, you should dispense with your remarks like; "that still predates any commentary from Travis by 7 months.  Another fact you can't accept because it knocks your silly premise O.O.B."    
 

[TEPaul]

"I think you need to go back and read about the "Dark Ages" because they have nothing to do with the time he spent on the golf courses abroad between 1875 and 1892, just his frustration with the lack of any good places to play during his time in America."


In the last few days I read the entire chapter a couple of more times. I think it might be you who needs to go back and read it. But if you are interpreting it differently than I am, I guess that's just the way it goes on here and with people in general. The one thing I have going for me, though, is I am just depending on what Macdonald actually said himself (after all what better source could there be? ) and I am definitely not speculating on facts about him and his life and golf he never mentioned which a few on here seem to be constantly doing! 

[TEPaul]

I don't know if he visited any courses other than the ones he mentions during his DAs, or even during his time at school. I think it's likely that he did, but I don't think it matters if he did or he didn't. What does matter is the 2 year sojourn at St Andrews w/men who were the heart and soul of the game, his time spent in the wilderness of golf (the USA between 1875 and 1892), his trips back to Hoylake, et.al., during that period, and his subsequent revelation about the necessity of constructing an "Ideal Golf Links"."


I couldn't agree with that more, and I have not tried to add to it by speculating on what Macdonald did that he "didn't say."  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
There you go again, grasping at straws. This is why you have no credibility on the issue, you have to stretch out the time frame to silly lengths in a vain attempt to make your premise work, and even at that there are still a few months you can't 'lose'. So now you've lowered yourself into making some incredibly dubious claims that you can't even substantiate with your own tortured logic. That's not a reputable search for history, it's just another fabrication on your part and it lacks the scholarship you constantly chastise others for lacking. Wake up Tom, it's just another witch hunt.
And that's why I'll say that your participation on this thread has been little more than another attempt at bashing Macdonald. You really don't care what's true or not, you only care if it 'fits' into your sad narrative. You have never had one positive thing to say about Macdonald without slamming him in the next breath, and I'm sure you will continue on that road with your buddy at your side.

 

[TEPaul]

"Given that Travis became a tremendously accomplished player, and had the same outlook as CBM,  it doesn't surprise me that Macdonald asked him to be a part of NGLA.

I believe that's a much more plausible construct then what you are trying to present."


Jim Kennedy:

Then what 'construct' do you think I'm trying to present other than your ridiculous contention that I am trying to promote Travis at the expense of Macdonald somehow? You can just keep saying that if you want, and apparently you do, but I have never said nor implied nor believed anything like that.

In 1901 Travis was the reigning US Amateur champion (from 1900) and arguably the premier amateur golfer in America at that time (C.B. Macdonald CLEARLY never had any intention of using a professional golfer or professional golf architect at NGLA or for anything else he ever did in golf course architecture and actually back then he gave his reasons for that which today might be viewed as somewhat politically or culturally incorrect ) and he belonged to the same club as Macdonald---Garden City Golf Club---since Macdonald moved from Chicago to New York in 1900.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
There you go again, grasping at straws. This is why you have no credibility on the issue, you have to stretch out the time frame to silly lengths in a vain attempt to make your premise work, and even at that there are still a few months you can't 'lose'. So now you've lowered yourself into making some incredibly dubious claims that you can't even substantiate with your own tortured logic. That's not a reputable search for history, it's just another fabrication on your part and it lacks the scholarship you constantly chastise others for lacking. Wake up Tom, it's just another witch hunt.
And that's why I'll say that your participation on this thread has been little more than another attempt at bashing Macdonald. You really don't care what's true or not, you only care if it 'fits' into your sad narrative. You have never had one positive thing to say about Macdonald without slamming him in the next breath, and I'm sure you will continue on that road with your buddy at your side."


Jim kennedy:

It's unfortunate you think that and it's even more unfortunate that you keep saying it on here. Nothing could be further from the truth. These things I have brought up are simply the facts of Macdonald's and Travis' history, to be determined, no matter how you want to skew it to try to make it look nefarious on my part or on Wayne Morrison's somehow. I'm not sure what it is with you two on here and on the subject of Macdonald and his life and times. It's almost as if you are scared of the truth and more scared still of discussing it. I guess that's what happens when someone wants to try to protect or more likely enhance a "legend" from the entire gamut of the facts of his own life and times and history. Isn't it just so ironic that you two (although MacWood should be added) were the ones who accused Wayne and me of doing that with Hugh Wilson? But it wasn't the first time for MacWood. He tried to do the same thing with Crump and then later Leeds. And it's doubly ironic that the flip side of your accusations against us on Wilson was Macdonald!  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jim kennedy:

It's unfortunate you think that and it's even more unfortunate that you keep saying it on here. Nothing could be further from the truth. These things I have brought up are simply the facts of Macdonald's and Travis' history, to be determined, no matter how you want to skew it to try to make it look nefarious on my part or on Wayne Morrison's somehow. I'm not sure what it is with you two on here and on the subject of Macdonald and his life and times. It's almost as if you are scared of the truth and more scared still of discussing it. I guess that's what happens when someone wants to try to protect or more likely enhance a "legend" from the entire gamut of the facts of his own life and times and history. Isn't it just so ironic that you two (although MacWood should be added) were the ones who accused Wayne and me of doing that with Hugh Wilson? But it wasn't the first time for MacWood. He tried to do the same thing with Crump and then later Leeds. And it's doubly ironic that the flip side of your accusations against us on Wilson was Macdonald! 

Tom,
I think you'll have to come back to reality for a few minutes and show me any reason why I would be scared of whatever truth gets revealed about any dead architect we talk about on this site. I have nothing to gain or lose monetarily and I'm not writing any books whose veracity will depend partly on my deflating any one of them in particular.

As far as Wilson goes, I have never even considered attributing Merion to another man (and I have said this earlier) even though he got a lot of help from Macdonald and Whigham. Another ridiculous and unfounded attack by you.

You need to update your enemies list, Dick.

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:


Regarding your last post, frankly, no matter what I say to the contrary both you and MacWood and Moriarty just seem fixated on labeling it anti-Macdonald or labeling it me saying something against him. That is not the case, it's not my intention and it's not my belief about Macdonald----that the truth of what he did or didn't do or did or didn't know at any particular time should minimize the reputation he held and holds today. These are just the facts of that time in history and his time. If someone else influenced him at particular times and in particular ways that should be known as wello and I don't feel anyone on here should try to limit or quash that understanding by trying to constantly shout it down as you three clearly have been on this website on the subject of C.B. Macdonald. Long ago I thought that kind of attempt was making the three of you look pretty foolish and now I think others feel the same way about the three of you. If the latter has happened I must say, at this point, it is not exactly something I now regret. My ultimate hope is you three will just stop that limiting this truth and the discussion of it nonsense and just learn how to discuss and deal with the facts of history.


"As far as Wilson goes, I have never even considered attributing Merion to another man (and I have said this earlier) even though he got a lot of help from Macdonald and Whigham. Another ridiculous and unfounded attack by you."

Yes Wilson did get help and advice from Macdonald and Whigam. THAT has been part of Merion's history for almost a century now and Wayne and I have been well aware of it for many years and well before this website came along and MacWood and Moriarty with it. We never claimed anything other than that on here or anywhere else, and yes I agree with what you just said that there is no reason to attribute Merion East to another man, at least in that original stage from 1911 until about 1915 when William Flynn became an essential part of the evolution of the design of the golf course and that is why today Merion attributes the design of Merion East to Hugh Wilson and William Flynn. The latter may not have happened or happened when it did if it were not for approximately ten years of research on the app. 20 year design development of Merion East by Merion's architectural historian, Wayne Morrison,



There is no enemies list here as you mentioned in your last post. That really is ridiculous on your part and for that I see no productive reason to carry on this subject with you or perhaps any other one, as you have been nothing more than a broken record on here for quite some time. If you learn to be a bit more open minded and a bit less contentious, at some point, perhaps that can change.

[Jim_Kennedy]

You make a poor victim Tom. 

[TEPaul]

"You make a poor victim Tom.   "


Perhaps I do, but you make a decidedly poorer perp, Jimboohoo Kennedy.   

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,   your delusional about Merion, but this isn't the thread for it.

Jim Kennedy:
 I see no productive reason to carry on this subject with you or perhaps any other one, as you have been nothing more than a broken record on here for quite some time. If you learn to be a bit more open minded and a bit less contentious, at some point, perhaps that can change.

Wouldn't this be nice!  You bowing out of a conversation where you have nothing to add.   Somehow I doubt it though, when I look at how you have ruined an otherwise interesting thread.   Do you know that about 30 of the past 50 posts are yours?  60% of the posts by one guy -- the guy who hasn't really offered much productive in the entire conversation!   How does one person have more than half the posts, anyway?   That means some of the time of the time you are the only one answering your own posts. Get a life Tom.

[TEPaul]

Moriarty:

You don't read very well do you? Or you don't interpret what you read very well? Did I say I was bowing out of this thread? If so where did I say that? All I said is I don't see any point in continuing to discuss Macdonald or where he played abroad in the 19th century or who influenced him architecturally at any point in time with Jimboohoo Kennedy.

Discussion? You can't discuss a thing about Macdonald, his life, his times, his golf, his architecture etc with anyone on here that isn't some complete hagiographic paean to CBM, and you never could. I wouldn't expect that to change any time soon, since it's been going on any time his name comes up on here for about the last five years and since those Merion threads started over a half decade ago. 

By the way, why don't you try producing something on here that QUOTES what anyone said in the last 7 years about what Macdonald was referring to with his remark----"It makes the very soul of golf shriek?"

Obviously you can't; and obviously you can't admit you can't, so I guess the next best thing is to just continue to avoid the question, huh?

Oh Jeeez, I forgot, Jimboohoo Kennedy will probably tell me I'm bashing Macdonald again if I even ASK you AGAIN to produce something on here someone said in the last 7 years about what Macdonald was referring to by his remark---"it makes the very soul of golf shriek."

[DMoriarty]

I knew it.  No such luck.   You'll just continue dominating and therefore ruining every half way interesting thread.   Too bad.  I'll never understand why Ran puts up with a pompous windbag like you.  

As for your revelation about what Macdonald was referring to, I haven't looked for any past discussions and don't plan to.   It is pretty damn clear from the text that he wasn't referring to geometric architecture because his own description was not of geometric architecture!   In fact one of the reasons I was convinced that you just read Scotland's Gift for the first time is that you just figured this out a month or so ago. Apparently I was overestimating your reasoning powers.  There are many things in that book that I understand and may not, but that doesn't mean that every time I figure out a paragraph or that you and someone else gets one wrong, I have to do a post on it treat it as a major discovery.  

Only you would be so self-important to treat this as a major revelation.  It is in the damn text, for God sake.  Get over yourself.

You have made a mockery of this thread Tom.  First drawing unsupportable conclusions from the Travis article.  Then trying to make something out of Travis that he obviously wasn't.   Then grossly misreading SG, and pretending it was some sort of all encompassing diary when clearly it is not. Posting more than every other poster combined.  Your agenda has never been so obvious.  

You are ruining this website, turning the best threads into complete jokes.