In Search of the First Golf Course Architect

[Jim_Kennedy]

MM,
Anthony wrote, wrongly, that CBM considered himself the first golf architect. His premise was flawed, and I think he knows that.

You go off on a half-cocked tangent about CBM when, realistically, he had more respect for the game, its roots, its architecture and the purveyors of that architecture, than just about anyone else in his era. Why else do you think he searched out what he (and a few others) felt were the best examples of that architecture and brought it back across the ocean? I'll answer it for you, he knew it to be the best, and respected it. CBM understood that nature and the hand of man, as he found at places like TOC, Hoylake, etc., was truly 'architecture'.

I think we were lucky he went and brought the good stuff back with him. All the crap architecture that CBM was on about was here in America, not in Scotland, and ironically, it was brought to our shores by your fellow countrymen. If anyone could be blamed as not having any respect for the Toms and the men like them it was your brethren, not CBM.    

But really, there's no sense bickering about the Toms and CBM, and what periods constitute a Golden Age or Ages, because in the end AP only wants to know who was the first person to be called, and I would guess he wants to see it print,  a "golf course architect".

[DMoriarty]

Anthony,

Others have addressed this somewhat but I too agree that you aren't quite understanding what CBM actually wrote.  It is difficult to tell exactly what he means, but he was talking about a process that was begun in 1901.  

I think to understand what he meant to you have to understand what he thought constituted Architecture, and that was influenced by the likes of Humphry Repton and perhaps John Ruskin.  To paraphrase, CBM wrote that the basis of architecture was the study and emulation of the great architecture of the past, and I think that this is what he was trying to do at with his decade long project that eventually became NGLA.   I don't think he thought anyone else had attempted such a thing on such a scale, and in that sense he thought this may have been the first golf course architecture.

__________________________________________________

Melvyn,

I always laugh when you rail at CBM, for I think for the most part he was on your side.  And while you are separated by generations from Old Tom and Young Tom, CBM was right there with them, a locker in the shop in the 1870's, even playing matches against Young Tom.  Yet you claim he didn't know what was ongoing pre-1900?  Funny.  I suppose his collaborator, H.J. Whigham, didn't know anything either?  After all he had only grown up in a house overlooking Prestwick, the son of David Dundas Whigham.  While the elder Whigham wasn't a professional like Old Tom, he and his family were reportedly held in similar esteem at Prestwick as was Old Tom's family at St. Andrews.

If you want to know what CBM did during any period of time you should read his book.  "Scotland's Gift" it is called.   You probably should have read it before you started in on him because your comments seem well off base.  

____________________________

Jim,

The one think I don't get about Melvyn's supposed first golden age was that there was a lot of shlock architecture overseas during this period as well, especially in England but also inland in Scotland.  CBM was focusing on the US, but there was similarly bad stuff across the sea as well!

The irony of Melvyn's criticism of CBM is that CBM was looking for a return to the ideals of the truly great links courses which generally predate the period Melvyn calls the "golden age." So when it came to architecture, CBM was more of a traditionalist that Melvyn!  More old school.

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

God love you Boy, but I have been reading some of the stuff you have said in the last page or so to some of these guys on here----such stuff as CBM didn't know that much about what you call the First Golden Age of Golf Architecture----and it really does make me scratch my head about some of the things you say on here.

Perhaps Macdonald didn't know it all but from the way he seemed to be connected over there he seemed to know a lot.

And I'll tell you something else you can take to the bank and cash----Charles Blair Macdonald obviously knew Old Tom Morris, your great grandfather or however he is related to you, a whole hell of a lot better than you ever did!  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ops, seem to have upset some people, yet let’s look at my main points.

CBM was in St Andrews but then there was a massive gap when the design and build process took off in a big way. I suppose it would not be that far off the mark to say this was the time that golf course architecture took off. Basic fields actually turned into a designed course with Greens being built using imported turf, actual design and construction. Yet that period from memory was devoid of CBM as he seems to have taken a 20 year time out from Golf – or am I wrong?

CBM approach Old Tom in the 1890’s to recommend Green Keepers to work in the USA.

As for his knowledge re design, I seem to understand that he was more into golf than design when he knew my great, great grandfather and great grand uncle, with his locker in OTM’s shop. Yet did I not also say “As for CBM, he is an American icon but like Ross he did not shine over here having said that he helped continue the work of the original Golden Age Guys” .

David, you seem to have forgotten the Hunters of Prestwick, who certainly were a well know family at the time of Old Tom. All good and recorded Golfers, one Robert Hunter seems to have been given the title of Father of Golf in Mobile. As I say it’s how we interoperate the issues of the past, the well-respected golfing family at Prestwick was, I believe The Hunters, but like in all things I could be wrong, but I can only go on local records.

As for what CBM knew re golf, could it be from later life through the influx of Scottish Green Keepers rather than the distance memory of some 20-25 years earlier. And yes I will confirm that my understanding is that CBM did not know much re Design when he was in Scotland with the Toms. His love was golf, the playing of the game.

My real point is that we seem to take what these guys wrote as a golfing bible, but should we, after all many seem oblivious to past accomplishments in the golfing design world. Yet I repeat my comment that some of you have happily ignored “As for CBM, he is an American icon but like Ross he did not shine over here having said that hey helped continue the work of the original Golden Age Guys”.

You know Guys we each have a right to our opinions of the real Golden Age of Golf, nevertheless  while I was not there, neither were you.

The irony of it all, me thinks centres on the real knowledge these second Golden Age Guys had regards the depth of understand of what their predecessors did and knew re golf and GCA.

I will not apologise for looking at issues from a different perspective, I feel it is healthy to look and at times re-examine some of these issues from time to time, hence my own search for what OTM actually did, rather than what some believed he did or did not. The exercise has been an eye opener in both the courses, how design progressed in the 19th Century through to actual design and building of golf courses. I have found to my amazement that OTM was more deeply involved than I had come to understand. His hands were on far more courses that even I knew , but then that is the joy of the search into history, it allows the truth to surface and generally more than from just one source.

There is still more out there to discover and we should open our minds to think outside the box rather than just hold to the writing of past heroes. Their account may well be right but then I am reminded of Rose Tinted Glasses and let’s not forget that what we read is their opinions of the facts as they saw them.

But then I was not there, so what do I know?  

[Niall C]

Well, if Melvyn can get David Moriarty and Tom Paul to agree on something then he certainly gets my vote for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Niall

[Melvyn Morrow]

Niall

Ah it’s not me it is a question of National pride that cements the two. Never forget that the written word like the Bible must be taken as Gospel.

Sometimes I think Noddy and Big Ears makes the better read.

[Sean_A]

I can't agree with MM in full force, but I think he has very valid points.  It seems to me that the entire concept of a Golden Age rests upon the successful transition of links golf to inland golf, and more precisely to heathland golf.  There is no doubting that the heathland movement was incredibly important in terms of introducing planned strategy to design, a connection between nature and design and perhaps most importantly, the ability and foresight to recognize the importance of turf to support design.  However, it shouldn't be forgotten that all of these principles essentially existed at TOC once it was in its "completed" state, say by 1875.  There is also no question that they existed at least in part at other links which were developed after TOC was completed.  Consequently, I find it hard to swallow that the idea of a "Dark Age".  We must remember that the archies which emerged in the early 20th century were selling something - essentially a way to feature the positives of TOC in an inland setting.  To me, this smacks of standing on the shoulders; meaning, Park Jr, Colt, Fowler & CBM couldn't have been successful without the failures of early inland golf and successes of contemporary links.  To me, the Golden Age should start with the completion of TOC and carry on for however long folks want to - it doesn't much matter. 

What is important is that there are instances of brilliance ion the so called Dark Age which the next generation seem to downplay.  Of course, some of that downplaying is not based on any inherent best principles of golf, but on fads such as blind shots are bad, cops are bad, cross hazards are bad, front to back greens are bad, unnatural looking features are bad etc.  I think most folks into architecture recognize these sorts of features have a valuable place in architecture.  Thankfully, that second generation of brilliant archies didn't completely kill the features of earlier design and in some cases, even utilized them to great effect.  Again, we must remember that these guys were selling something as what is often over-looked, they created a business out of architecture and that may be their most long lasting effect.

Ciao   

[TEPaul]

Niall:

That's a good point and a funny one. Moriarty tends to constantly tell me on here I'm always out to demean CBM somehow. He said the same thing to Wayne Morrison about CBM. Nothing of the kind----I've just mentioned some of the things about him reported by others that apparently people like Moriarty (and seemingly this fellow Kennedy from some of his reactions over the years) would prefer not to hear. Ultimately I think CBM was wonderful, warts and all. I'm delighted that golf and architecture had a man like that!

I've always been totally fascinated by CBM as I believe he truly was such an interesting and completely complicated man! I am aware though that there are a few on this website who tend to perhaps put him on too much of a pedestal by refusing to acknowledge some of the facts and stories involving some of his odder and controversial characteristics. If someone points them out on here those CBM idolizers tend to freak out and get personal with the person mentioning him.

On that note, I ran across a wonderful old family friend (she's 97)  of my mother's who remembers CBM pretty well. I've got to get up to NY soon to interview her about him. All she's told me so far about him was that for me I should just imagine a former-day example of Jimmy Knott. Knott was quite the story!! He even looked quite a lot like CBM. He was a friend of my father's although they sure had their issues with one another over the years. One had to be pretty careful around Knott, particularly if you were a young guy on and around the golf course.

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn and Sean,

It might really help the quality of conversation if either of both of you actually knew a bit more about CBM prior to pontificating on what he knew and didn't know.   

While he didn't call it a first "Golden Age" CBM leaves no doubt that the early pinnacle of golf course excellence was to be found on the old links courses. So his "golden age" predates the stuff being built inland and in England and in America in the last decade of the 1800's.  His approach to golf design and to golf was very much analogous to Repton's approach to architecture and landscapes.  It was a harkening back, an inherently conservative approach, a study of what had come before in an attempt to better understand and an attempt to incorporate the greatness of the past into what was being done.  It was an admonition against reinventing the wheel and a firm belief that the best of golf and golf courses was found the Scottish links.   That is why he wrote of the "testimony of the ages" and quoted Puckler:  "Time is not able to bring forth new truths but only an unfolding of timeless truths."

As for CBM's "dark age," it refers to the absence of golf from America during the 1880's and consequently to his own life, not the state of the links courses! He was in Chicago and there was little opportunity to play there (at least without being bullied) given what was ongoing there.
But even during this dark period in his own life (1875-1892) he was a visitor to courses overseas and a member at Hoylake.  He spent as much as a year at a time there. It wasn't enough of golf or exposure to great courses for him, but he made due.

Dark Ages also referred to the sorrow he felt after leaving St. Andrews.  And the blow that was Old Tom's untimely death: "To add to the desolation I felt after returning to Chicago, on Christmas Day, 1875, young Tom Morris passed away in his twenty-fifth year."  As the papers recorded, CBM had just been playing matches against him the year before.  His affection expressed for Old Tom and Young Tom wasn't a product of multi-general pride, it was heartfelt and personal, as was his affection for St. Andrews and history and tradition of the game.  His Grandfather and Uncle were members of the R&A, and CBM would become a member and serve on their Rules Committee for years.

And golf finally took hold in America, it wasn't as if CBM was a stranger to the great courses overseas.  He frequently traveled abroad, and beginning in the early 1900's he did so repeatedly for the specific purposes of studying golf courses!  How can you suggest he wasn't familiar with what had gone on in the 1890's when the was traveling abroad to study the courses beginning in the early 1900's?

Melvyn, as for whether CBM shined abroad, you may want to read some of the reviews of his work by the notable figures abroad.  While he is most famous for changing architecture in the U.S. his influence was felt even in the home of golf. 

And Melvyn, ss for your devotion to the Hunter's of Prestwick, I have no doubt they were a notable family in Prestwick, and would never take anything away from them, not even the heady title of "Father of Golf in Mobile."   And I am not interesting in comparing who was more prominent.  I was only passing on what I have read.  It may help your understanding of golf design, though, if you occasionally considered those outside your own bloodline.   

I don't have a copy handy, but I believe the comparison was made in Golf (British) in or around June of 1898.  The magazine also briefly looked bad at an 1863 match at Prestwick (around the Open Competition) where Old Tom and his friend D.D. Whigham partnered agains  two prominent professionals, and the match won by Morris and Whigham.  I have noted that Hunter was present as well.  As I recall there were actually two matches Old Tom and Whigham were given odds, but then they played straight up the next day and won again.  It was apparently a longstanding point of pride and humor between the two.

[Tom MacWood]

If the goal of the article was to find who was the first person who referred to himself, or was referred to by others, as a golf architect HS Colt is not the man. Colt did design Rye in 1894 (with Douglas Rolland) but that was an isolated incident. His real career began later as secretary of Sunningdale. He first remodeled that course around 1906, and shortly afterward began dabbling in design consultation, which led to him devoting considerable time to architecture 1907-1911, and his final resignation in 1913. The first mention of architecture in association with Colt (I have found) is a 1909 letter he wrote to the editors of Golf Illustrated during the controversy dealing with 'amateur green architects,' and in that letter he never used the term architect or architecture. The first example I see him using the term was a chapter he wrote in Sutton's Book of The Links, 1912, entitled 'Golf Architecture.'

Ross really didn't become a serious golf architect until around 1910, and that year he gave an interview about modern British golf course development, and 'British architects of golf.'

The term was not used about or by Willie Park until moved to America in 1916. I have found no early use of the term by Braid or Taylor. The first example I have found for William Watson was 1912, in a British magazine ironically. Around that same time HH Barker began advertising himself as a golf architect before that he specialized in laying out new courses.

The first example I have found for Tom Bendelow is 1908, but I suspect he used that term earlier.

In 1907 Herbert Fowler was referred to as the 'popular green architect.'

The first examples I have found for CB Macdonald, Walter Travis and Devereux Emmet is a 1907 article in British Golf Illustrated, describing them as the architects of the new National course. A year later there was an article entitled 'New Ideas in Golf Course Architecture,' written by Travis about Emmet's new Salisbury Links.

Horace Hutchinson first used the term Links Gardner in the 1890s, which later evolved into Linkscape Gardner, and eventually he settled on Course Constructor. The first time I have found him using architect was his autobiography written in 1914.

Speaking of Hutchinson the earliest examples I have found was in his book Golf Greens and Green-keeping (1906), and they are found in couple of chapters written by HH Hilton, one on laying out a course and another on championship courses. Hilton was involved in design, but I think that came later. At this point he was more of a theorist. It is interesting he is the only one to use the term in a book loaded with a who's who of golf architects - Hutchinson, Hutchison, Colt, Fowler, Braid, Lees, and Mure Fergusson.

So based on this quick search, if you disqualify Hilton because he really wasn't a golf architect, the first would be Fowler, Macdonald, Emmet and Travis in 1907.

[Bradley Anderson]

From what I have read Sunningdale was the first golf course to be grassed entirely from seed. And there was a fair amount of design and shaping involved with the process. Could we say then that Willie Park, Jr is the first architect?   

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Your #34 is quite comprehensive and helpful!

Thanks

[Dan King]

Anytime you want to talk about the first of something, you have to be less than absolute about your statement. We almost never know who was the first to do or say something. Best to say "Harry Colt was the first known golfers to advertise himself as a golf course architect." Or "A search of the known online databases shows Harry Colt as the first to advertise himself as a golf course architect."

Melvyn, Mr. Macdonald was much more on our side.  He was the one that was afraid that American golf would take over, replacing the game he grew up playing. He was constantly fighting with the USGA to ensure the game didn't change. I believe he would be very disappointed in how American golf has turned out.

The American golf architects would naturally distance themselves from their earlier Scottish brethren. When courses were first being laid out in the U.S., members were looking for anyone with a Scottish accent. The early architects emphasized their training and professionalism to differentiate themselves from every Scottish expatriate. Since earlier architects such as Morris and Robertson did not have the training and were not professional architects, they would lump them in with the Scottish expatriates.  Nothing shocking there.

Cheers,
Dan King

The playing fields of the game evolved into what are today called golf courses. The earliest of these playing fields were found on Scottish linksland. The location of linksland, often publicly owned, in a northern latitude where summer daylight hours extended from 3 a.m. to 11 p.m. made it possible for persons other than those of a leisure class to use them. Thus, golf established an early democratic tradition in Scotland.
 --Goeffrey S. Cornish and Ronald E. Whitten

[Sean_A]

David

I am  not referring to CBM's Dark Ages or his Golden Age.  They are more broad terms used although the dates are debatable.  Generally speaking, I have heard of the Dark Ages as the 25 or so years before the heathland movement.  The Golden Age as Sunningdale to Old Town. As an aside, CBM's efforts to locate the best principles to be used on NGLA supports that the Dark Ages never really existed in the sense of incompetent archies in the way Simpson hints at.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

David

I am  not referring to CBM's Dark Ages or his Golden Age.  They are more broad terms used although the dates are debatable.  Generally speaking, I have heard of the Dark Ages as the 25 or so years before the heathland movement.  The Golden Age as Sunningdale to Old Town. As an aside, CBM's efforts to locate the best principles to be used on NGLA supports that the Dark Ages never really existed in the sense of incompetent archies in the way Simpson hints at.

Ciao

Sean

I think that Tom Simpson was incompetent in (or at least incapable of) the art of "hinting."

Rich

[Tom MacWood]

David

I am  not referring to CBM's Dark Ages or his Golden Age.  They are more broad terms used although the dates are debatable.  Generally speaking, I have heard of the Dark Ages as the 25 or so years before the heathland movement.  The Golden Age as Sunningdale to Old Town. As an aside, CBM's efforts to locate the best principles to be used on NGLA supports that the Dark Ages never really existed in the sense of incompetent archies in the way Simpson hints at.

Ciao

Simpson was not the only one, it was the prevailing opinion, especially in regards to inland golf. Campbell called the era the naughty nineties, Hutchinson was critical, so was Darwin, Colt, Alison, Mackenzie, Travis and others. They were disgusted that men who were products of the natural links could produce such artificial, formulaic crap.

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

'pontificating' I see so when it’s your opinion that’s fine but when it’s mine, well I suppose it’s the way you read and interoperate information, no on its own as that can be like a horse with blinkers, but it’s how you read it with other relevant documents. But pontificating is quite an ugly work and conveys some contempt.

I was going to divulge more on this subject, but decided not to, as at times some of the people on this site are not IMO deserving of current and new finds. However I will just say that the a word associated with architects (well UK Architects), by that I mean the word "planning" has been used in the 19th Century to designing golf courses, perhaps not quite so much as 'laid out', but certainly on some of the important golf courses in Scotland outside of St Andrews.  

Planning a new circular course pre 1890, that took two years in the making with much labour and expense seems to convey a serious sense of GCA to me but then I expect you may well retort that I am just pontificating.

As I said new finds are surfacing in the most unexpected places.

Melvyn  

  

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn,  I said you were "pontificating" because you have been going on at length about CBM and what he knew and didn't know, yet you have little idea of what he knew and didn't know and haven't even bothered to look at his book.   If you have a better word which more accurately describes your speaking at length about CBM without knowing of what you speak I will be glad to substitute it in the future. 

Or, rather than take offense, you could take heed and actually find out a bit more about the guy, maybe even reading his short book.   You might find him more of an ally than enemy.   

Sean,

I'm in agreement with Tom MacWood on this one. There seems to have been a prevailing idea that with the expansion of golf inland, in England, and in America there was a proliferation of some pretty shoddy, formulaic, and uninspired architecture. I doubt it was all as bad as it is sometimes portrayed, but in this country at least it is difficult to even say because much of the design has been wiped off the map all together.

I think TomM probably appreciate the merits of this type of design as much or more than most, and the same might be said of me, but having an appreciation for some of this formulaic design doesn't change the fact that there was apparently quite a backlash against it.  CBM's return to the links roots of the game was very much part of this backlash.   

CBM's search for the best principles doesn't really support your contention, because for the most part he was searching the seaside courses, courses that generally predated this movement.  There were some semi-exceptions (he found a concept he liked at Biarritz on what he otherwise considered to be a pretty poor hole) but for the most he was looking back beyond this era to something older and (he thought) better.     

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

It seems that it was not only CBM that talked bollocks at time. How arrogant of you to presume I do not have his book just because I do not agree with everything that he said. You seem to have missed my comment so yet again I attach a copy, while drawing your attention to the last half dozen words or so. As for CBM, he is an American icon but like Ross he did not shine over here having said that he helped continue the work of the original Golden Age Guys”.
True my interest is not much into CBM but that does not mean I do not know about him.

My interest is in the early history of the game and sorry, he does not add up to much as far as I am concerned. He might have done things for American golf, but then golf history was in GB and where Scottish golf players lived around the world.

Let’s look at a couple of points that I believe puts him to the side lines or out of the picture of the early history of the game.

Did CBM design or have a golf courses built or suggested their building between 1875-90? Well a Scotsman from Prestwick named James Hunter was apparently responsible for the creation of Royal Quebec in 1875 then went down to the USA and he and his brothers designed and built a course at Darien in the earl 1880’s. And with another brother introduced golf to Mobile during the same time period.

AS for this idea that the inland courses were crap in GB, I would like to see a detailed list of courses and their faults, not the ranting’s of guys that seemed out of touch with their own predecessors. Yes of course there will be some poor courses, but has anyone included your golden boys ever listed them so that a full understand or examination as to why. Remember, which your golden boys seem totally to have forgotten in their dismissal of inland courses, certainly in Scotland many found land not easy to come by for golf. The land that the early clubs could afford to rent was never the best sectors, so the early clubs cut their cloth to suit their pocket, so in some cases that would reflect the land and what could be done to it with the small budgets then available. It’s all recorded in Scotland,  so why did these brilliant guys forget the limitations set upon the early designers who let’s face it produced some great inland courses for their day. If the Golden Boys had their fingers on the pulse of golf how did they miss that? Even Old Tom life’s work would have given them a clue if they had really been interested, by that I mean his Fee of £1 per day stayed constant throughout his life to help golf club and courses develop.

Sorry David these books are not Bibles or Golfing Gospels they are the product of individuals who at times prefer to promote themselves more that their subject matter, so we need to check them out not just accept all that is written within. You of all people should understand after the marathon of a Merion thread of a few years ago. Or does that just apply to you in the USA?

[Sean_A]

David

Older than what?  I am referencing ~25 years.  There wasn't a heck of a lot to reference before 1875ish.  I think most of what he was looking at was built in the Dark Ages time frame. This was a hey day period for the development of links.  

Tommy Mac

Yes, most of the heathland generation of archies were harsh about the what came before them.  I think they were overly harsh, but then I recognize they were salesmen.  We know these guys weren't as harsh about carrying on ideas in the ground from the "Dark Ages".  Indeed, I think Colt was at his best when working with older courses.  He seemed to have understood that some features may not have been to his tastes, but were worth preserving.  Fowler and Park Jr retained that primitive design aesthetic which today is so appealing to so many.  

Ciao        

[DMoriarty]

Sean,

Generally he was looking to the traditional links courses, many of which were well established by 1875. The three courses most referenced as influences by CBM were St. Andrews, Prestwick, and North Berwick.  As I mentioned he was also a member at Hoylake in the 1880's, and Leven was also an influence on some of his few holes.   He did look at other newer courses beyond the traditional championship links courses, and he may have had somewhat of a different attitude toward newer courses built on links land as compared to inland courses built in farm fields.  For example, Branchaster (1892) seems to have been an influence.  It comes up a few times on the "hardest hole" discussion which had an impact on what CBM saw, and it was apparently an influence on a couple of holes.  As I mentioned he got the Biarritz concept from what he considered to be an otherwise weak hole at Biarritz.

This preference for the links courses goes to his conservative view of art and golf, he more valued the time tested golf links over new ideas and efforts.
  
Your use of the 1875 date as the maturity date for St. Andrews is interesting because that approximately marks when CBM fell in love with golf in St. Andrews but had to leave it behind. He left St. Andrews in 1874 and longed for St. Andrews thereafter.  My guess is that St. Andrews circa 1874 marked the pinnacle of most things related to golf for him, and what he saw going on inland, in England, and in America after that paled in comparison.  
________________________

Melvyn,  

Arrogance is preaching about a man you know little about. Maybe you know more after this thread but I stand by my comments.

Your dismissal of CBM's importance to the golf world combined with continual hype of the "Father of Golf in Mobile" is laughable and says just about all that needs to be said about your ability to look at these things objectively.  The early clubs at Quebec and Montreal were very important in the history of the game, but the history of golf in the New World didn't stop there. Your "analysis" of CBM and this earlier period seems more based on family pride and fire and brimstone than on anything resembling fact.   I'll take the words of those involved in the golf world at the time over your opinion any day.  Whatever was developed in Mobile, it failed to have much of an impact on the history of Golf in America.

The idea that many of the inland courses were crap wasn't CBM's idea alone, it was a commonly held idea among those looking both here and abroad.  I wouldn't be surprised if these courses had much more merit that was commonly thought, but those who were there didn't necessarily agree with us on that one.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Remember, which your golden boys seem totally to have forgotten in their dismissal of inland courses, certainly in Scotland many found land not easy to come by for golf. The land that the early clubs could afford to rent was never the best sectors, so the early clubs cut their cloth to suit their pocket, so in some cases that would reflect the land and what could be done to it with the small budgets then available.

Let me get this straight, you are willing to 'give a pass' to some old Scots who used 'land not fit for the purpose' i.e, " never the best sectors", for laying out a golf course because they didn't have the resources to improve it while chastising a modern architect for laying out a golf course on 'land not fit for the purpose' because the developer does have the money?

I'm confused.  

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

I am sorry I do not share your opinions but then I will just have to live with myself.

As for the hype Father of Golf at Mobile, that was never my words but it was from a USA reporter on the following link
http://blog.al.com/living-press-register/2009/09/roads_less_traveled_how_a_monr.html

Whether it was important or not it was a more than CBM I believe did during that same time period, or am I wrong?

Take the opinions of those you think where involve in the golfing world at that time , but can you furnish proof of his actual involvement in the golfing world between 1875-90.
 To fall back upon comments like family pride, fire & brimstone is just your way of hiding the total lack of facts re the time period in question.

I have been concerned about the later designers who attacked their predecessors with the total lack of actual evidence to substantiate their claims. They made comments but never define the sites, it was a very basic generalisation and from memory devoid of actual names and sites.

Comments like ‘I wouldn’t  be surprised ‘is totally meaningless, you do not know, there is no list or sketches or photos to examine, it’s all just words with no actual proof.  You go on to say ’but those who were there didn't necessarily agree with us on that one’ sounds as if you think you where there.
Give me tangible proof, say like the Wee Course at Blairgowrie, Ladybank Fife, Tarland, Newtonmore or even Strathpeffer Spa were crap and what was actually wrong. I do not think you can because I am not aware of lists identifying courses.  It’s so easy to say ballocks to your family history, your records but at least I have offered up proof and places in question, I have at least tried to look at things objectively.

Fine its your opinion, great I can respect that but the above is mine but with a difference that I have included some supporting questions course names  and site information.


Jim

You are always confused, I put it down to your age.  Because land was poor or the unused section on a farm or two that was not suitable for anything better than grazing sheep does not mean that the land was not fit for purpose. In fact these plots in Scotland and Ireland were indeed suitable with quality turf for golf. AS clubs prospered and fund grew the land was purchased and more if possible to boast of an 18 Hole course, although the general was 9 Holes.  Land fit for purpose was the order of the day back then because the designer knew what was required. The best land was the grazing fields. Hope you are no longer confused, but are you not in the industry, involved with caring for the land and golf? So perhaps you knew the answer all along.

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn even you must know it is silly to cherry-pick a date range corresponding with a period where CBM was inactive in golf and then pretend that this was somehow the only pertinent time period in the early history of golf.   It would be like me asking for you to list courses Old Tom laid out after he was dead!  It would prove nothing except for the speciousness of such an argument itself.

Whatever your relatives did in Alabama it doesn't appear to have had much lasting impact on golf in America or on world. CBM's record in this regard speaks for itself.  If you ever bother to learn about him you might be impressed.  

And Melvyn I got the "Father of Golf in Mobile" directly from you above, not from some article you drummed up.

. . . Robert Hunter seems to have been given the title of Father of Golf in Mobile. . . .

[Tom MacWood]

David

Older than what?  I am referencing ~25 years.  There wasn't a heck of a lot to reference before 1875ish.  I think most of what he was looking at was built in the Dark Ages time frame. This was a hey day period for the development of links.  

Tommy Mac

Yes, most of the heathland generation of archies were harsh about the what came before them.  I think they were overly harsh, but then I recognize they were salesmen.  We know these guys weren't as harsh about carrying on ideas in the ground from the "Dark Ages".  Indeed, I think Colt was at his best when working with older courses.  He seemed to have understood that some features may not have been to his tastes, but were worth preserving.  Fowler and Park Jr retained that primitive design aesthetic which today is so appealing to so many.  

Ciao        

Overly harsh? As individuals I think most would say they were all pretty level headed and thoughtful, but you think together they became a pack of wild dogs, or at least exhibited a pack mentality?

I don't understand what you are saying about carrying on ideas on the ground. Could you give some examples?

I think you are confusing 1900s primitive with 1890s formulaic, which to my knowledge has been wiped out completely.