[MCirba]

Charles Blair Macdonald and Walter J. Travis were the two Titans of American golf during the first three decades of the game in the United States, and their authoritative influences are still felt today in everything from agronomy to adherence to the rules, to competitive tournament lore, advancement of equipment, and most importantly to the evolution of golf course architecture and architectural thinking in the United States during those seminal years.

While coming from vastly different backgrounds both men were incredibly similar in disposition.   Strong, visionary, opinionated, driven, romantic, sentimental, and idealistic while simultaneously churlish, argumentative, spiteful, stubborn, and capable of holding lifelong grudges when affronted, they  perhaps perfectly symbolized and epitomized the big dreams of New York City and its denizens as America moved into the 20th century as sporting endeavors, including golf became a new national religion.  Over time, their originally friendly relationship deteriorated and it was as if the Big Apple somehow wasn’t big enough for the both of their gargantuan egos.

This three-part essay started with some simple exploration into the discrepancies between Macdonald’s 1928 book, “Scotland’s Gift – Golf”, published a year after Travis’ death, and some contemporaneous accounts of events in New York City newspapers that my good friend Joe Bausch found and shared some years back.    I had hoped to keep this to a simple recounting of those inconsistent events for posterity but as I started to dig deeper and wider I realized there was an entirely different story to tell, and one which really turns some of our understanding of the progression of strategic golf course architecture in this country on its head.  As such, each overturned stone yielded new lizards to chase down and it soon became apparent that this wild story couldn’t be effectively told in a single essay, so for readability this will be posted in three parts.    I’m hopeful the readers of GolfClubAtlas will find the journey worthy of their time and energies spent.

My goal for this piece is to try and present as honest and unvarnished a portrayal of the two men and their intertwined lives and events up to and beyond the creation of the National Golf Links of America, and the role of Walter Travis in that effort.   Given the significant incongruities between the contemporaneous record and Macdonald’s recollections two decades later, I try to reveal what I believe was at the heart of their bitter divorce, and perhaps most importantly, shed new light on Walter Travis’ previously misunderstood and heretofore under-reported role in the advancement of golf course architecture in the United States.

The "In My Opinion" articles can be found at

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/cirba-mike-walter-j-travis-dropped-at-national-golf-links-of-america-truth-or-travesty-part-one/
http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/cirba-mike-walter-j-travis-dropped-at-national-golf-links-of-america-truth-or-travesty-part-two/
http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/cirba-mike-walter-j-travis-dropped-at-national-golf-links-of-america-truth-or-travesty-part-three/
A complete bibliography and list of acknowledgements will accompany Part 3 in coming weeks. 

Thank you for your interest.

[Tim Martin]

Mike-That's a great read! I wasn't aware how often Travis bested CB MacDonald in competition which could form some of the basis for their ultimate falling out. I'm looking forward to part two.

[MCirba]

Tim,

Glad you enjoyed the read.   It is interesting once one understands the apparent reason(s) for their falling out (but that's Part 3, so I don't want to get too far ahead of myself here) to read the sections of "Scotland's Gift - Golf" where Macdonald discusses his tournament competitions, and how often the name Walter Travis comes up.   I believe it is fair to say he measured his post-1899 playing career by how well he did against Travis.

I have a strong sense that was more of a retrospective, emotionally-driven response than a contemporaneous one as the men had a friendly, if edgy relationship during Macdonald's competitive playing years after 1897.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Really good article. I look forward to reading more. I have one suggestion. You might want to consider using Travis' name in the first sentence. You begin the article with the personal pronoun and some (read me) might not be certain if you are referring to CB or WT.

[MCirba]

Really good article. I look forward to reading more. I have one suggestion. You might want to consider using Travis' name in the first sentence. You begin the article with the personal pronoun and some (read me) might not be certain if you are referring to CB or WT.

Thanks, Tommy.   

I went back and forth about that one as I wanted to subtly point out the similarities between the two men by being purposefully vague but perhaps I should have just been clearer.   Thankfully it doesn't go on for more than a few paragraphs and I do hope that doesn't dissuade anyone from reading further. 

[Bret Lawrence]

Nice work Mike!  I am looking forward to Part II and III.

[MCirba]

Thank you, Bret.   Lots of good stuff coming!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Nicely done Mike, can't wait for parts 2 & 3.



It doesn't seem odd or difficult to understand at all. As you know, CB had all the pertinent info and laid it out on the correct timeline in the book. It does seem obvious that he was using that info to inform the reader of his belief that Robertson and Travis' actions before they went on the trip revealed their lack of knowledge about  tradition, and then stating his opinion that their actions after returning showed that they failed to absorb some ' reverence for these same ancient and honorable traditions' in the three months they spent in Great Britain.

Actually, Travis was a 'bit' player in that whole section - Macdonald was mainly roasting Robertson. 


   

[MCirba]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for the nice comments, much appreciated.   I think you'll enjoy the rest, as well.

As far as Macdonald's criticism of Travis' possible amateur violations, my point was simply that there was no way for Travis's trip abroad in 1901 to have any impact one way or another on the Florida trip he took earlier that year, but I do understand and appreciate the way you've interpreted it, as well.   Thanks! 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,


I expect I will enjoy the rest. It was a long winter, so you've had plenty of time for research, and the steady supply of Thai food you consumed during that period should almost guarantee the rest of the story will be spicy.     (p.s. Any more nasty weather and I was going to start worrying about the ducks)

It's a small point in your longer narrative, but as there is a reason for everything, so too must there be a reason that CBM chose to make his remark, and 26 years after the fact, too boot. I can't believe you'd pass that nugget by without coming to some conclusion other than just labeling it as 'odd'. Would it even be 'paragraph worthy' if that's all it was?   

[Niall C]

Mike

Well done on Part 1 and I'm looking forward to Parts 2 and 3 and in particular maybe some further commentary on Travis's British Amateur win.

Also what I found interesting was the chat about amateur status and I think it highlighted the more stringent rules on your side as opposed to this side of the pond. Hard to see how Hutchinson, Hilton, Darwin and co would have kept their amateur status if they had to abide by the US rules. Maybe a case of CBM looking this way with rose-coloured spectacles ?

Niall

[MCirba]

Thanks, Niall.

And yes, there will be more about the 1904 British Amateur in Part 3, or at least some of the resulting rancor on both sides that went on for several years.

As far as American definitions of professionalism, it seems pretty clear that it was a priggish attempt to maintain a very hierarchical class system in our supposedly more egalitarian society.   When you consider that people like Francis Ouimet lost their amateur status just a few years after winning the 1913 US Open for the sin of working for a sporting goods concern, it was also applied with some capriciousness, borne of preserving the aristocratic status quo.

[Niall C]

Mike

What I probably should have said was that Hutchinson et al were in the position that they wrote or at least were in a position to influence the rule on what constituted an amateur. Presumably that wasn’t the case with Travis or Ouimet in the US.

Niall

[MCirba]

Niall,


That is a great point.  Thanks.

[Niall C]

Mike

Well done again. It’s interesting reading about these things from a US perspective. Having previously read about the 1904 Amateur Championship, and the aftermath from a UK perspective, it’s good to get the other side.

I wonder, however, if there is an element of retrospective vision going on here with Travis ? If Lord Northwood had warmly congratulated Travis on winning and in doing so stating that wasn’t it wonderful that someone from America had won the championship at last, I wonder if Travis might not have considered all the supposed slights as not being slights at all.

For instance, the suggestion that he was slighted by not getting a decent caddy seems a fairly weak one. Given the number of competitors, that there would have been a limited number of proper caddies with local knowledge, and that a lot of the remaining caddies would have been children, then he probably wasn’t slighted at all.

Presumably also, Travis makes no mention of the bunker controversy in his memoirs/writings ?

Niall

[Sven Nilsen]

I apologize if this article was going to be included later in the essay, but in light of Niall's comments above I thought it made sense to add it to the discussion, particularly to highlight Travis' use of his access to the press in attempts to "swat his flies."  The timing of the article, and the disputes it highlights between Travis and some of MacDonald's trusted overseas "correspondents" is noteworthy as well.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle April 4, 1910 -

[MCirba]

Sven,

You're very prescient.      

I wasn't going to include that particular article but I certainly refer to it.   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,


Travis seemed to have good luck with w/the Schenectady style putter in the US before he went to GB in 1904.  Any idea why he didn't bring it with him?

[MCirba]

Mike,


Travis seemed to have good luck with w/the Schenectady style putter in the US before he went to GB in 1904.  Any idea why he didn't bring it with him?

Yes, Jim.   Putters tend to be fickle. 


More on that in Part 3. 

[Ed Homsey]

I am in complete agreement with Niall's suggestion that if Lord Northwood had focused on a sincere congratulation to Travis, none of the rest would have matter.  I believe that it is fair to say that Travis was rightly offended by Northwood, and found it hard to put aside.


Jim Kennedy's question about the Schenectady is a very interesting one.  In his 1910 American Golfer article, How I won the British Amateur", Travis's comment about Mr. Phillip's loan a Schenectady did not suggest that he owned one, or had used one previously.  It was just that it "suited" him.   It's obvious he had another putter in the bag for the few rounds he played before the Brit Am, and was putting badly with it.  Why didn't he bring his own Schenectady?  As a guy who did a lot of experimentation with golf equipment, etc., it wouldn't surprise me if, after a bad putting round, or two, with the Schenectady, prior to sailing for England, he decided to stick a different putter in the bag, leaving the Schenectady home.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Thanks for those replies about the Schenectady putter - it was his great good fortune that his friend brought one along!


p.s. Would have been nice if WJT sent HH a memorial Schenectady putter.   




p.p.s. WJT receives much adulation for his skill at routing, and a great deal for his greens: 

“He designed the best greens in the world” (Ben Crenshaw); “The greens….are as intricate as any I’ve played on” (Tom Doak); “He built wonderful undulating greens with fascinating pin positions” (Ian Andrew); “His greens….really showed a lot of understanding of the strategy of the game” (Mike Hurdzan).

When and where did he begin constructing the type of greens that earn such praise (I'm guessing post 1901)?       

[Ed Homsey]

Wow--that is a very interesting, and challenging question.  Off the top of my head, I would say the 1917 greens he designed at Hollywood Golf Club, but, that is based solely on my experience with just 21 of his courses.  Early reports of the changes he made to GCGC in 1906-09 indicate that there were undulating greens.  And, in the reading of his impressions of British golf, from his trip in 1901, he liked the way their greens reflected the natural undulations of the natural terrain.  But, from what I've seen, personally, HGC is the earliest.  The 1916 Orchard Park CC course (formerly Park Club) greens have been softened considerably.  I have not seen the 1916 designed Garden City Country Club course, so I can't speak to their greens.  The greens he designed at Poland Spring have been softened.  He first worked at Cape Arundel in 1919, and their greens are wonderful examples of "Travis Greens".  Same with the 1919 designed Westchester West course--haven't seen the South.


I definitely agree that it was "post-1901".

[MCirba]

p.p.s. WJT receives much adulation for his skill at routing, and a great deal for his greens: 

“He designed the best greens in the world” (Ben Crenshaw); “The greens….are as intricate as any I’ve played on” (Tom Doak); “He built wonderful undulating greens with fascinating pin positions” (Ian Andrew); “His greens….really showed a lot of understanding of the strategy of the game” (Mike Hurdzan).

When and where did he begin constructing the type of greens that earn such praise (I'm guessing post 1901)?       

Jim,

I think it's tough to know exactly.

What makes it difficult is that some of his earliest courses are NLE so it's impossible to know what the greens were like on, say, the new nine holes at Oakland.   We also don't know if all the greens at Mount Pocono were original or if Robert White's early 1920s reconfiguration of that now NLE course impacted them.

We do know that he very much appreciated the highly contoured greens of Salisbury Links but it's not settled on how much authorship he had in that process but that course was built in 1906, the same year he was adding significant contour to a number of greens at Garden City Golf  Club.   

But if I can speculate further, I'm a bit surprised that no one has yet mentioned John Duncan Dunn's somewhat incredible treatise on golf course architecture that I included in Part One.   Almost everything he included, with the exception of cross-bunkers, is still sound advice today, and was exceptionally progressive for that time.

Regarding greens, Dunn wrote, "Putting greens should be about 40 yards in diameter and should be undulating.   The natural roll of the ground should be maintained when it is not too bumpy."

I suspect JD Dunn was a huge influence on Walter Travis and his architecture.   The two men remained friends for many years and even in the 1920s collaborated on the design of a course near Pasadena, CA, that unfortunately seems never to have been built.

[Niall C]

Mike

You caused me to re-read Dunn’s article which at best I only scanned briefly before. There are a couple of things that stand out but to be honest I don’t think there’s anything there that’s too revolutionary for 1906, which is not to say that what he was advocating wasn’t different to some courses that had been built before then or indeed at that time. With a lot of changes in design ideas it’s a gradual process and I think the things he was saying had been well aired before then.

One of the things that did catch my eye however was the mention of the 40 yards diameter greens which is a very literal interpretation of the rules ie. green consists of 20 yards from the hole. Back in the auld sod, they were still, and had been making greens that were 20 yards by 20 yards square(ish). From photos I’ve seen, often the turf was laid in this shape although following the natural contours of the ground. I’ve never got to the bottom of why 20 by 20 ?

The other thing that caught my eye was the reference to laying out and back courses on the basis of the front nine being on the right and the back nine being on the left (as you look from the clubhouse). I don’t think I’ve ever read that before. You can see the logic behind it with most golfers being right handed and their worst shot generally being a slice then you minimise the danger on parallel holes.
 
When you think of the older out and back links a lot of them do follow that rule such as TOC, North Berwick, Musselburgh etc. although most of those were played in reverse some of the time. Also with TOC it was originally a single playing corridor playing to not only the same green but the same hole. Was there a convention back then that golfers tried to stick to the right to avoid oncoming traffic ? If so, how did we end up driving on the left in this country ?

Niall

[MCirba]

Niall,

All good points you make.

A few things stick out to me in that article, including the need to create artificial hazards along the perimeters, the undulating greens using natural contours where possible, the desire to make artificial hazards looks as natural as possible, the need to create a variety of holes, the first hole gentle handshake, etc., that I wouldn't have expected in a 1901 article.

One thing I also find interesting is that I don't believe there were any of the type of rote cross bunkering fashionable at the time in the Ekwanok course that Dunn, Travis (and others) designed.  I should double-check that before I type it but I believe that to be generally true.  (EDIT - A 1952 aerial shows what seem to be two fairway crossing bunkers)

In fact, Dunn felt that Ekwanok was really the first "natural" course in the United States, reliant primarily on existing features rather than contrived artificial features.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()