Robert Hunter the Architect - Do we sell him short?

[Sven Nilsen]

I posted the following on one of the William Watson related threads almost two years ago (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,61453.msg1520733.html#msg1520733).  Seems like its relevant here.

On this site and others there seems to have been a number of questions as to Watson's involvement with two of the courses on the list above, namely Berkeley (n/k/a Mira Vista) and Burlingame.

With respect to Berkeley, the debate centers around whether Watson or Robert Hunter should receive the bulk of the credit for the original design.

For Burlingame, there are folks that think that Herbert Fowler was largely responsible for the changes made to the course in the early 1920's, with Watson only coming in to do some touch up work.  I've even read where folks think Watson may have only stopped by to offer his opinions on the work being done, and didn't really have much involvement in any formulated plans.

The following Dec. 19, 1921 Oakland Tribune article goes part of the way to clearing up these questions.  Not only does it confirm that Watson was brought in to Burlingame to offer more than a passing opinion on the work of others, but Robert Hunter himself was showing off the work at Berkeley as a Watson creation.



With respect to Berkeley, I am of the belief that both Hunter and Watson contributed significantly to the initial design, which ended up being a melding of both of their ideas.  In fact, there are reports that there was only one hole (the 17th) where the two men disagreed as to what should be done.  It is interesting that Hunter would be promoting Watson's efforts at the course over his own, but perhaps he was more interested in promoting the work of a Bay Area professional over his own, much the same way Thomas, Behr, et al. began to promote William Bell in SoCal. 

[Forrest Richardson]

Sven ... I think Hunter was attributing the plans to Watson because of the contradiction he realized in teaching sociology while at the some time endeavoring into the elitist circles of Bay Area golf. One has to know the mental struggle Hunter was coming down (up) from...writing about poverty (Poverty in America), workers rights and all sorts of "downer" topics. Golf became his salvation...yet it was also so very contrary to his relatively new position at Berkeley.

No doubt that Watson contributed. But I feel there is also no doubt Hunter called the shots at Berkeley, including selecting the land. We have always given both credit, with the primary responsibilities to Hunter.

Re: the 17th...Mark Fine opined this was the worst hole of the bunch when we began our work. I am not sure sure, but Mark has a different eye on these matters. Regardless, we improved it and now I think it reigns as a very nice drop shot par-3, but still with the green design that requires a very well throught-out plan of attack. You cannot simple launch a shot, rather you must launch one precisely to the left and often just short of the green in order to hold the plateau. Joe Passov, while playing, told me he preferred some sort of bail-out below the green to the right — whereupon I explained there is a bail-out...a hedge and O.B. 

[Sven Nilsen]

To round out the Berkeley discussion, here are all of the articles I have on its creation in chronological order (including the articles posted earlier in the thread).  I have not seen the Hunter plans that have been discussed on this site previously, and would be interested in learning when they were produced and exactly how they correspond to what was built.

And before Tom gets to suggest it, I don't think Carl Biedenbach had anything to do with the course design.

April 1, 1920 San Francisco Examiner -



April 2, 1920 San Francisco Chronicle -



April 24, 1920 Berkeley Daily Gazette -





April 27, 1920 Berkeley Daily Gazette -



April 29, 1920 San Francisco Chronicle -



July 16, 1920 Berkeley Daily Gazette -



Oct. 28, 1920 Oakland Tribune -



Nov. 5, 1920 Oakland Tribune -



Nov. 25, 1920 Oakland Tribune -



Dec. 15, 1920 San Francisco Chronicle -



May 5, 1921 Oakland Tribune -



Nov. 6, 1921 Oregon Daily Journal -



Dec. 19, 1921 Oakland Tribune -



May 9, 1922 San Francisco Chronicle -



April 17, 1923 Oakland Tribune -











May 20, 1923 San Francisco Chronicle -

[Forrest Richardson]

Sven - I think the "Hunter" plans you refer to are contained in the Pacific Golf & Motor article penned by Hunter above which is a survey of the course by E.W. Morgan (engineer). This plan shows the course as it was built originally. To our knowledge Hunter did not draw anything himself. He oversaw Watson's work, including the original plans which are preserved by way of a scan copy made many years ago.

[Jeff_Brauer]

LOL the [font=]Nov. 25, 1920 Oakland Tribune  article.  Says course was 62,000 yards long.  An early adopter of a long course to combat modern length.  More seriously, you can tell this article at least wasn't written by a golf enthusiast, which might lead some to think other details might be wrong via ignorance.[/font]

[Forrest Richardson]

If it's 62,000 yards I need to revisit my original contract 

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven ... I think Hunter was attributing the plans to Watson because of the contradiction he realized in teaching sociology while at the some time endeavoring into the elitist circles of Bay Area golf. One has to know the mental struggle Hunter was coming down (up) from...writing about poverty (Poverty in America), workers rights and all sorts of "downer" topics. Golf became his salvation...yet it was also so very contrary to his relatively new position at Berkeley.

Forrest -


Hunter had been dealing with any contradictions between his work and his private life for nearly 20 years (the book was published in 1904), including many years on the East Coast running in the high society clique and being a member at several high end golf clubs.  I doubt there was much internal debate going on when he started his plans at Berkeley.


I can believe that in the early 1920's Hunter didn't have any plans to pursue any design work beyond his involvement at Berkeley, and thus Watson was the man for other opportunities.  Obviously this changed, most likely due to his focused work while writing and publishing The Links.


Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven - I think the "Hunter" plans you refer to are contained in the Pacific Golf & Motor article penned by Hunter above which is a survey of the course by E.W. Morgan (engineer). This plan shows the course as it was built originally. To our knowledge Hunter did not draw anything himself. He oversaw Watson's work, including the original plans which are preserved by way of a scan copy made many years ago.

I thought I read somewhere on this site that the club found Hunter's initial plan (prior to any involvement by Watson).  I'll see if I can find the reference, but you'd probably know better than the rest of us. 

[Forrest Richardson]

Ed Brawley thinks Hunter was troubled by his depression from Indiana to California. Golf helped it, but is persisted. I do not believe there are any Hunter-drawn plans, but I could be wrong. Certainly there were none when we did our work.

[AChao]

You are correct ... wrong Hunter ... sorry!

I always liked Hunter Ranch in Paso Robles.  A little on the short side, but a pretty pleasant course.

Which he had absolutely ZERO to do with, especially considering it was built +/- 55-Years after his passing.

[Mark_Fine]

Forrest has expressed our position and beliefs about Hunter and Berkeley quite well. 


Who “gets the credit” is something that can be debated on many classic courses.  We believe the routing st Berkeley was that of Hunter.  Some will say the routing takes president for the credit?  That is one opinion.  Clearly there was collaboration with Watson as well on various aspects of the design and build.  How much each actually contributed we will likely never know for sure and only be able to speculate. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Well, now I'm thoroughly befuddled.  On one side folks are saying it was entirely possible for Hunter to have significantly contributed to a project like Berkeley.  On the other I'm being told there is no way he should be given shared credit for his projects with Mackenzie.


Confusing, isn't it?

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
Who gets the credit had been debated on this site many times before.  Look for example at all the “Nicklaus” and “Palmer” designs.  I loved Arnold but some joked that when he came to a course’s opening ceremony he would ask “where is the first tee”? 


We all know Architects, especially busy ones, rely on lots of people to make a golf course come together.  Just because “the architect” waves his or her hands in final approval and/or makes tweaks here and there, does that mean he or she gets all the credit. 


Quite a few classic architects used to do very rudimentary stick routings and then turn that over to others to build.  Who gets the credit?


Someone once told me - “It is amazing what one can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit”.  That thought has helped me in my whole career and in life in general!


Best,
Mark

[Sven Nilsen]

Mark:


I think the Hunter question goes a bit deeper than a simple comparison to Arnie and APDC.


Just look at some of the varying viewpoints put forth in this thread.  We've been told that Hunter didn't want to promote his own work with regards to Berkeley, but also told that he controlled the press with regards to his relationship with MacKenzie, and the suggestion was that he over-emphasized his role.  You really can't have it both ways. 


Robert Hunter doesn't strike me as the kind of guy that needed to stroke his own ego by claiming credit for work he didn't do or input he didn't have. 


Sven

[Mark_Fine]

Sven,
As Forrest made pretty clear our belief is that Hunter laid out Berkeley CC.  He clearly got help and involvement from many others.  As far as his work with MacKenzie; that is a whole separate discussion. 
Mark

[Sven Nilsen]

I would think its all part of the question in the thread title.

[Sven Nilsen]

An interesting article on Hunter discussing the fire that destroyed his Berkeley home, a bit of his background, his reputation in 1923 as a golf architect as well as a notation that he had consulted at the Woodway CC in Connecticut.

Sept. 24, 1923 Bridgeport Telegram -

[Sven Nilsen]

For those in the know, is the 20th Revision the most up to date version of the Mackenzie Timeline.  If not, are there links out there to the most recent version?


I'm trying to reconcile when exactly Mackenzie could have worked on the Northwood course.  Specifically, was there work done at Northwood prior to late March 1929 when it was reported the course was being laid out by Robert Hunter.  For the bulk of the period leading up to the opening of the course in June 1929 Mackenzie was overseas.


Sven

[Marty Bonnar]

20th is the most up to date, Sven:
http://alistermackenzie.co.uk/files/4615/4167/0280/20th_Revision_Mackenzie_Chronology_Final_Oct_2018.pdf
Cheers,
F.

[Tom_Doak]

Sven,


Are you aware that “laying out a course” is also the term that surveyors and contractors use when they stake out the positions of features that the architect has drawn up?


I’m not seeing what you are quoting in context so I have no idea which meaning is appropriate.  Frankly, though, I’ve never thought MacKenzie spent much time at Northwood, because he wrote almost nothing about it.  It’s a fairly simple design with features shaped to look like MacKenzie’s, but I presumed it was more of a “company” job compared to some of the others.  I have no proof of that, aside from a lot of years of looking at things attributed to Dr MacKenzie, with varying degrees of his personal input on site.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,


Are you aware that “laying out a course” is also the term that surveyors and contractors use when they stake out the positions of features that the architect has drawn up?

Tom:


I'm well aware of the multiple uses of the term.  There's a rather exhausting 900 page thread somewhere on the back pages of this site on all of the nuances.  I've also read approximately 20,000 news and magazine articles (this one is not an exaggeration) from prior to World War II that use the term. 


For the most part, those articles relate to the design of the course, not an application of plans by a third party onto the ground.


Here are the two articles I have covering Northwood (neither are noted on the Mackenzie timeline).  The timeline has him leaving California in late March/early April 1929, and not returning until after the course opened.  It is possible he did design the course prior to leaving, but it would appear he had little input as to what was happening once dirt was moved.


As far as any context from the article, not sure if you'll get much with the Hunter's Point misnomer (should be Cypress) and the credit given to Hunter for laying out Pebble Beach (he did renovate it with Egan, but I don't think this worked equated to either use of "laying out" that you noted).


This timing is also of interest as the reporting on Hunter leaving the partnership occurred right around the start of this project.  Perhaps it was his last bit of work with the team, or perhaps their foremen ran with it.  In any case, once the course opened it was clear that whoever talked to the press (and from what you've told me that would have been Hunter) wanted Mackenzie to receive at least partial credit.


On a more general point, this is the only California project I know of where Mackenzie was not around for at least part of the construction process. 


Sven


March 26, 1929 Petaluma Argus-Courier -





June 16, 1929 San Francisco Examiner -

[Joshua Pettit]

On a more general point, this is the only California project I know of where Mackenzie was not around for at least part of the construction process. 

Sven,

Dr. MacKenzie was not around for any of the construction of Valley Club, and it remains an open question whether or not he was ever on site at Meadow Club during construction.  And if you include renovation projects it's not clear he was on site for any of the construction at Claremont or Lake Merced.

[Sven Nilsen]

Josh:

Just to be clear, I was talking about Mackenzie actually being in the country while construction was taking place.  Whether or not he was ever on site is a different story.


With respect to Claremont, I haven't seen anything to suggest he was involved in any way and as noted earlier in the thread I consider it to be Hunter solo.

Sven 

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven, MacKenzie, and as far as I know of, Hunter had zero input at the Max Behr-designed Capuchino

Tommy:


At the very least, they were initially engaged to do the design and worked on plans.  Do you have anything confirming Behr's later involvement?

Sven

July 10, 1926 San Francisco Examiner -

Swen,
Yes I do.


The article is wrong.  At least in my opinion, it is.  They’re writer is confusing it with Union League/Green Hills, which was right next door.  Capuchins was designed by Max Behr and built by A. Herbert Wilson.

A little follow up on Capuchino, and all the evidence I need to be comfortable that it was indeed a Max Behr course. 


That being said, Mackenzie and Hunter were involved with the project, as noted in the July 10, 1926 article above and as suggested by the later articles discussing Mackenzie's estate.  As the article below notes, they did draw up plans for the course, before Capuchino decided to go with plans developed by Behr.


Sven


Aug. 9, 1926 Call Bulletin -

[Tom_Doak]

On a more general point, this is the only California project I know of where Mackenzie was not around for at least part of the construction process. 

Sven,

Dr. MacKenzie was not around for any of the construction of Valley Club, and it remains an open question whether or not he was ever on site at Meadow Club during construction.  And if you include renovation projects it's not clear he was on site for any of the construction at Claremont or Lake Merced.

Dr. MacKenzie was only around for the construction of one hole during his six weeks in Australia.*


Should we discount his efforts there as just a bunch of overzealous salesmanship on the part of the clubs?


* To his credit, though, the one hole he did build was the 5th at Royal Melbourne (West).