Taylor's Mid Surrey grassy mound/hollow experiment

[TEPaul]

What goes around seems to keep coming around. I'm as fascinated by the evolution of golf architecture as I am in what's still out there today and  the thinking about it of those today.

I love to look at the "eras" in the evolution of architecture and see not just where it was at any particular time but more importantly how and why.

Thanks to TommyN in the "Macdonald and Merion" thread I reread J.H. Taylor's article on "the evolution of the bunker". The bunker itself (that odd vestige holdover from the game before architecture) could probably be consider largely representative of much of the evolution of the game itself (or sport!)

Taylor was not only grappling with the "look" of architecture but very much it's function in the context of that article on the evoltution of the bunker.

Amazingly, he talked about the need for "fairness" and the minimizing of "luck" in golf. He also talked about the "straight and narrow", and the need for it in architecture. Frankly, this is a great example of a mindset of early architectural "shot dictation" and even a "designed" way of formulaicaly graduating the whole idea of risk/reward. Basically he was attempting to get "scientific" about golf architecture, something that even many of the great ones later tried to do too. Reading that article, one might even think Taylor was a former day Tom Fazio.

Taylor tried to solve a problem with the reaction of golfers to bunkering at the time he wrote the article (1911-1914?). He tried to correct the wholly unnatural look and extremely low margin for era architectural formation of probably the basic "geometric era" in golf that golfers were objecting to.

His attempt with what's called by him the "Royal Mid Surrey mounds and hollows" experiment, which he takes credit for, was to correct that negative reaction in golfers. Essentially he was both trying to make them look more natural and to be more "fair", particularly to the good player.

Frankly, if he thought those "Mid Surrey mounds and hollows" looked natural it didn't take others long to disagree. Basically Taylor claims to be the inventor of the idea of "Alpinization" or "Himalaying".

Tom MacWood is right that even the Philadephia School architects may have experimented with it for a time but apparently a very short time.

Was Taylor's "Mid Surrey mounds and hollows" experiment that obnoxious looking. Maybe some would think so today but maybe not back then.

The reason why it was dropped from use, in my opinon, was not because it was that obnoxious at the time but because from that point (that particular mini-era) the art of architecture was about to move forward very quickly and very far in thinking and style to things and creations that were far more sophisticated in look and play than ever before (and possibly even since!).

The "Golden Age of Architecture" was about to begin and given the fates of the last century (the stock market crash and depression) it probably had no more than 15-20 years to run!

Some of us think some of those early architects held to some age old prinicples in architecture and practiced them that they inherited from the beginnings of the game. Maybe in a few ways but certainly not in all--and probably not in most.

The particular eras themselves and how they fit into the evolution of architecture truly fascinate me. I think some of us look at it as an ongoing "Whole" that got corrupted semi-recently.

I don't think so. Back then they were all struggling to fit golf  architecture into the game and they were having all kinds of little collisions.

Today hopefully they'll try to fit the game into the golf architecture we have better but it's interesting to look at the pieces in the evolution for the last 100 years or so and Taylor's "bunker evolution" article is a very intersting piece in that.

Read it again under Tommy Nacarrato's name in the "in My Opinion" section.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Could the 'Cost" to "construct and maintain" have been responsible for the demise ?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Not a bad question at all and certainly cost may have been a factor back then but only in much lower budget situations.

Taylor actually talked about that in a few interesting ways. But ultimately no, not on high quality architecture anyway. In their day projects such as both Merion and certainly PVGC and many of the others we look to today were "big budget" projects or could have been if the need was felt.

Taylor was talking about this and trying to do it as much in architectural "theory" as anything else both in "look" and in "playability".

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

For me personally the evolution of golf architecture is fascinating, particulary in the UK because of its enormous influence elsewhere. The quality of early golf courses over there, both natural links and early heathland, was truely remarkable. One of the reasons, IMO, that architectural development was so rapid was the level of criticism. Honest critique of these new courses came from a number of sources, including other architects. Taylor benfited from thoughtful criticism, his later work with Hawtree was much less artificial.

Would modern architects benefit from more criticism?

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
I was interested in the human element that Taylor spoke of in the natural construction of bunkers by the expansion of divot holes through wind and foot traffic. Sounds like the precursor to those gentlemen who watched where players hit it on their courses and subsequently dug bunkers on these sites.

I wasn't overly surprised to read of his mention of fairness and minimization of luck. Outside of the reasons you mention I think relying on luck is anathema to the pro player. There is also the idea that skill should be rewarded and the further off line one goes the less the reward and the greater the trouble a player should find, also in line with the pro player's thinking.

Hasn't this Mid-Surrey look been resurrected on some modern day courses? Isn't it really just an attempt to bring the dunes to the midlands?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

What a cute, clever little question.

You wouldn't be trying to incite another barroom brawl ??
You know, the kind that you profess to find distasteful.

Don't ever complain about someone hijacking, diverting or destroying a thread.  People who live in glass houses....

[James Edwards]

I'm learning who the 'Big Boys' are on this website

[TEPaul]

Pat:

In your first post your question is a very interesting one particularly as it's in two parts--ie, Was Taylor's "Mid Surrey mound and hollow" (grassy) experiment costly to "construct and maintain" (responsible for it's demise).

To construct AND maintain??

Again, he did state in that article that it may have been somewhat costly to construct, but he said nothing about maintaining it.

But clearly in today's world it would probably be no more costly to construct than today's bunkering and possibly less so or much less so. But the most interesting thing would seem to be the cost of "maintaining" it then and now.

The distinction should be made that it appears that Taylor may even have understood that he was suggesting an architectural feature "mounds and hollows" (grassy) to take the place of bunkering! SAND bunkering anyway!

That in and of itself is TREMEMDOUSLY interesting to me particularly since in the entire evolution of golf architecture  we all know NOTHING really EVER DID take the place of the bunker feature to its exclusion!!

But it seems completely logical to assume that both then and now maintaining "grassy mounds and hollows" would have to be easier and less costly to maintain than sand bunkering!

Of course we should hear from some superintendents out there about exactly how and when they would maintain "grassy mounds and hollows" today and how often but given various dimension parameters it would seem to me that it would absolutely HAVE TO BE less costly to maintain  compared to sand bunkering. Particularly when you consider something I just heard recently from the crew of a very well known American club that 40% of their maintenance budget goes to maintaining sand bunkering! THAT'S 40%!! That's a huge amount it seems to me in the broad scheme of things.

Plus, I've always been personally fascinated by the consideration that it might be worthwhile to FINALLY use some other feature on certain golf courses in place of the SAND bunker feature and to the exclusion of the sand bunker.

I have nothing against sand bunkering in golf and archtiecture at all. It's just that any of us must recognize that it just ISN'T a natural occurence on many golf sites around the world and as such really does look naturally somewhat out of place no matter how rugged and beautiful it may be as some kind of natural representation of other places such as the linksland!

I do recognize that sand bunkering has now become almost a requirement of a golf course and it's architecture probably due simply to the tradition that it's always been used.

And I do also recognize the extent that sand bunkering has become a real expression of architects! it has become an architectural expression in both placement and look. Obviously there's a great deal of "individuality" in the way certain architects construct and use sand bunkering.

But one should still consider if they just might attempt to use other things, some other kinds of features as an architectural expression in both and artistic and functional sense. Particularly a type of feature that may actually be more naturally occuring to certain sites and parts of the world.

So doesn't that make Taylor's "grassy mound and hollow" experiment doubly or tripley interesting as it seems he may have been recommending his feature to take the place of sand bunkering possibly on certain types of sites (like the area surrounding London and the heathlands that never had a vestige of dunsy or sandy anything?

It shouldn't be lost on any of us either that the beginninng of Taylor's time and the time he writes about was when golf was moving away from the linkland for the very FIRST time! What better time could there have been to replace the sand bunker with another more naturally occuring type of feature?

If his idea for a golf feature to take the place of sand bunkering had actually took hold and remained permanent perhaps today we may have far more courses where sand bunkering didn't and doesn't exist and possibly where it would exist today would have been only on those types of sites that had the naturally sandy bases and soil structures much the same as the original linksland have always had.

Your question is a excellent one and one that should probably be discussed from many angles both now and in the future!

[Paul Turner]

Tom P

You might be interested in the following quotes:

Colt (1912) from M Sutton's "Book of the Links"

Fashions in golf courses, as in ladies' clothes, seem to be so frequently hopelessly exaggerated.  We have our latest Parisian styles, and they are adopted for every form and every contour, quite regardless of the land to be dealt with.  Cross bunkers are made on a course, and they are dumped down everywhere; then wing hazards have their vogue, and we see them cut at every hole exactly opposite each other and at precisely the same distance from the tee (SOUND FAMILIAR!).

Then courses are supposed to be too short, and they are at once lengthened to about four miles from tee to hole; and then we have the advocates for difficult shots, and the entrances to the green become so small, and the bunkers so gruesome that no one but an idiot plays for the shot.  Now we have what is known as the Alpinisation of courses, and the few rough mounds that have been made for many years past develop into continuous ranges on every new course.  A good idea is worn threadbare in next to no time in golf course construction."

Mackenzie form Spirit of St Andrews.

"I have a great admiration for JH Taylor.  Winner of five British Open Championship, he is one of nature's gentlemen, is exceedingly well read, has original and common sense views on health, politics and many other subjects ,and moreover is a born orator and writer.  On the other hand he is not a success at designing golf courses.  At one time because he was unable to play it as a pitch, his favourite shot, he condemned the 17th at St Andrews in most emphatic terms.  Recently he admits that, having given up competitive golf, he has changed his views, and in picturesque language puts a curse on anyone who would dare alter it.

I have selected JH Taylor as the representative of the professionals not only because of his marked ability, but because in England he is the spokesman for the PGA and for many years was their president, and may be so still as far as I know.

We have always told eachother in the frankest manner possible our respective views, and one thing I admire more than any other in JH Taylor than anything else is the fact he is not afraid of changing his ideas and admitting he has changed them when one has given him a sufficiently logical reason to convince him he is wrong.  Many years ago, when Harry Colt and I were designing most of the golf courses in Britain, JH Taylor started an agitation to prevent us doing so, and tried to make golf course architecture a monopoly of professional golfers.

We contended the were it not for the amateur golf course architect there would be very few professionals, and it was a direct result of modern golf course architecture that there had been such a boom in golf and golf courses.  Subsequent event proved, I think, that we were right, and that the very existence of most of the professionals is due to the fact that golf archiects have made inland golf courses so popular.  There would be very few professionals if golf were still confined to the sand dune country by the sea shore.

JH Taylor is a professional at Mid-Surrey, a marvelous piece of sandy links in the heart of London.  Some years ago the course was reconstructed at enormous expense.  Owing to the influence of JH Taylor, the approach to every hole was converted to a pitch.  The result is a remarkably fine golfing land ruined, and the erection of a dull monotonous course.  If an architect like JF Abercrombie or Harry Colt had altered it they would have got better results at a tenth of the cost."

PS

I've read some the letters in GI (UK) 1908 between the amateur archies and the professional players.  T Simpson is involved too and they get pretty heated.  It's fascinating stuff right at the start of golf course architecture becoming a profession.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

That's fascinating stuff--not just for what was said but for who was saying it to whom. (Maybe a bit more civil but every bit as argumentative and adverserial as Golfclubatlas.com).

Clearly the contingent of Colt, Abercrombie, Simpson, Fowler, Alision, MacKenzie etc, were on a bit of a different wavelength on some things than many of the other Europeans (and maybe a few Americans?).

From what Colt said there (1912) about "alpinization" (Taylor's self admitted idea) it would seem logical to think that if Geo Crump had entertained the idea of surrounding #3 green at PVGC with "alpinization" that perhaps it was Colt who talked him out of it. All we do know is it never happened on #3.

[TEPaul]

But I very much am interested in J.H. Taylor's ideas about using architectural features in place of sand bunkering and to its exclusion in places where sandy, dunsy type sites and ground may not have been naturally occuring.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, Please, and I say PLEASE do not misconstrue what Tom MacWood is saying.

Simply look at Paul's contribution of the MacKenzie writ, explaining how J.H. Taylor HAD in fact opened his mind to the negative critique, and realized that the study of Golf Architecture should be removed from playing ability.

I too wish that many Modern golf architects would open themselves to the criticisms that many historians and students of the game have in their designs. Maybe this could allow a sort of "respect" to actually happen. Where an Architect can actually say to himself--Yes, I'm schooled and have the talent, but I want to be even better! This is probably why I have such respect for Bill Coore, Tom Doak, Hanse, Forse, etc. and all of their crews because they really want to get into this stuff with a fury of knowledge and insight. Simply put, these are the BEST students in the Game today. They do it unselfishly and probably don't even know it.  They are true artisans, doing it for the art, and not for the health and pension benefits or humble wage.

(I may have a very socialistic attitude in all of this, but I do have to ask, what would the differences be if Rees Jones or Tom Fazio were doing the restoration work at Garden City instead of Tom Doak? I'm not saying this to be negative of these very successful men, its just that they aren't studied in the actual art of restoring these type of classics, as well as feeling the need to establish more sound CLASSICAL architectural practices. The Game needs more Garden City's and Pacific Dunes and Friars Head's and Riviera's

If you look, the mounds @ Royal Mid Surrey have a very "furry" feel to them, almost making them penal in many cases. This wasn't something that Colt, Mac, and many others didn't neccessary believe in, but they viewed this "Alpinization" as another form of discovery that may be worth looking at. Many times I have come across the term in many old golf books and magazines. I would almost think that the turf used in this type of feature was similar to the "No Mow" types of grasses used today. It is meant to be unmaintained to a certain point, and coming out of the stuff is...well, interesting from a playability standpoint. Its actually a lot of fun!

Ultimately, I think that mounding does have its many negatives. Here are two.

1-Cost to shape. (its a very timely thing and if it is done artificially, it looks out of place.)

2-Too contained. (Too many architects are using it nowadays for containing the golfer. It has nothing to do with playability, it has everything to do with liability. Another thing is that it doesn't tie-in with the surrounding features that a golf hole may be situated on.)

In my opinion, JH Taylor didn't have any of these thoughts in mind when he designed his mounds at Royal Mid Surrey.

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Not meaning to derail discussion but while searching the www for images of RM-S I happened upon this news from March that the clubhouse burned down.

   http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news01/midsurrey.html

   (It's a short affecting read)

[Tommy_Naccarato]

BTW, and I hope Martha Burk is reading this, because it was a Shackelford, DIANE Shackelford that found that piece by Taylor, for me!

See, There is no way Ms. Burk can come at Golf Club Atlas with both barrels loaded for protest--Golf Architecture and GCA is not blind to gender!

I'm also hoping that one Lisa Morrissett happens to be reading this also!:)

[TEPaul]

Pat Mucci said;

"Tom MacWood,

What a cute, clever little question.

You wouldn't be trying to incite another barroom brawl ??
You know, the kind that you profess to find distasteful.

Don't ever complain about someone hijacking, diverting or destroying a thread.  People who live in glass houses...."

Pat:

Jesus Christ Almighty, God Save your mind, the Queen of Scotland, and all our boys about to go to war, what in the hell gets into you sometimes? All that over this remark by Tom MacWood?

"Would modern architects benefit from more criticism?

That's a very good question. There's nothing at all wrong with criticism or asking if modern architects would benefit from more of it.

Why is it that everytime you hear the word criticism you think you have to save the world of architecture from bias or favoritism?

Look at the post Paul Turner just made about what MacKenzie said in criticism of J.H. Taylor. It's great stuff for us to read.

Do you think anybody back then asked MacKenzie for the master plan of Royal Mid Surrey G.C., what Taylor's marching orders were, what ever single conceivable fact was, whether Alister had played every hole in every conceivable condition etc, before he be allowed to be critical of Taylor, the architect?

Of course not. Criticism is what this the entire subject of architecture and this website is based on. That's what they wanted to encourage back then and Tom MacWood should ask here if modern architects would benefit from more of it today.

Nobody needed Pat Mucci's perscription for what constitutes the grounds for critcism back then and they don't need it now either.

If somebody criticizes somebody and makes a poor case of it anybody reading it who cares will very likely see that. That's all that needs to take place with criticism.

[Paul Turner]

Slag

Yes, I remember when it was first reported on GCA, really sad.  I feel that clubs should perhaps keep much of the really valuable memorabilia in a fire proof safe.  With today's copying techniques, excellent copies of photos, plans etc could be displayed instead.

My dad was a member at Mid Surrey in th 70s, he really likes the course.  It's prone to flooding from the Thames and once he saw a chap in a canoe going down the 8th(?) fairway!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Some possible "Alpinization's" at Merion-West.

[Slag_Bandoon]

Anybody have any link to images of Royal Mid-Surrey GC ?

Tommy, that tree trunk in the 2nd picture looks like he's saying..."What happened here?!"

[LIRR]

Tommy Naccarato,

but I do have to ask, what would the differences be if Rees Jones or Tom Fazio were doing the restoration work at Garden City instead of Tom Doak?

It may be difficult for an outsider to know and understand what actually takes place within a club.  It may also be easy for outsiders to draw conclusions when they're far removed from the club.  You have to know what the club wants to do, not what outsiders want you to do.

Many members feel that the 12th hole would have been  restored by now had another architect been active at Garden City.  Tom Doak has been active at Garden City for a dozen years and not the 12th hole remains unchanged.  
Tom Doak injected his interpretation of restoration into several holes including the 14th hole, but the bunkering fronting the green doesn't look anything like it did in previous pictures of the golf course.  Recently, the large bunker to the front right of # 17 green was destroyed, chopped up into three or four little bunkers including a grass bunker.  This was a horrible atleration, a major and inexcusable departure from Garden City's architecture.  If Jones or Fazio did this to Garden City the outrage on this site would have lasted for a year.  Tom Doak proposed other changes that were clear departures from what had been historically grounded at Garden City.  He also resisted true restoration efforts on holes such as # 7 that were proposed by various members and supported by many members.  But you and others hold him up as some sort of patron saint without having so much as a clue as to what is going on at the Golf Club.  There has been a recent changing of the guard and many members are optimistic that conditions will improve and that true, not interpretive restoration work may begin in the near future.

When you're not privy to information known to the members , I wouldn't be so quick to tell members what you think would have happened at or to Garden City under a hypothetical setting.  They may know a lot more than you and a lot more than they are willing to reveal.

Tom Doak has become a big shot architect like Jones and Fazio, and he doesn't seem to have the time to devote to Garden City.  In addition, he resisted valid restoration ideas brought forth by several members.  I wonder if Jones and  Fazio would have been so close minded to those restoration efforts.

Don't worry about what Jones and Fazio might have done to Garden City, worry about what Doak has and hasn't done at Garden City.

[TEPaul]

LIRR wrote:

"It may be difficult for an outsider to know and understand what actually takes place within a club.  It may also be easy for outsiders to draw conclusions when they're far removed from the club.  You have to know what the club wants to do, not what outsiders want you to do."

There's no question of that whatsoever! I couldn't agree with that more.

LIRR also wrote;

"Tom Doak injected his interpretation of restoration into several holes including the 14th hole, but the bunkering fronting the green doesn't look anything like it did in previous pictures of the golf course.  Recently, the large bunker to the front right of # 17 green was destroyed, chopped up into three or four little bunkers including a grass bunker. This was a horrible atleration, a major and inexcusable departure from Garden City's architecture.  If Jones or Fazio did this to Garden City the outrage on this site would have lasted for a year.  Tom Doak proposed other changes that were clear departures from what had been historically grounded at Garden City.  He also resisted true restoration efforts on holes such as # 7 that were proposed by various members and supported by many members.  But you and others hold him up as some sort of patron saint without having so much as a clue as to what is going on at the Golf Club.  There has been a recent changing of the guard and many members are optimistic that conditions will improve and that true, not interpretive restoration work may begin in the near future."

LIRR;

I don't know that I've ever heard on this website Tom Doak held up as any kind of patron saint for anything he's done at GCGC. In line with the first quote from you it's obviously true that very few seem to know any details about what Doak did or didn't do at GCGC.

He's gotten a lot of praise on here for the new construction work he's done and everyone who's seen a course like Yeaman's seem to praise his restoration there.

So, why did thing go so wrong in your opinion at GCGC? You say that a few members recommended some things be done differently and you even said many members supported those recommendations but the point here is did the members who make or made the decisions around GCGC want what you mentioned others recommended? Were the ones who really did make the decisions around GCGC disappointed in what Tom Doak did there too?

But still, without many or any of us knowing anything about the restoration of GCGC one would have to think with a course like that with so much architectural history that if the club or Doak had the research available and the old photographs they all would've wanted to restore to that at this point. Why, in your opinion, did things get interpretive or need to?

We've all heard a lot on here about GCGC's #12 hole and that's a very interesting case that's been talked about on here plenty. It'd be great to see a radically unusual and obviously unique green like that one originally was restored back as near to what it was as practicable--but with that green clearly a huge accent needs to be put on "practicable".

We also know who redesigned #12 in the first place.

It'd be great to hear more detail about what's going on at GCGC on here but I sure can understand why you may not want to put too much on here.

Not only do a lot of contributors to this site not know what's going on inside the club at GCGC, as you said, but it certainly wouldn't suprise me if GCGC would just as soon keep it that way. Most private clubs I run into certainly don't seem that interested in reporting every single architectural detail about what goes on in the decison making at the club on the world wide Internet.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Not to hijack your thread, but I think the immediate concern and focus at GCGC is getting the course fast and firm so that it epitomizes your maintainance meld.

You may recall that I mentioned playing and experiencing soft approaches on many holes, including # 10 and # 13.  
When shots hit 2 to 3 feet short of the green make a pitch mark and back up, rather than run onto the green, you know something is amiss.

Hopefully, GCGC will a shining example of your "Maintainance meld" in a season or two, at the most.

[rees jones]

I do not think if I did the work at GCGC that the argueing would have gone on for a year because i would have Pat Mucci defending the work and others would get worn out and eventually give up.

I do know that whatever happens on a course is the responsibility of the owner/developer/members and not the architect therefore Mr. Doak is not guilty at GCGC.  Thank goodness I am also not responsible for anything at Atlantic or Sandpines or LPGA national.

All i want to know is if Mr. Doak adhered to the mandate of the club? maybe there were environmental aspects and numerous other defenses, goodness knows I have heard them all as they have been justification for my "style"

LIRR it is you who is responsible for your course and I suggest you hire me immediately and perhaps I can undo the buthering that has taken place at GCGC. The cutting up of bunkers sounds like it is out of my playbook

[TEPaul]

Pat;

I sure do hope so because if any course needs the "ideal maintenance meld" on the really firm and fast end of the spectrum it would certainly be Garden City.

With it, that is exactly the kind of course that would really sing! "Through the green" a course like that is an absolute no brainer for really firm and fast but the correct firmness of the green surfaces as often as possible would be the real key to it all to me, particularly for the better player.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Paul,

I think the big picture issues early in the Golden Age for Ross, et al, was the notion of adapting a practical version of golf to different landscapes around the world, as copying them exactly didn't work, for a lot of agronomic and pyhcological reasons.

Golf design is influenced both by the aim of recreating the natural links look of the original courses in Scotland, but also by landscape architecture, and America's almost surreal drive to recreate the mythic, idealized English country side with home lawns, clusters of trees, etc.  Apparently, the consensus was that the English landscape looked more at home in tpical suburban country clubs than a seaside look.

I saw no mention of the practical effect of irrigation and power mowers on those sharp mounds, with long grass, once popular.  Fescues, often used to recreate the dunes look, fare well with natural rainfall in the NE and presumably in Scotland/England.  When courses got irrigation, they couldn't maintain the grasses in long wispy condition, as they got too thick.  When they got power mowers, they had to soften or eliminate slopes.  Choclate Drops, or other similar steep mounding went out of style.

Today, with enough budget, you could put part circle sprinklers facing away from specific mound areas, to keep them dry.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff,
Can you identify the type of grass that covers those mounds that is in those images from Royal Mid Surrey? It would be appreciated if you could.