John LOW - 10 principles for course design

[Sébastien Dhaussy]

I've read on some sites that John LOW described 10 principles for golf course design in his book "Concerning golf".

I've made a research on Internet to read them but I was unable to find them.  

Is any GCAer can help me by writing them ?

Thanks.

[Steven_Biehl]

I have got a list of 11 principles:

1. A golf course should provide entertainment for the high and medium handicapper while at the same time present a searching and difficult test for the accomplished golfer.

2. The one aim of inventors is to reduce the skill required for golf. Golf architects must wage a battle against inventors by designing courses that emphasize golfing skills over equipment.

3. The shortest, most direct line to the hole, even if it be the centre of the fairway, should be fraught with danger.

4. The architect must allow the ground to dictate play. The good architect sees that there is a special interest for the accomplished golfer in each stroke, just as the billiard player always has in mind the next stroke or strokes.

5. The fairway must be orientated to both the tee and the green, thereby stressing the importance of placing the tee shot in a position from which the green can be approached with safety.

6. Bunkers should be used sparingly by the architect. Except on one-shot holes, they should never be placed within 200 yards of the tee. Ridges and depressions are the best way of controlling an entrance to the green. The best hazard on a course is a fairway bunker 200 to 235 yards from the tee, placed five to ten yards off the accomplished player's most favourable line to the green.

7. Wherever possible, putting greens should be of the low, narrow plateau type, with the plateau tilting away, not toward the player. No green should be higher at the back than it is in front, for that gives a player confidence. Only half the flagstick should be seen from where the approach shot should be played.

8. A course should never pretend to be, nor is it intended to be, an infallible tribunal of skill alone. The element of chance is the very essence of the game, part of the fun of the game.

9. All really great golf holes involve a contest of wits and risks. No one should attempt to copy a great hole because so much may depend on its surroundings as well as some features miles away in the background which influence and affect the play of the hole. If the terrain is suitable, some of the character of the original might be incorporated elsewhere.

10. Inequalities of putting green surfaces should not be exaggerated. A tilt from front to back, or left to right or vice versa is sufficient. There should always be a special position for the flag on important days.

11. Committees should leave well enough alone, especially when they have a really fine course.


An very interesting list.  How many courses built today uphold some of these?

[Forrest Richardson]

Not having the book, I am glad someone here was able to figure it out for you.

A favorite quote of mine was Low referring to one-shotters:

"The short hole should not be long."

I think that is a brilliant summary of a par-3, don't you?

[peter_p]

You do have it. It is in Cornish/Whitten "The Golf Course" in Low's bio.

[Sébastien Dhaussy]

Steven,

Thanks for the list. I greatly appreciate your help.

Forrest,

I like this quote too. One of my favourites is on the bunkers : "Bunkers, if they be good bunkers, and bunkers of strong character, refuse to be disregarded and insist on asserting themselves; they do not mind being avoided, but they decline to be ignored".


 

[Jeff_Mingay]

Forrest,

That Low quote sounds more like Yogi Berra  

[Forrest Richardson]

Many people don't realize that Low and Berra were cousins*.

Unfortunately, I sold my Cornish & Whitten book last year. Got $1,700** from an anonymous bidder in Montclair, N.J.***

(*No, not really.)
(**No, not really.)
(***Probably not true.)

[Tom_Doak]

That is a great set of rules.  

Rules 7 and 8 would prevent Mr. Low from making a living as a golf course architect, but he was a staunch defender of the principles of the royal and ancient game and it is a shame those principles are so far gone today as to seem completely out of left field.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom — Why do you think Rule 8 would not be welcomed? The element of luck cannot be designed out of golf no matter what.

[T_MacWood]

You won't find those principles in Concerning Golf, they come from an article in a British golf magazine. Tom Simpson embraced those principles completely...including #7 and #8. He was a devoted Low desciple.

[Forrest Richardson]

As long as I subscribe to the notion that "The short hole should not be long," I too, am ( I guess) a Low follower. I recall that these were reprinted in the USGA Green Section Report. I first read them in 2000 when researching Routing the Golf Course. Somewhere between books and notebooks full of papers, I am certain, it exists within our office.

[T_MacWood]

Forrest
I think I've read that statement too.

I suspect it was said in the context of discussing holes of proper length, which was a popular architectural topic. There were those who believed that a well-designed hole involved only full shots--par-4s two full shots and par-5s three full shots, as opposed to a drive and pitch or drive, full-shot then a pitch. It also applied to par-3s...which is probably why Low said what he said.

[ForkaB]

Forrest
There were those who believed that a well-designed hole involved only full shots--par-4s two full shots and par-5s three full shots, as opposed to a drive and pitch or drive, full-shot then a pitch. It also applied to par-3s...which is probably why Low said what he said.

I think that Pat Mucci also belongs to that School, which is good!

[BCrosby]

A couple of other Low quotes:

- No hazard is unfair wherever it is placed.

- The true hazard should draw the player towards it, should invite the golfer to come as near to the fire he dares without burning his fingers.

- Every fresh hole we play should teach us some new possibility of using our strokes and suggest to us a further step in the process of our golfing knowledge.

Low was a wonderful writer with strong opinions about gca. He was decades ahead of his time and vastly underrated in the literature.

Bob

[Greg Holland]

Bob Crosby wrote 2 really good essays on John Low and his impact on modern golf architecture.  I recently found them, and commend them to you.  The essays appeared in the British Golf Collectors’ Society magazine, Through the Green in 2009 and 2010. 

[Sean_A]

I am not confident how much Low fought against the Haskell was due to that iteration of the ball or because of what the future might bring (the Heavy may have been the real take notice moment for instance).  I raise the question because it seems to me the Haskell was longer than previous balls almost exclusively because of the run after landing. This seems to me to go hand in glove with f&f conditions and a perfect fit with the so called "Scottish Game".  This is a totally different prospect from today's long carry ball which can make many well placed hazards obsolete for elite players. I guess a corollary question is was the length of the ball primarily couched in elite terms as is in effect the case today?

Any thoughts?

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Question - guttie vrs Haskell - was there a cost difference?
Atb

[Adam Lawrence]

I've never seen anything that highlighted a major difference in cost between the gutty and the Haskell, so I conclude that any difference was likely relatively small.


As I'm sure you know, the cheapness of the gutty by comparison to the feathery played a very important role in the first golf boom, that which took the game from being a niche interest on the east coast of Scotland through the second part of the 19th century.

[Niall C]

No doubt this thread has been bumped as a consequence of the Fried Egg broadcast with Bob which I've just enjoyed listening to. To answer Seans question it strikes me that while JLL undoubtedly had concerns as to how it would all turn out I think it was also in his nature as a conservative and traditionalist to object to the novelty of the haskell. As I think Bob alluded to it was also part of a power struggle for control between the traditionalist/conservatives and the newbie/modernists.


In terms of objections to the haskell, one of the main objections was that it closed the gap between the less skilled and the top players. I'm not sure that is the case now. The pro's get a lot more out of a pro V than I'll ever do.


Adam,


I'm not very good with old money but the cost difference for a gutty and a haskell and simliar was quite significant and continued to be for most of the first decade of the 1900's at least.


Niall

[BCrosby]

I had forgotten this thread. Thanks for the bump.


My understanding is that prices for the Haskell and its competitor balls (the Haskell lost its UK patent in 1907 and had lots of competition thereafter) came down fairly dramatically after 1905 or so. I have not looked into it in any detail. What is clear, however, is that by 1905 almost everyone was playing with a wound core ball.


Bob 

[Niall C]

Bob


Co-incidentally I had just finished looking into the Haskell court cases as I'm still doing research on Willie Fernie and he was involved to a small but not insignificant extent in the decision. Following the final appeal going in favour of the defendants, Hutchinson and Main, they got together with other golf ball manufacturers and basically fixed the price in a way that would be illegal these days. That state at least existed until 1908 or 1909, such that it was reported a lot of golfers were recovering their rubber cored balls in the same way that they used to do with the gutta, in order to save money.


What I'd be interested to know is what impact did the UK court case have on the manufacture of balls in the US. Did Haskell lose their monopoly ?


As an aside, when Haskell set up in the UK, WH Fowler was a director of the UK company.


Niall

[BCrosby]

Niall -


Interesting. The Haskell did not lose its US patent rights; they expired several years later, though I forget the date. The UK case is fascinating. Many Brits thought it was wrongly decided. The decision turned on a "prior art" argument, the prior art being a child's ball produced in the late 1890s. Is that consistent with your research?


I would like to know more about the price fixing. Certainly the use of the American ball was pervasive within a couple of years after it appeared in the UK, seemingly without regard to its price. Darwin notes at one point that it was hard to find a gutty for sale.


It was a fascinating period. Year after year dozens of new, better balls appeared on the market unconstrained by any rule or regulation. Things reached the point that the delegates to the Amateur, concerned in 1912 that the variety of balls raised questions about whether the competition would be on an apples to apples basis, asked the R&A to adopt a standard ball. The R&A took no action at the time, but it was the beginning of a long, complicated story. John Low, who became the chairman of the rules committee the next year, was at the middle of it.


Bob

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks for these historical insights.

One of the reasons I raised the query about different balls and prices, and I was thinking of the change from featheries too, is the extent that the price of a ball, or rather the price of a replacement to one that’s just been lost, could effect course maintenance, maybe even design?
In other words, and thinking aloud as it were, the cheaper the ball the less inclined folks might be to look for one that’s just been whacked into long grass, scrub, brush, trees, water and the like and as the relative price of the ball declined during the latter 1900’s did it contribute to the reduction in the open aspect nature of golf courses?
Atb

[Adam Lawrence]

Bob

As an aside, when Haskell set up in the UK, WH Fowler was a director of the UK company.


Niall

That probably means the UK company didn't make much, if any money. Fowler was a disaster as a businessman.

[Adam Clayman]

It's fair to conclude that the only constant, is the loss of principles?