[DMoriarty]

One of the sticking points in the discussion on golf design and the Arts and Crafts Movement is whether or not there is was a period of golf course design which can accurately be described as Victorian and/or Industrial.  I thought it was a worthy question alone.   Also, breaking down the issue might help us get back the excessive verbage on the larger issue.  

Was there ever such a period?   Who were the designers?  What were the courses?


_____________________________________________
For those without any idea of what "Victorian golf architecture" might look like, I offer these two descriptions (with my bolds added) . . .

"[Willie Park, Jr.] was one of the first-- I think we might also agree that he was the first-- to perceive the possibilities of inland golf course construction on a finder, grander scale than we know now. . . . Up to then the manner of designing and making a hole was to put a plain straight bank across the course in fron to be driven over, this arrangement while a a little sand in front of it, being known as a bunker, and, if the hole were long enough there was a simialr contrivance setup immediately in front of the putting green.  Generally nothing more was necessary. . . . None of these things were beautiful to look upon, they gave no character to the holes, this being supplied only by local natural features as trees, watercourses and ponts; they were not the least interesting, and they made most holes look very much like each other.  Nor did they tend to the smallest improvement in the game of the player.  This was Victorian golf architecture, the standard for which was set by that indefatigable master of it, Willie Dunn . . . . Willie Park perceived that there would soon be a demand for something much better and he set himself to devise it, to give to inland course some of the attributes of those at the seaside where the holes were fashioned by Nature and abounded in features of strong character..  . . . This scheme marked the beginning of the new principles in course architecture that have since revolutionized the whole of inland golf not only in England, but in parts of the continent of Europe, all over the US, Canada, and everywhere. . . ."
      -- Henry Leach, 'Park and the Past,' The American Golfer, March 1917

"In the Victorian era 50 years ago, almost all new golf courses were planned by professionals, and were, incidentially, amazingly bad.  They were built up with mathematical precision, a cop bunker extending from the rough on the one side, to the rough on the other, and a similar cop bunker placed for the second shot.  There was an entire absence of strategy, interest and excitemjent except where some natural irremovable object intervened to prevent the designer carrying out his nefarious plans.  
. . .
In the early days, all artificially made inland courses were designed on similar stereotyped lines."
           -- Alister MacKenzie, Spirit of St. Andrews

[DMoriarty]

Not sure if this qualifies, or who did the original design, but here is a crop from a large panorama photograph of Annandale C.C. (1910) in Pasadena from the Library of Congress Photograph Archives.

[TEPaul]

"One of the sticking points in the discussion on golf design and the Arts and Crafts Movement is whether or not there is was a period of golf course design which can accurately be described as Victorian and/or Industrial."

DavidM:

This is a good thread to have to clarify the other thread on what the real influence of the "arts and craft" movement may or may not have been on the architecture of the era called the "Golden Age".

It's easy to use any term for some era but the question is whether or not that term is descriptive of the influences on what was done in that era.

It's easy to call golf architecture of the era preceding the Golden Age of golf architecture "Victorian" or "Industrial" golf architecture, not the least reason being they were all concurrent, but does that just mean the architecture of that era was during the Victorian or Industrial age or does it mean that some things about the Victorian age or Industrial age iteself actually influenced the look or structure of golf architecture of that time?

Personally, I tend to think the look and structure of that age of architecture (some call it the "geometric" age or even the "Dark Ages") that preceded the Golden Age of golf architecture was primarily influenced by a number of other things that did not necessarily emanate from Victorianism or industrialism, although one might fairly credit Victorianism or industrialism as an influence if one was to assume or conclude that a certain sense of an "orderliness" or an "order of things" was a particular identifying characteristic of Victorianism or industrialism that was perceived to be necessarily in golf architecture during that time.

But other than that I believe early golf architecture was basically influenced by the early rudimentariness of man-made architecture (as this was that early time when man first began to actually practice man-made golf architecture) and probably more influenced by what Max Behr often referred to as "the game mind of man". We also can't forget that early golf architecture during this time was done extremely quickly even if by linksman such as Old Tom Morris or the Dunns.

In a little while I'll quote a few paragraphs from Max Behr's essays on this subject and I think it might make the influences on this early era of golf architecture preceding the Golden Age clearer.

[TEPaul]

       "Nature was gracious and kind when it spread before our forefathers that peculiar and undulating ground known as the linksland which the receding sea had left, as it were, especially designed as a playground for golf.....The softness of sea air, the purity of vegetation, the distant horizon and the spring of turf under foot, all went to present a beguiling aspect of Nature in its vastness and in its simplicity. And the idea that man projected into these surroundings was as simple. To strike a little ball and consecrate the task by playing it into a little hole was as naive an enterprise, and yet as ominious, as the patient struggle of vegetation to conquer the white army of the booming deep among the dunes.
         So lovable was this adventure that man was not content to pursue it apart in its natural habitation, but (must needs sic) transport it to situations unaccommodating to its playing. But to transport it he had to commit a sacrilege---he had to analyze it, tear it to pieces the more easily to pack in in his mind. And, in doing, he did not realize that what he carried away with him was the letter only, and that he left behind something intangible, that property of unsullied nature, innocent beauty undefiled as yet by the hand of man.
         It was inevitable that the first review of linksland golf should have engendered a type of architecture ("geometric", "Victorian" or "Industrial Age" MY WORDS) which disclosed a conscious adhesion to a formal order of things. It was not to be expected that the mind would immediately seize the sensual appeal of native golf. Hence, it was not considered in the construction of our first inland courses (see the above parentheses). The natural architecture of linksland, passed through the sieve of the mind, came out utilitarian in aspect and mathematical in form (see above parentheses). The novice in landscape gardening cannot see the planting of trees otherwise than in rows, nor the lawn in front of his house otherwise than in a series of terraces. The conscious mind delights in the fitness of things, in the easily comprehensible, and thus dwells on the surface of phenomena.
        Indeed, appearances are never transferable. They are always the product of certain relationships which exist once, and are only appropriate to a certain condition. Hence, the impossibility in transfering the aspect of the linksland. This had to be left behind. But that which in the linksland appealed unconsciously to the golfer was the absecence of the evidence of man's handiwork. He was in the presence of Nature unsustained by artificiality.
          The merit of this gradually came to be realized. Its recognition is revealed in the efforts now being made to achieve naturalness in the construction of the various features that go to make up a golf course........"

Art in Golf Architecture
Max Behr

(This is an excellent explanation of what Behr often referred to as the "game mind of man"----eg Man's inherent inclination to perfectly define and order such things as the field of play of games--tennis, baseball, football etc. The basic idea was to construct mathematical order so physical skill could be more easily identified----not necessarily thought (what he referred to as "a call on intelligence") in analyzing the other potential opponent---Nature itself. The latter Behr referred to as "sport" (the inclusion of Nature itself in the endeavor) as opposed to a "game" where the orderliness of the field of contest is static and mathematically defined.)

Was this inherent inclination of man to construct order and mathematical precision in early rudimentary man-made golf architecture a result or primary influence from Victorianism or the Industrial Age alone? I think not. I think it was simply as Behr said it was---an inherent natural inclination of Man to construct order. Otherwise Man would not have constructed the balanced and straight line order of Greek and Roman classical building architecture some 2000 years previous, would he? The very thing the "arts and crafts" movement reacted to and rejected so many decades later in England.

The A/C movement generally inspired a return to the individualism in building architecture and craft construction (furniture and man-made objects) that was a reversion back to Medieval times (the antithesis of Greek and Roman classical architecture) that was more in tune with the "nature of place". However, Medieval architecture probably co-existed with Greek and Roman classical architecture in this world for practically 2000 years.

But golf course architecture merely turned back to that intangible aspect of linksland golf (Nature itself) and began to create a man-made imititation of Nature after a brief and rudimentary sojourn in geometric man-made architecture following golf's departure from its first and formerly only home---the linksland! This period did not last more than 20-35 years before the likes of Park Jr FIRST rekindled the Natural aspect of golf architecture from the linksland for the first time outside the linksland in the form of Sunningdale and Huntercombe in the English heathlands just outside London.

Parks was a Scottish linksman, and in my opinion, this was the primary influence on the beginning of the type of man-made golf architecture outside the linksland to follow that eventually through the emergence of heathland architecture (and onto America) came to be called the "Golden Age" of golf archtiecture.

And this influence on the era of the Golden Age was the primary initial influence on the "Golden Age" just as the literature on golf architecture has said it was for the last 100 years. Again, this is not to say the A/C movement as a reaction to Greek and Roman classical building architecture or Victorianism or the Industrial Age did not have some influnence on Golden Age architecture just not a primary influence as was the influence of the rekindled interest and model of the linksland! Again, as the literature of golf architecture has also maintained for the last 100 or so years.

I believe the 100 or so year long literature of the primary and most important influences on the evolution of golf architecture has always been essentially accurate and correct. That literature did not miss some primary influence, in my opinion. It did not often include or mention the arts and crafts movement for a good reason. A/C influence may've been there and residual as an influence but never a primary influence as was the linksland/heathlands.

[Bill Gayne]

This is an interesting thread. I decided to take a look at one of the leading architects of the industrail age and that would be Ralph Walker. Walker designed the Barclay and Vessey Building in Manhattan in 1923.



It is described as follows: "So it is not a rectangular block, it is on an oddly shaped trapezoidal block. It was designed by the architectural firm of McKenzie, Voorhees & Gmelin. This firm had been designing telephone company buildings since the nineteenth century and although the firm had different names, it was actually the same firm. So when this commission came to the firm, it was no big deal. They gave it to an associate named Ralph Walker, a very talented young associate, to design this building. Walker was very influenced by Saarinen's design and was interested in how to turn the zoning law to his advantage, and how to design buildings with dramatic setback massings that would make the buildings an important and dynamic part of the skyline of New York.

And so Ralph Walker designs one of the great buildings of the 1920s. It has a solid horizontal base and then it has the soaring verticals with window bays between vertical piers just as on Saarinen's design. It has very dramatic setbacks marked by buttresses and sculpture until you reach the top with its limestone detailing and its sculptural work. This building was widely published and it captured the imagination of New Yorkers. It was also very influential in getting other designers to use these kinds of forms on the city's architecture. It was so successful that Ralph Walker became a partner in the firm, which became known as Voorhees, Gmelin & Walker. And Walker designed several other very important skyscrapers in the 1920s.

The top of the building, as you can see, is very dramatic. You were supposed to be able to enjoy this building and experience its drama from both close up and from far away. This building, which, when it was completed in 1926, was right on the waterfront, now cannot be seen from the water because of Battery Park City. It was in an area of relatively low-rise commercial buildings, so this building towered over all the nearby buildings in order to be visible both from the water and from the land. Its top would capture your attention, and on the lower floors the ornament was very complex so you could also enjoy this building from close up. Walker, like Sullivan before him, wanted to use an ornamental vocabulary that was not historically based, and he actually invented his own style of ornament, which has this very complex foliate design in which are interspersed little babies and animal heads."

Some of the key words that make the design of the industrial age sky scraper analogous to industrial age golf courses are: Oddly shaped trapezoidal, dramatic setbacks, part of the skyline, horizontal base, soaring verticals, dramatic setbacks, detailing at the top, capture the imagination, experience the drama close up and far away, very complex, not historically based.  

[T_MacWood]

I like Behr's description of those early courses. He uses an interesting term that was also used by Horace Hutchinson--landscape gardener or links gardener. Those early geometric symmetrical designs were comparable to formality and geometric symmetry found in Victorian gardens.

Behr is an appropriate person to insert into this discussion, if ever their was a man who was sympathetic to the A&C aesthetic it was he--it can be seen in his writing, as well as his fabulous home and the furnishings within his home.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom MacWood,
I couldn't agree more.

[Tom_Doak]

There are certainly exceptions to the rule   but when I read Behr's description:

"The natural architecture of linksland, passed through the sieve of the mind, came out utilitarian in aspect and mathematical in form."

I think of professional golfers as architects.  Most of them tend to simplify design into the terms of their own games, and don't do very well at blending the golf course into the natural terrain.  This is as true of some in the modern era as it was of the professionals of 1890.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said;

“I like Behr's description of those early courses. He uses an interesting term that was also used by Horace Hutchinson--landscape gardener or links gardener. Those early geometric symmetrical designs were comparable to formality and geometric symmetry found in Victorian gardens.”

Tom MacW:

Wouldn’t that be the same balanced and geometrically symmetrical lines found 2000 years previous in Greek and Roman architecture? I think Behr described it best when he mentioned ‘architecture which disclosed a conscious adhesion to a formal order of things'. I doubt Behr was speaking purely of Victorianism and the Age of the Industrial Revolution but more about what he often referred to as the “game mind of man” which was basically his explanation of Man’s inherent inclination to mathematically formal order be it Greek or Roman architecture, Victorian precision or geometric, symmetric and balanced lines in recreational games. In all of Behr’s essays he talks a good deal about the influence of the linksland in a return to naturalness in golf architectrure and never mentions the A/C movement. Why do you suppose that is?

Behr said;

“It was inevitable that the first review of linksland golf should have engendered a type of architecture which disclosed a conscious adhesion to a formal order of things.”

This is when he said in my quote of him above that Man initially took only the letter of golf out of the linkland but did not understand initially to take the important intangibleness of Nature's aspect of the linksland as he went on to inland sites and rudimentary symmetrical lay outs for about 20-30 years;

Behr said;

“And, in doing, he did not realize that what he carried away with him was the letter only, and that he left behind something intangible, that property of unsullied nature, innocent beauty undefiled as yet by the hand of man.”

I’m interested in being a bit more distinct and discriminating, more historically accurate, in fact, in the investigation and study of this time and what it's primary influences were. You, on the other hand, seem completely capable of finding a primary influence from the A/C movement in practically everything. I can understand why you do that---you’re completely fixated on the A/C movement and your point that Golden Age architecture should be renamed “arts and crafts” architecture. That fixation tends to make you completely generalize to stretch the reality of history to fit your present point.

Tom Doak said;

“There are certainly exceptions to the rule  but when I read Behr's description:”

And he requoted Behr;

"The natural architecture of linksland, passed through the sieve of the mind, came out utilitarian in aspect and mathematical in form."

That’s true. But did the Dunns, for instance, do what they did in inland architecture because they’d become totally imbued with Victorianism and the age of the Industrial Revolution (if that were actually the first instance that Man inherently created formal order in architecture)? I think not. They were linksman who as Behr mentioned were simply inclined to create a formal order of things as Behr implied Man had inherently been doing at least from the times of architecture in Greece and Roman, perhaps for 2000 years, perhaps for even longer. perhaps forever. Look at the backgammon board, for instance, or Chess, they are games of symmetry, balance and mathematical order that may be as old as the pyramids, perhaps older. Behr’s “game mind of man”=symmetry, balance and mathematical order---a human inclination to formally order things. In my mind and apparently in Behr's too that did not begin with Victorianism or the Age of the Industrial Revolution.

The A/C movement was certainly a reaction to and rejection of man-made balance and symmetry and mathematical precision and a return to things more natural. For that the A/C practitioners apparently looked to Medieval times. The linksman in the person of Park and those naturalist golf architects who were inspired by him and followed him merely looked back 20-30 years subsequent to that time when golf only resided in the natural linksland. That was their natural model and their influence that a few early linksman neglected to take with them out of the linksland into early indland golf, and not some Medieval atmosphere or context that was concurrent with the order and balance of classical architecture for perhaps 2000 years.

[DMoriarty]

TomP,

I too welcome Max Behr to the conversation, and welcome you to the conversation as well.  

Before I attempt to delve into your points on Behr, I have a few comments and questions.

You correctly caution that we must be careful when assigning golf courses to a particular era, and I couldn't agree more.  You then delve into the possible motivations, inclinations, and influence behind this period of golf design (for now I'll term it "Early Inland," probably inexact but hopefully a neutral and acceptable term.)  I wonder if we might be getting ahead of ourselves . . .

Specifically,  shouldn't we first clarify whether there was such a period in GCA?  And if there was, shouldnt we make sure we understand the common characteristics of Early Inland golf design?  And while it may be impossible to adequately catalogue, perhaps we need some examples of Early Inland courses and their common features?

The reason I ask is that I thought these were still hotly contested issues.  

[TEPaul]

David:

I'm not sure I want to spend five pages clarifying "terms" with you but for now what is it you want to clarify this time? If you are one of those lawyers who works by the hour I surer than hell wouldn't want to hire you---I'd go broke just clarifying "terms".  

[T_MacWood]

David
I think you can add Behr to the long list of observers who acknowledge there was a Victorian/Dark/Industrial Age:

 "So lovable was this adventure that man was not content to pursue it apart in its natural habitation, but transport it to situations unaccommodating to its playing. But to transport it he had to commit a sacrilege---he had to analyze it, tear it to pieces the more easily to pack in in his mind. And, in doing, he did not realize that what he carried away with him was the letter only, and that he left behind something intangible, that property of unsullied nature, innocent beauty undefiled as yet by the hand of man.
 
 It was inevitable that the first review of linksland golf should have engendered a type of architecture which disclosed a conscious adhesion to a formal order of things. It was not to be expected that the mind would immediately seize the sensual appeal of native golf. Hence, it was not considered in the construction of our first inland courses. The natural architecture of linksland, passed through the sieve of the mind, came out utilitarian in aspect and mathematical in form. The novice in landscape gardening cannot see the planting of trees otherwise than in rows, nor the lawn in front of his house otherwise than in a series of terraces. The conscious mind delights in the fitness of things, in the easily comprehensible, and thus dwells on the surface of phenomena."

What I find interesting about Behr's comments is the irony. These products of the natural links built courses that are utterly unnatural.

 "The novice in landscape gardening cannot see the planting of trees otherwise than in rows, nor the lawn in front of his house otherwise than in a series of terraces. The conscious mind delights in the fitness of things, in the easily comprehensible, and thus dwells on the surface of phenomena."

The conscious mind of that period was conditioned to think: order, symmetry and formality.

[Adam_F_Collins]

David
I think you can add Behr to the long list of observers who acknowledge there was a Victorian/Dark/Industrial Age:

 "The novice in landscape gardening cannot see the planting of trees otherwise than in rows, nor the lawn in front of his house otherwise than in a series of terraces. The conscious mind delights in the fitness of things, in the easily comprehensible, and thus dwells on the surface of phenomena."

The conscious mind of that period was conditioned to think: order, symmetry and formality.

I'm sure there was a dark age. But the question is wether it was born of the Industrial/Victorian ideals or wether it was just novice design and simply poorly done.

I know from being a teacher of graphic design today, that it is a natural tendency of human beings to arrange things in symmetrical order. We are symmetrical beings - two eyes, ears, arms, legs, equal sizes, equal spacing. The things we have one of are generally placed in the middle. We are naturally attracted to symmetry by virtue of the the fact that are physically arranged that way. It is our most primitive sense of order.

So for people to attempt to move out and build golf courses as the demand rose (just as it did for public park development), by no means meant that they had to be especially good at it. They just had the right connection to the right people, said the right things and got the job. Professional design of any kind is first and foremost a SOCIAL activity - before a formal one, and it could well be that some of these so-called "Victorian" golf course designers where simply good at the social part - and bad at the formal part.

Have we considered wether or not it is possible that some of those quoted - such as Dr. MacKenzie - who referred to "Victorian" golf design, might have done so simply for the sake of their own marketing?

Could the popularity of the natural environment for health and well-being, and interest in nature as "good and right" have influenced some of the designers of the time to use the term "Victorian" as a way of creating bad press for their competitors?

Did Dunn ever refer to his own work as Victorian?

And what about clients? Could it be that some clients pressed for some of these formal arrangements?

Beyond that, there is the basic mathematical aspect of golf - the different clubs, with different lofts, travelling different distances. These numerical foundations lend themselves easily to formulaic arrangements - many of which modern architects still fight today -
(and it ain't because of any Victorian aesthetic.)

Formulaic arrangement is most likely one of the most basic pitfalls of golf course architecture and always has been. But I think that has a lot to do with the nature of the game itself - with its numeric foundations - combined with the fact that in any business, there's a good 3/4 in the field that might be better doing something else - because they're just not that good at what they're doing.

[T_MacWood]

Adam
How do you separate any design from the artistic and aesthetic of the time?

"Have we considered wether or not it is possible that some of those quoted - such as Dr. MacKenzie - who referred to "Victorian" golf design, might have done so simply for the sake of their own marketing?"

Yes

"Could the popularity of the natural environment for health and well-being, and interest in nature as "good and right" have influenced some of the designers of the time to use the term "Victorian" as a way of creating bad press?"

I don't understand your question.

"Did Dunn ever refer to his work as Victorian?"

I've never read anything TD wrote...I doubt it.

"And what about clients? Could it be that some clients pressed for some of these formal arrangements?"

It's possible. It is also possible that the designs of Colt, MacKenzie and Simpson should be credited to their clients.

"Beyond that, there is the basic mathematical aspect of golf - the differnt clubs, with different lofts, travelling different distances. These numerical foundations lend themselves easily to formulaic arrangements - many of which modern architects still fight today -
(and it ain't because of any Victorian aesthetic.)"

Explain what impact it had upon ancient links, Victorian and golden age architecute.

"Formulaic arrangement is most likely one of the most basic pitfalls of golf course architecture and always has been. But I think that has a lot to do with the nature of the game itself - with its numeric foundations - combined with the fact that in any business, there's a good 3/4 in the field that might be better doing something else - because they're just not that good at what they do."

Would you descirbe the natural evolved links as formulaic?

[Adam_F_Collins]

Adam
How do you separate any design from the artistic and aesthetic of the time?

>> I don't. At the time, we have the Victorian, Arts and Crafts as well as Classical influences and most certainly others. I'm not separating anything. Beyond that, I'm asking that we also remember that we can't separate mankind in any era from his basic human tendencies.

"Have we considered wether or not it is possible that some of those quoted - such as Dr. MacKenzie - who referred to "Victorian" golf design, might have done so simply for the sake of their own marketing?"

Yes

>>I assume you're speaking for yourself - And what did you come up with? Was it in your essay?

"Could the popularity of the natural environment for health and well-being, and interest in nature as "good and right" have influenced some of the designers of the time to use the term "Victorian" as a way of creating bad press?"

I don't understand your question.

>>I modified this a bit a minute after I sent it to end with the words "...for their competitors." I wonder if it may have been the best interest of their own aspirations to refer to competitors using a term that was falling out of fashion.

"Did Dunn ever refer to his work as Victorian?"

I've never read anything TD wrote...I doubt it.

>> This goes back to what I asked in the other thread about proponents of the "Victorian" in golf course architecture. That part of my question was never really answered. I think it should be given some consideration, because I think it reveals more of what I'm trying to get at here and that is that I don't believe their was any real "Victorian Age" to speak of in golf. I realize that it was referred to, I realize that there was a formal symmetry, and I realize that there may have been a good number of poorly laid out, flat, boring, symmetrical courses with stupid bumps for hazards.

But I think the only real "movement" here was the "Golf Movement". Golf was moving inland as it was becoming popular. Yes, I agree that the Arts & Crafts were part of the spirit of the times, and in that way played a role. But Art's & Crafts is difficult to define in terms of influence as there were many things going on at the time which involved a movement toward nature - and they weren't all to fall under the heading of Arts & Crafts. As I mentioned, the development of the Public Park was part of this.

Also, A&C began as a social movement and was very much concerned with things that we do not see attention paid to in Golf. For instance - the importance of handicraft and an aversion to machine production. Golf embraced the machine in many ways.
There was an A&C focus on truth in natural materials which were local to the area - but golf nearly always has included SAND. Often when it is not a natural part of the landscape - that is because it's form was dictated not by the ideals of A&C, but by the links. right from the beginning, golf architects sought to 'fake' nature - and that was counter to the honesty in production and material which the true Arts & Crafts proponents sought to celebrate.

Art's & Crafts, growth of the machine, the renewed interest in nature and outdoor activity for health, the growth of golf and the population explosion in the U.S. all happened at the same time - so they most certainly all contributed to the reality of that day. But as far as golf courses are concerned, I don't think the ties are clear enough to conclude that the Arts & Crafts movement was a major driving force behind it's formal development.

"And what about clients? Could it be that some clients pressed for some of these formal arrangements?"

It's possible. It is also possible that the designs of Colt, MacKenzie and Simpson should be credited to their clients.

>>Of course it is, and it's been discussed here before. I started one such thread myself. My question is wether we've considered it in relation to THIS thread and our understanding of Victorian Age golf course design. So what has your research told you about the clients of these type of courses and what they wanted?

"Beyond that, there is the basic mathematical aspect of golf - the differnt clubs, with different lofts, travelling different distances. These numerical foundations lend themselves easily to formulaic arrangements - many of which modern architects still fight today -
(and it ain't because of any Victorian aesthetic.)"

Explain what impact it had upon ancient links, Victorian and golden age architecute.

>>Hmm, that's an easy one. A request like that seems to be a bit of a tall order here...more of a rhetorical one than anything. But I am really interested in this discussion and not out to fight or cause any personal injury, so I'll entertain it.

I would imagine that the mathematical foundation of golf grew WITH the early links more than dictated it. St' Andrews does not seem to be so rigidly based on formula - to it's credit - and that may be partly why.

Later, when one could safely say that "of the 10's of thousands of golfers out there, the average one will hit this club this far" the formulas most certainly began to take their toll. The root of my suggestion here is that this could surely have led an early builder of golf courses to believe (and say) that "Laying out a golf course is as easy as 1-2-3"

"Formulaic arrangement is most likely one of the most basic pitfalls of golf course architecture and always has been. But I think that has a lot to do with the nature of the game itself - with its numeric foundations - combined with the fact that in any business, there's a good 3/4 in the field that might be better doing something else - because they're just not that good at what they do."

Would you descirbe the natural evolved links as formulaic?

>>I'm going to skip this one as it's kind of a repeat.

I'm as interested as you are in understanding the history of Golf Course Architecture. Therefore, I have to deeply consider every angle of every position as best I can in order to create the strongest possible position. That's what this discussion is for - at least to me.

[DMoriarty]

David:

I'm not sure I want to spend five pages clarifying "terms" with you but for now what is it you want to clarify this time?

As I said above I want to identify the common characteristics of the Early Inland courses.  This certainly shouldn't take five pages, but then I have no control of the length and focus of others' posts.

If you are one of those lawyers who works by the hour I surer than hell wouldn't want to hire you---I'd go broke just clarifying "terms".  

Never hire anyone by the hour, Tom, you will be broke by the time you have finished introducing yourself.  

[TEPaul]

"As I said above I want to identify the common characteristics of the Early Inland courses. "

David;

Ok, let's try to do it. Shoot!

"Never hire anyone by the hour, Tom, you will be broke by the time you have finished introducing yourself."

Touche! I like that--like it a lot. All this time I was convinced you had no sense of humor at all. I'm very encouraged.  

[DMoriarty]

I've let the other thread slide because it seems rather pointless at present.  So I have done some reading and digging and I'd like to suggest a starting list for better understanding the period of golf which I refer to above as "Early Inland."  In other words, I am going to try and answer some of my own questions.

 Suggested additions and substractions,  comments, and questions are welcome and invited.

What are the Common Characteristics of The Early Inland Style of Golf Design?

-- Uniform, Straight edged cop bunkers (actually a "cop" hill or mound designed to catch the ball, with a "bunker" just short of the cop) running across the fairway from one side of the hole to the other.   Usually spaced at fairly specific and uniform distances from the tee.
-- Depending on the length of the hole, a second cop bunker placed approximately 20 yds short of the green, designed to catch mishit approaches.  
-- Few bunkers around the greens.
-- Little or no effort to blend man-made features into the existing landscape.  Features appear uniform, industrial, man-made.  
-- Round or square greens, or oval for the really adventuresome.  Sometimes flattened or terraced on RR ties, sometimes set into the existing ground with existing undulations.  
-- Trap bunkers, often shaped like rectangular flower beds, stationed on the edges of the fairways to "trap" hooks and slices.
--  Devoid of strategic features.  
--  Focused purely on testing physical skill.  
--  Did not "tend to the smallest improvement in the game of the player."

How Widespread Was the Early Inland Style?

I know little of the history in Great Britan, but I have no reason to doubt that MacKenzie, Leach, Hutchinson, Behr, Hunter, C&W, et seq.-- and even MacWood.   All say that this style was widespread before Sunningdale or there abouts.  

As for America, we seem to be about a decade or more behind (the same is true for the AC Movement.)  This Early Inland style seems to have been widespread in America until close to the turn of the Century, when it began to be rejected in favor of a more natural, links-like aesthetic.  

But the style did not suffer a quick death, at least not in America.   Some of the British professional golfers were still selling this style well into the first decade of the 20th century.  

[T_MacWood]

David
That is a good outline.

The cop bunker I think was the one common characteristic...usually rectangular. Cross bunkers were popular too. The worst Vistorian courses followed the formula outlined in Shackelford's Golden Age. Tom Dunn appears to be the most formulaic....Willie Park II the least. You also find hazards like walls, fences and hedges. And not many dog-legs either.

Based on what all those gents wrote, it was very widespread. That is the reaason why courses like Huntercombe and Walton Heath were looked upon as modern breakthroughs.

[TEPaul]

"Dunn appears to be the most formulaic....Willie Park II the least. You also find hazards like walls, fences and hedges. And not many dog-legs either.
Based on what all those gents wrote, it was very widespread. That is the reaason why courses like Huntercombe and Walton Heath were looked upon as modern breakthroughs."

Tom MacW:

Have you seen all those early (Victorian) Dunn and Park courses in England?

[DMoriarty]

TomM,

As I have been researching this the thing that astounds me is how common this style was in America, and how vehement the battle to get rid of these features.

There is some irony here, at least when it comes to trying to convince people that this "dark ages" style not only existed, but was extremely widespread. . .  The supposed "Golden Age" architects not only rejected it, but they pretty much rid the golf landscape of its vestiges.  So now when we look back at the "Golden Age" we fail to see evidence of what was the norm just before.

We've finally found a compelling difference between the golden age golf designers and the arts and crafts movement.  The golden age golf designers appear to have been successful in their reformation movement.  The AC movement?  Not so much.
___________________________

Tom Paul, are you suggesting that TomM's assertion (and that of so many of the commentators of the time) is wrong?  If so, what is your basis for challenging them?'

As an aside, maybe you can shed some light on what was going on in America.  How would you describe the golf architecture in your Philadelphia area on the cusp of the 20th century, say 1899?  How does the 1899 golf architecture compare to that of a few decades later?  

[DMoriarty]

A few examples of this style of architecture, all from the U.S.

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

How many golf courses were built, inland in GB, between 1837 and 1901 ?

It's probably more germane to ask how many courses were built between 1850 and 1901, since I doubt you can call courses built in 1838 or so as under the influence of the Victorian age.

How did they differ ?

And, how were they similar ?

Taking into account and understanding the uniqueness of their topography, soils, climate and drainage.

Only after you evaluate all of those components, on all of those very limited number of golf courses could one draw a conclusion, even though the data base is so limited that the study and its conclusions would be deemed questionable at best.

If one was to do a study or clinical trial based on 100 cancer patients, it's doubtful that the medical community would accept and embrace the results as an absolute truth.

In many cases, clinical trials with far broader data bases reach erroneous conclusions.  
Unfortunately, many undertaking the clinical trial are driven to prove their theory and lose sight of the purpose or function of the clinical trial.  It's to come up with an "absolute" or "independent" answer, not necessarily the answer that those performing the clinical trial WANT to come up with.  And, that's where you have to be careful.  

You, and others have come up with a CONCLUSION, first.
And now you want to prove it, hence you do your research in a biased, slanted or limited way.

One would think that you would undertake a study of all of these courses, examine their features, their similarites and differences, and then put forth a theory based on your findings, rathr than coming to a conclusion and looking for SELECTIVE evidence to support it, to the exclusion of all other information.

I'm sure you've heard of Celebrex and Vioxx ?

With regard to schematics or drawings, I wouldn't rely on them as impeccable representations of what was layed upon the ground.  They were rudimentary representations that in some cases bore no resemblance to the actual holes built.  
GCGC is a perfect example.  

Don't you remember, when you were a kid in school and had to draw a person.  They taught you to draw a stick figure first, then fill it in, or give it form and substance.  Many early diagrams of golf holes were no more then stick figures, the early beginings of the general concept of the hole.

TEPaul and I anxiously await your arrival at Gate B-4, and will continue the debate on the ride from the airport to the front entrance of Hidden Creek.  Tommy Naccarato can act as moderator, although, he too may be disquallified as a party with a vested interest or predisposed opinion.
Once the property line is crossed, all conversation must be focused on Hidden Creek  

Have a good trip with the Emperor and we'll see you soon.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom Mac & David,
Maybe not later on, but certainly in the beggining, Willie Watson could be considered "Victorian" in his thinking.  Don't get me wrong, they tried to make this stuff natural, but I just don't think thay had  the technology to do so.  I still maintain in all of this that the West played an important part to Art's & Crafts Golf Architecture.  It was really a place where the native fauna and terrain made for interesting golf. We had our so Geometrics, and they were certainly as bad as they could get. Virginia CC (both sites. Especially the former course that is now Rec Park), Redondo Beach Golf Links, Annandale, (which David has posted a image of) Griffith Park (pre-Thomas) and San Gabriel were all of the above. Many of these courses weren't even grass.

John Duncan Dunn, who flourished more or less at the same time as Watson constructed very natural-looking golf courses utlizing a lot of surface drainage and natural creek beds. I have seen it at the old Rio Hondo, the dead carcass of Lake Norconian Club, Los Serranos and more. (David, this is one that we should visit someday soon. Its neat to see some of that old JDD architecture, and from what Phil has given me, Tillie was out there too.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,  I have no idea.   I am very comfortable taking the word of just about everyone who has ever written on the subject that during your time period the dominant style
inland style was as I described.   Especially because neither you nor anyone else has produced evidence of a single observer who recalls the period differently.    

So I'll respectfully decline to be your research assistant, and leave these questions to you to answer.   If you come up with some factual information which counters the observers of the time, then please do share.  

Only after you evaluate all of those components, on all of those very limited number of golf courses could one draw a conclusion, even though the data base is so limited that the study and its conclusions would be deemed questionable at best.

This might be true if there weren't so many first-hand accounts of what was going on during this period.   I have no reason to believe that they were all lying or misinformed.  It is astounding that you refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that such a style existed first in GB and then in America as well.  

How many courses existed on the east coast at the turn of the century?  Enough to be considered an adequate sample size in your mind?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()