[Sean_A]

Has anybody read or know anything about Willie Park Jr. - The Man Who Took Golf To the World by Walter Stephen?  I came across this book and it looked interesting, but I have never heard of it or the author before.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

I don't know the book Sean but would like to see it. Park Jr's own little section on architecture in his 1896 book doesn't provide much.

But like the other healthland contingent a lot more needs to be known about Park Jr, not the least reaon being his seminal work in the heathlands, particularly Sunningdale and Huntercombe, and all the various sets of interconnected circumstances behind the creation of those two important courses in the history and evolution of golf architecture.

There are obviously numerous interesting historic factors that came together in that place and time and to say something like it pretty much all happened because of the English Arts and Crafts Movement in that place at that time seems exceedingly simplistic to me if not just pretty historically inaccurate.

Park Jr, as has been touched on for years, just may be the best and most significant link there ever was in the eventual coming together between the new and the old that set golf architecture on the interesting road it took for a number of decades culminating in what we call the great Golden Age of Golf Architecture.

It seems to me what Park Jr did first (although perhaps not the best) in the historical and evolutionary context of golf architecture is to bring for the first time so many of the essential principles of the old natural linksland to inland golf outside Scotland.

[Chris_Clouser]

Sean,

I read the book, but just was not impressed.  There is a lot of back history about Musselburgh, which is insightful, but the actual information about Park and his career was lacking in what I would consider the primary focus of the book.  The book is divided into two sections, The Life and The Legacy.  The Legacy section talks about the courses that Park built, but I lost interest in reading this section of the book after the Huntercombe entry.  One thing I noticed in the write-up about Sunningdale is that the author totally ignored the contributions of Colt to the Old course and attributed several items that were Colt's work to Park.  

For a man that was such a primary component of golf in the late 1800s and early 1900s I would think there are so many angles that the writer could have taken, such as his playing career, his club making operation or his design career and outside of the a detailed look at some of his courses, there just wasn't much there that I was not able to gather from other sources like Tom MacWood's essays here or other smaller bits about Park in magazines or other books.  

This book probably could have been better compiled and actually an introduction book to what golf in Scotland was like prior to 1900.  I learned more about that aspect than anything else from the book.  The author put a lot of research into the book, but I think the focus of the book is just not on Park, when it should be.  

[T_MacWood]

I've read it. Like Chris I was a little disapointed. It really did not shed much light on his golf design activities or really on the man in general (and some of the information is wrong). I prefer The Parks of Musselburough - a much better book IMO.

[TEPaul]

"This book probably could have been better compiled and actually an introduction book to what golf in Scotland was like prior to 1900."

I think this is a very important point by Chris Clouser.

Someone should do a book about the man-made architecture in the Scottish linksland itself and particularly on many of the best natural linksland courses that was remarkably rudimentary from the time golf architecture (man-made features) began at some point at or just before the middle of the 19th century and the onset of more naturalized man-made features on courses inland and outside the linksland around or just after the turn of the 20th century.

In my opinion, those years (app 1850 until around 1900) were what I consider to be the very first "baby steps" of golf course architecture itself.

Why the art form had to take that time to go through those "baby steps" and how it went through them is eventually going to be very important to know.

Park Jr's role in that time and evolution is obviously really important to know too, perhaps more than any golf architect, since he was from the Scottish linksland and was the first to do not just a more naturalized form of golf architecture inland and outside the Scottish linksland but the first to do it in a far more comprehensive way than had apparently ever been done before by anyone else.

[RSLivingston_III]

What are the best Park courses to see in the US?
Is there enough left of Olympia Fields to call it Park?
Visited Battle Creek CC last month and was impressed by the large green sizes, and in most cases good surface movement. The huge front rolloff of the 18th green is wonderful. Would have liked to have seen more of that on the other holes.
Dumb me, I didn't bring a camera.

[Kyle Harris]

What are the best Park courses to see in the US?
Is there enough left of Olympia Fields to call it Park?
Visited Battle Creek CC last month and was impressed by the large green sizes, and in most cases good surface movement. The huge front rolloff of the 18th green is wonderful. Would have liked to have seen more of that on the other holes.
Dumb me, I didn't bring a camera.

Maidstone, Philmont North (Philmont, PA), Berkshire (Reading, PA), Glen Ridge (Glen Ridge, NJ) and the PSU White Course (when I'm done with it :-))

[RSLivingston_III]

Sounds like a roadtrip East might be in order.
Care to share some insights as to what his philosophy might have been, or to characteristics in his course designs?

[Kyle Harris]

Sounds like a roadtrip East might be in order.
Care to share some insights as to what his philosophy might have been, or to characteristics in his course designs?

I forgot Woodway in CT, as well.

Any Park course is centered around the green and the greensite. Park was a huge proponent of placing a premium on the putting game and this carried over to his designs. A Park green is usually pushed up and contains features that demand precision in the approach and placing the ball in the correct spot on the green.

One feature of which he was fond was using a "Waterfall" False-front, especially on long approaches. This forces the golfer to either hit a very low, running approach with a wood or attempt to carry the waterfall with a higher long iron. Incorrectly hit shots would be rejected in the front or go bound over the back.

Park's greens were also severely built up on the remaining three sides and long is especially difficult on most Park greens.

His greens were also divided into sections, usually quadrants, across which putting was made all the more difficult. The quadrants also had the effect of rejecting improperly aimed balls to more difficult to putt from areas on the green. This allowed great variance in play angles from day-to-day as hole positions changed. The second hole at Glen Ridge is a prime example of this in action.

Park's fairway bunkering was quite simple but really effective. Usually along the lines of a Ross grass-faced bunker with a bit more sand flash to give a gnarly appearance.

Park's greenside bunkering typically defended tucked hole locations, and tended to bleed into the green contour. Shortside a Park green and death or double bogey usually awaits.

Most of the Park courses in their present state today are over treed and have significant play corridors narrowed. Park favored width in his fairways and his greens were as much as anyone could handle.

[Phil McDade]

"In my opinion, those years (app 1850 until around 1900) were what I consider to be the very first "baby steps" of golf course architecture itself.

Why the art form had to take that time to go through those "baby steps" and how it went through them is eventually going to be very important to know."

This corresponds, nearly exactly, to the year, with the introduction of the gutty ball, and its eventual replacement by the Haskell ball. The gutty came into play in 1848, and was replaced in most circles by the Haskell ball @ 1900. During the 50-year use of the gutty, the game -- numerically, in terms of golf clubs and courses -- exploded, both in the UK, in Europe, and its initial popularity in the US.

Thoughts?

[Forrest Richardson]

Against our publisher's wishes, here is the excerpt from Bunkers, Pits & Other Hazards

Willie Park, Jr. (1864-1925)

   Born in Scotland, Park grew up in the famous golfing center of Musselburgh. He was one of the best golfers of his time and a very talented and prolific designer. His most famous designs in England are Sunningdale and Huntercombe. He was most likely the first to demonstrate that a good course could be built on inland property. He designed more than 70 courses in U.S. and Canada.  

   Quotes: “A bunker that is not visible to the player is always more or less of a trap.”

   “When building artificial bunkers, they should be big enough and deep enough to prevent the possibility of a ball either rolling through or jumping over the bunker.”

   “If a bunker is visible to the player, and there is sufficient room to avoid it, it is the players responsibility to steer clear of it.”

   — Park believed that there should not be any hazard out of which the ball cannot be extricated at the loss of one stroke, and all hazards should be visible to the golfer.
   — He believed in punishing poor shots and placing hazards judiciously to do so.
   — Park felt all hazards should be visible to the golfer when he stands at his ball before playing a stroke. That said, Park laid out a course called Shiskine in 1892 on the Island of Arran where nearly every shot is a blind one. (Architects are notorious for not always following their own rules.)  
   — Stated that sand bunkers are the most legitimate hazards.  
   — Believed that a hazard should be sharply defined so there is no doubt as to whether or not a ball lies within it.  
   — Believed that trees are never a fair hazard if located near the line of play, as a well-hit shot may be completely spoiled by catching in the branches.
   — Maintained that an occasional wall, fence, pond or stream to be crossed cannot always be avoided, but he did not recommend the creation of such hazards.  
   — Felt the placing of hazards is a matter of great difficulty and that their positions should be such that a golfer who is playing a good game should never visit them.
   — During his time, many architects argued that hazards should be in front of all greens. Park felt otherwise, suggesting variety in placement and that any hazard placed in front of a green should allow a well lofted shot to stop near the hole.  
   — Used hazards down the sides of holes to catch pulled and sliced shots.

[T_MacWood]

Forrest
That sounds like it was taken from 'The Game of Golf' written in 1896. Do you think those design thoughts are representative of his overall design career (especially from 1900 to 1925)?

[RSLivingston_III]

"In my opinion, those years (app 1850 until around 1900) were what I consider to be the very first "baby steps" of golf course architecture itself.

Why the art form had to take that time to go through those "baby steps" and how it went through them is eventually going to be very important to know."

This corresponds, nearly exactly, to the year, with the introduction of the gutty ball, and its eventual replacement by the Haskell ball. The gutty came into play in 1848, and was replaced in most circles by the Haskell ball @ 1900. During the 50-year use of the gutty, the game -- numerically, in terms of golf clubs and courses -- exploded, both in the UK, in Europe, and its initial popularity in the US.

Thoughts?

If you ever had the chance to play real gutty era golf, you would understand why the rubber ball brought forward another level of changes to the game. Amongst the good players of the day, gutty golf was an airborne, almost target golf, game. The first chapter of Vardon's "How to play Golf" gives a great historical view of play pre-1900 and the changes that happened through 1910.
Basically, the gutty didn't run very well and died when hit into greens. With a gutty, you would pitch with a lofter or mashie, clubs comparable to a 7-8 iron. The rubber ball brought out the creation of the mashie niblick, comparable to a 9-PW, for pitching into the greens to help get some backspin and stop control.
If you consider the ramifications of the differences in roll/liveliness of the balls, I can see where the architects started creating larger greens to deal with the ball. It would probably have changed the approaches to the greens since the rubber ball brought the run-up shot into play.

[Ed_Baker]

Wow, sounds like Ross was influenced by Park, many similar philosophies.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom McW — I am not the guy to ask. I have only seen debris of Park's work...scattered among the remodels of more modern designers. Mark Fine developed the background from several sources, which I recall was scant.

[Dean Paolucci]

Kyle has a very good perspective on WP, Jr.  He was most likely the first GCA with any influence and notable work.  Maidstone and Olympia Fields being top 100 at one time.  We have recently completed a restoration with the help of Forse Design of the Park layout at Glen Ridge.  Glen Ridge is one of the 100 oldest clubs in America.  The greensites really came out great and the new variety has been well received by the Membership.

[Yannick Pilon]

Would any of you guys that know Willie Park Jr's body of work have any pictures of features that could be defined as "typical" of his style?

Just trying to figure the overall look of his style, but information on this seems to be very scarce....  The styles of the three courses he has done around Montreal are somewhat similar, but still different, so its tough to picture his style.

Thanks

Kyle,

would you have any pictures you could post of your project with Forse Design?

[Tony_Muldoon]

Sean I'll lend you the book next time I see you, borrow it for as long as you want.  Portstewart is all his work- I think not.

[Willie_Dow]

Tom MacWood

Do you know if J. W. L. Adams is still with us ?  His work on the Park family, and his wonderful book, which you mention, was given to me by Joe Murdock, "The Parks of Musselburgh", and the treatment of Young Willie was priceless.

Back in 1993 I wrote John, and apologized for not getting to him regarding John Park at Maidstone, or his two sons.  It was an event interrupted by a slight heart attack in 1991.

I should follow up on his request, and maybe Tom Paul can help.

Willie

[T_MacWood]

Willie
I'm not sure if he is still living or not. I think I remember reading that he passed away a few years ago, but I'm not sure. If he is living he'd be in his 90s. I spoke to him when I was doing research several years ago...a wonderful gentleman, an excellent researcher and a very good writer. He also wrote a history of Huntercombe.

Mark Fine or Forrest
Your profile of Willie Park-Jr. sounds like it was taken from 'The Game of Golf' written in 1896. Do you think those design thoughts are representative of his overall design career (especially from 1900 to 1925)?

[Willie_Dow]

The last address I had for John Park was 1 Leicester Close, Henley-on-Thames, Oxon, RG9 2LD.

[Phil McDade]

"— Park felt all hazards should be visible to the golfer when he stands at his ball before playing a stroke. That said, Park laid out a course called Shiskine in 1892 on the Island of Arran where nearly every shot is a blind one. (Architects are notorious for not always following their own rules.)"

Well, the 12-hole Shiskine course at Blackwaterfoot on Arran is pretty much all-world quirk (it's 12 holes, for starters...), but I think it's a stretch to say nearly every shot is a blind one. There are several blind shots, the most famous up the hill at the Crow's Nest, but I just played a course in southern Wisconsin (Langford/Moreau) with many more overt blind shots than Shiskine.

[Kyle Harris]

Would any of you guys that know Willie Park Jr's body of work have any pictures of features that could be defined as "typical" of his style?

Just trying to figure the overall look of his style, but information on this seems to be very scarce....  The styles of the three courses he has done around Montreal are somewhat similar, but still different, so its tough to picture his style.

Thanks

Kyle,

would you have any pictures you could post of your project with Forse Design?

Yannick,

I have no formal or informal affiliation with Forse Design, we've just crossed paths a few times in my independent research. Ron Forse and Jim Nagle are quite good with Willie Park, Jr. and their work at Berkshire CC and Glen Ridge CC is exemplary.

Here are some pictures of Park Greens:

4th Green at Woodway CC in Darien, CT.



Glen Ridge's 5th (foreground) and 2nd Greens:



10th Green at Penn State White Course:



6th green at Penn State White Course:



Each example shows a Park green with the quadranting and other Park features like rolls and bumps that place a premium on well-placed approaches.

[Philip Gawith]

Sean I have also read the book and agree with others that it is disappointing. The best bit is the cover! Not much to stimulate a GCA person.

Yannick - I posted quite a few pictures on Huntercombe towards the end of last year I think which you might enjoy to look at.

Re the pictures of the greens Kyle has posted - the 1st, 3rd and 4th look quite like his style, but the 2nd bears absolutely no resemblance to anything at Huntercombe ( or to any of the other three either).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()