News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


BCrosby

Tom/Sean/Ulrich -

Two points -

First, Park might have been the first to built naturalistic inland courses on terrains that people previously thought impossible. If so, he gets full points for being the firstest with the mostest on building naturalistic inland courses. I would note that the idea of naturalistic inland courses had been in the air for a while. Horace Hutchinson seemed to be the first to promote the idea as far back as 1889 or so. Maybe there were others. So I'm not sure Park - for all the good things he did - is quite the progenitor of good inland courses you are claiming. He was an important piece to one part of the puzzle, but I'm not sure how far beyond that it makes sense to go.

Second, Low was pursuing a different set of concerns. Just as Park had little to say of interest regarding the "placement of hazards", Low had almost nothing to say about naturalism on inland courses. Low's focus was on articulating a theory of hazard placement, a theory he derived from a close study of hazards at TOC. For example, why was the Principal's Nose where it was and not somewhere else? And if the justification for such a bunker placed there at the 16th at TOC made sense, why wouldn't the same justification make sense on inland courses? Hence the 4th at Woking.

Low's resulting theory of hole routing and bunker location were what blew off the top of Darwin's head. Low and Paton implemented those principles at Woking and, as they say, the rest is history. Simpson, Darwin, Colt and Fowler all thought it an important breakthrough. I do too.

It's not a matter of who did what first. They were pursuing two different goals, both of which fed into and became what we now call naturalistic strategic golf achitecture.

My interest lies on the "principles of hazard placement" side because from the get go those principles were controversial. (For example, Low and JH Taylor saw each other as adversaries, though in a polite sort of way. The nasty stuff would come later with Crane and Behr.)  I find those controversies both interesting and revealing about basic gca concepts.

It's just me, but I have less interest in the Hutchinson, Park naturalism side because almost no one disputes the appeal of naturalistic courses. Which is not to say that Hutchinson and Park weren't important in the history of gca.

Bob

 

 
« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 05:36:26 PM by BCrosby »

Tony_Muldoon


Great find Mike After a few Gins to numb help rcover after 9 hours in the car I had to do this to read it.

He was one of the first—I think we might almost agree that he was the first—to perceive the possibilities of inland golf course construction on the finer, grander system
golf boom that was coming, the demand that there must inevitably be for many, new inland courses of a better and more interesting type than were generally in existence then. Upto then the manner of designing and making a hole was to put a plain straight bank across the course in front to be driven over, this arrangement, with a little sand in front of it, being known as a bunker, and, if the hole were long enough, there was similar contrivance set up immediately in front of the putting green. Generally nothing more was considered necessary, though if some elaboration was desired similar banks were stuck-up somewhere on the left or on the right. None of these things were beautiful to look upon, they gave no character to the holes, this being supplied only by such local natural features as trees, watercourses and ponds; they were not in 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 any player. This was Victorian golf architecture, the standard for which was set by that indefatigable master of it, Willie Dunn, who made his professional mark on multitudinous patches of land in many parts of the country. Willie Park perceived that there would soon be a demand for something very much better, and he set himself to devise it, to give to inland courses some of the attributes of those at the seaside where the holes were fashioned by Nature and abounded in features and strong character. With imagination and money it could be done. This scheme marked the beginning of the new principles in course architecture that have since revolutionized the whole of inland golf, not merely in England, but imparts of the continent of Europe, all over the United States, Canada, and everywhere. Huntercombe and Sunningdale were Willie Park's first productions. He was responsible for the primary designs of the architecture of the latter, a beautiful course cut out of a wilderness of heather on some high, rolling land in Berkshire. Mr. Colt soon set himself to work on the first designs when they had been applied, and he has carried out vast improvements on the original model, so that Sunningdale, as we know it now, the inland course that I still consider as the best and most delightful to play upon in the whole of Britain, is not at all what it was at first. Still Willie was in at the beginning with Sunningdale; that is a lasting distinction. But he was much more closely concerned with Huntercombe, a fine piece of land in Oxfordshire, very high up on a spur of the Chiltern Hills. In many respects the situation of Huntercombe was ideal, and it attracted great fame to itself, but it suffered from lack of accessibility, a difficult uphill motor-car journey having to be made from the Henley station six miles away. Also it was a longtime before a proper clubhouse could be built, and the only accommodation was in a local farmhouse which was taken over for the purpose, and there was trouble with the water supply. These difficulties have been overcome since then, but, unfortunately for Willie who invested his money in the undertaking, he had to bear the brunt of them. However he laid out on these hills at Huntercombe a glorious course with greens that were wonderfully spacious and splendid. The bunkering was done with imagination and ingenuity, and the holes had fine character. Willie set himself, as a particular labour of love, to copy old "Pandy" at Musselburgh, with its plateau green, and produced a really fine copy—with improvements—making many special journeys between Huntercombe  and Musselburgh for the purpose. It was then, and it still is, one of the best pleasures in golf to play the game at this place, but financially the venture did not then thrive. Willie had£11,500 of his own money in it, and it was mostly lost. But for that, America would probably not have had him now.
2025 Craws Nest Tassie, Carnoustie.

Tony_Muldoon

For the record New Zealand was the first to clear woodland circa 1895 . Mure Ferguson (an important figure in those days) cleared forest for this and I think this point is often forgotten. Perhaps because Darwin himself tended to be dismissive of the course (pre Simpson’s improvements) but once it was there it showed the possibilities.

When Darwin wrote about joining Woking he described the course as being basically all there, before Low and Patton. I believe their additions to the basic routing made it truly great but the bones were already there.

Re reading Low I am reminded all these courses were a response to the new ball and the history of that time is a mix of many factors, geographical, social, technological and demographic.  It isn't possible to draw a straight line showing the development of inland golf.

In all this I do not wish to diminish Parks role he was there at time when golf needed leaders.   


What do we know of Cecil Leach?
2025 Craws Nest Tassie, Carnoustie.

Ulrich Mayring

Bob, I totally agree with your post. But I don't think that golf architecture is just about strategic design. You need more than just sound design principles when building a great inland course.

Willie Park Jr. supplied two of the most important ingredients: site selection (and clearing, if necessary) and agronomic considerations (growing from seeds). Both were largely unnecessary on the links: if you could find dunes, you had plenty interesting terrain and great soil - nature and sheep took care of everything. On inland courses these factors weren't really considered before Sunningdale/Huntercombe, because "inland golf" was at the time not considered "proper golf".

That is Park's contribution and since he was an able architect as well (though perhaps not as cutting-edge as Low), Sunningdale and Huntercombe must be considered breakthrough courses. As must be Woking, of course.

Ulrich
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)

BCrosby


Re reading Low I am reminded all these courses were a response to the new ball and the history of that time is a mix of many factors, geographical, social, technological and demographic.  It isn't possible to draw a straight line showing the development of inland golf.


Exactly so, Tony. A mix of all that stuff was thrown into the same pot, brought to a boil and out poured some remarkable inland courses over a very short period of time. Woking, Sunningdale, Walton Heath, Swinley Forest, Liphook and others. All remarkable courses. They all evidence very new design principles that seem to have been developed almost on the fly. The other thing is that the great inland courses built between about 1900 and 1910 near London turned out to have a much more profound influence on US courses than the more famous links courses.

There is also a surprising class aspect to all this. The earliest promoters of strategic designs almost all came out of the Oxford Cambridge Golfing Society. The working pros, who had neither Oxon or Cantab credentials, never signed on (with a couple of minor exceptions) and in some cases actually argued against strategic design ideas. Taylor is an example of that.

The other interesting thing about that period - something we have forgotten - is that courses weren't distinguished between strategic v. penal. Those concepts didn't exist. Courses were distinguished as either links courses or inland courses. Links course were always thought to be the superior type. Low, Park, Colt, Fowler et al. made the gap between the quality of the two types of courses less clear. They saw themselves as developing a set of principles derived from links courses but applicable to improving inland courses. 

Bob

Sean_A


Re reading Low I am reminded all these courses were a response to the new ball and the history of that time is a mix of many factors, geographical, social, technological and demographic.  It isn't possible to draw a straight line showing the development of inland golf.


Exactly so, Tony. A mix of all that stuff was thrown into the same pot, brought to a boil and out poured some remarkable inland courses over a very short period of time. Woking, Sunningdale, Walton Heath, Swinley Forest, Liphook and others. All remarkable courses. They all evidence very new design principles that seem to have been developed almost on the fly. The other thing is that the great inland courses built between about 1900 and 1910 near London turned out to have a much more profound influence on US courses than the more famous links courses.

There is also a surprising class aspect to all this. The earliest promoters of strategic designs almost all came out of the Oxford Cambridge Golfing Society. The working pros, who had neither Oxon or Cantab credentials, never signed on (with a couple of minor exceptions) and in some cases actually argued against strategic design ideas. Taylor is an example of that.

The other interesting thing about that period - something we have forgotten - is that courses weren't distinguished between strategic v. penal. Those concepts didn't exist. Courses were distinguished as either links courses or inland courses. Links course were always thought to be the superior type. Low, Park, Colt, Fowler et al. made the gap between the quality of the two types of courses less clear. They saw themselves as developing a set of principles derived from links courses but applicable to improving inland courses. 

Bob


Bob

It shouldn't be surprising that the university types were the ones writing down the principles of design at the time.  The playing pro archies often had little education and very little time for such contemplations.  That said, I don't think there ever was such a large discrepency between strategic and penal design.  In truth, the debate is probably much more in theory than in practice other than Low's nicking the idea of centreline bunkering from links - an idea that never really caught on for inland golf btw beyond what was already practiced with the old trench like cross bunkering which at the time could usually be skirted.  Concepts like the use of water became more prevalent, but I can't think of a single course back then which was guilty of over doing it and I suspect it was similar for all more penal design methods.  Interestingly, the idea of rough (which is probably the most used penal element) doesn't get distinguished from strategic or penal designs - it just seems to be present and accepted as part of golf.  The interesting counterpoint to rough is wide playing corridors.  Once again, there is little mention of wide vs narrow.  Folks just seemed to accept either. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Niall C




What do we know of Cecil Leach?


Tony

Cecilia Leach was the daughter of a Scottish daughter who worked in Silloth and thats where she played most of her golf. I believe her career is well documented and the Silloth have photos and medals that she won.

The club also produced a club history which outlines her achievements and also gives a bit of chat on the evolution of the course including the involvement of Park and later on MacKenzie.

Incidentally, on the photo of the 16th green that Mike posted, I was told by a member that the green was originally behind the dune making it a short par 4 of about 260 yards with a blind approach. I can't remember if its mentioned in the book or when the green was moved.

Niall

BCrosby

Sean notes:

"The interesting counterpoint to rough is wide playing corridors.  Once again, there is little mention of wide vs narrow."

Actually there is mention of wide playing corridors. But in an unexpected way. I'm working on a piece now on all of this. This post is what is technically known as a teaser. Part of my plan to sell movie rights to support my research costs. I'm thinking George Clooney as John Low. ;)

Bob 

Sean_A

Sean notes:

"The interesting counterpoint to rough is wide playing corridors.  Once again, there is little mention of wide vs narrow."

Actually there is mention of wide playing corridors. But in an unexpected way. I'm working on a piece now on all of this. This post is what is technically known as a teaser. Part of my plan to sell movie rights to support my research costs. I'm thinking George Clooney as John Low. ;)

Bob 

Bob

Yes, there is some mention of rough and wide corridors, but surprisingly little considering their relative importance in any design.

When are you gonna finish all this research and give us something real?????

Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Sean_A

Well, we have had Bob's essay published and we do know a bit more since this thred was hot.  For instance, Paton's work on Woking was at virtually the same time as Huntercombe.  That said, Huntercombe knocks the block off Woking in terms of strategic "hazards" if we accept hollows and humps are just s much a hazard as sand.  Even with merely sand, Huntercombe as a few dandies which are every bit worthy of Woking and at least one centre-line bunker has been removed at Huntercombe.  I remained convinced that Park Jr was the real star of this period and that the recognition of Woking is due other factors as much as the design.  One thing not really talked about is Woking's greens being much more undulated in a modern style than Huntercombe's. 

Still, I have to wonder how influential these designs were other than for Colt and his ideas of naturalism?  I don't see the sort of centre-line hazards as dominant for placing like at Huntercombe and we can't really say Woking has all that many dictating centre-line bunkers (such as on #s 3 & 4).  What I do see, if we skip a few years past Colt (who ws usully quite conservative with green contours) is the green style of Woking carrying through to the future through Simpson and then to America.

What do folks think?

Ciao     
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Melvyn Morrow


Father of Inland Naturalism or perhaps more appropriately responsible for fully splitting the links design out of inland courses – creating two design options for inland golf courses?

Melvyn   


TEPaul

Bob:

Your Reply #104 was put on here about a year and a half ago and I believe it is one of the most important posts this website has ever seen re the realities of a significant evolution in golf course architecture!

Tags: