[Ran Morrissett]

...is now posted under In My Opinion and under 1920 in Architecture Timeline.

Original writing is tough. It requires both thought and then, sadly, the ability to execute. Few can do it and we all wait to see what people like Dan Wexler will come up with next.

In this case, Tom MacWood (with help from Bernard Darwin!) has delivered another unique essay to peruse. The premise centers around the eighteen courses that Darwin would have selected if he wrote his own A Round of Golf Courses ala Patric Dickinson. As compiled by Tom, the list happily includes such greats as West Sussex, Lido and Woking. Each entry is followed by plenty of text from Darwin, making it easy to see why Tom selected the courses that he did.

One logical question is: which courses did both Darwin and Dickinson choose? The answer is six: Hoylake, Westward Ho!, St. Andrews, Rye,  Mildenhall, and Aberdovey. Darwin wrote the foreword to Dickinson’s book, which was published in 1951. In it as you recall, Darwin sniffed a bit at Prestwick’s exclusion, so it certainly comes as no surprise to see that Tom selected Prestwick to be among Darwin’s own eighteen courses. Tom also allowed Darwin to include three other courses from the United States, in addition to Lido. One course Tom struggled with but finally elected not to include was Darwin’s own 16 hole design on the Vardar marshes in Macedonia. Mercifully, just like the ending to The Bourne Ultimatum  , this opens the door for a follow-on piece later from Tom.

As Tom continued his research and culled the list of candidates to eighteen, he found many, many Darwin pearls of wisdom. Thus, Tom created a 19th hole where he included thoughts by Darwin on numerous courses  that did not make the final eighteen. For instance, here is what Darwin had to say regarding the Old Course at Walton Heath:  “There is a fine defiant quality about this heath. The weather had seemed almost balmy as one walked out into one’s own garden before starting; there was no more than a pleasant crispness in the glittering air; winter was really in full flight at last. ‘Ha ha,’ said the spirit of the heath when one got there. ‘You thought spring was coming back, did you? You wondered if you had too many clothes on. You are getting soft and pampered. I’ll show you.’ And the spirit of the Old Course seemed to take up the song. ‘Just because you can hit a decent shot or two,’ it exclaimed, ‘off soft turf in a sheltered glade you think yourself somebody. You fancy you can putt because you can get down in two on a nice flat, fat green. You’re not afraid of bunkers that are just sandy patches, beautifully raked with no banks to them. You’re fond of taking your spoon out of the heather. You won’t do quite so well here. I’ll knock the conceit out of you.’ That is what I imagined the heath was saying, and I enjoyed the coward’s satisfaction in the fact of only looking on. It is a great course, a frightfully great course.”

Please tell where you can find such prose today? NO WHERE.

The great news is that it is all here, 31,000 plus words courtesy of Tom MacWood’s original idea executed to perfection with Bernard Darwin’s original writing.

Cheers,

[JESII]

Great intro Ran...off to read the piece(s).

Thank you.

[RJ_Daley]

Ran, I'm so glad you have encouraged Tom MacWood to continue to share his research work in this compilation and fantasy projection of BDs fav 18.  It is something to be read slowly, and I will take my time over the next few days....

But, one can't stop marvelling at a passage like:

He was a patriotic Scotsman and used to take out his pupils into that waste of sand-hills and try to make them appreciate the beauties of his native game. They were apparently obdurate, but the master continued to believe in his dream of golf which some twenty years later came gloriously true. Let us hope that his ghost gratefully re-visits the scene of his once fruitless labours amid those stupid little English boys.

Thanks to Tom Mac., for doing the tedious leg work to bring these fine essays to our attention and for our enjoyment - where we may be too indolent or lack the research resources to scour them up ourselves...  

[Gary Daughters]

Ran,

I'll promptly ditch the book I just recovered (finally found it under the couch) and savor this piece as a good glass of wine.  Thanks in advance to Tom.

[wsmorrison]

Thanks, Tom.  I too will take my time and consider this piece very carefully.  I appreciate you not abandoning us completely.  Hope all is well.
Best,
Wayne

[Ted Kramer]

Tom, thank you for sharing this.
I miss having you around here.

-Ted

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tom thanks for sharing this with us, it's great that this is a place that allows such a wonderful extended essay.  To be savoured a few holes at a time.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Very nice work.   Thanks for sharing with us.  

Best Regards,
Mike

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Please come back!  And more importantly, please keep researching and writing!

[Noel Freeman]

 I do note that the great man (Darwin) contradicted himself a fair bit.  I've seen him espouse Deal as one of his top courses but if you read the last line of what Tom's research found (about the Sandy Parlour) versus mine (the 2nd comment) he was in fact somewhat hypocritical.  If anyone can fwd this to Tom, thanks..  I realize it is a small point but just something amusing..

 
Deal: “To my thinking, Deal is the least engaging of the three [Sandwich, Princes & Deal], though it has many of the same qualities, and is certainly a most searching course. It is not so pretty as the other two because it is less private. There are some fine holes there, and some exciting ones, notably the last four, which, whether intrinsically good or bad, make for bloodcurdling finishes. There is also a glorious opportunity for the long hitter: there is no course on which he profits more. The ground is so good that one wishes that it had not been discovered until golfing architecture had come to its present standard. There would have been no blots such as the Sandy Parlour, which is, take it for all in all, the worst short hole in the world.”

 

Versus:--FROM MY RESEARCH

 

“Experiments have been tried in the direction of improving the fourth hole, the short blind one known as The Sandy Parlour, but hitherto without much success. It is easy
enough to make a hole that is not blind, and some have been made, but it is by no means easy to make such a one that is as interesting and good as the Sandy Parlour is now. The hole is a general favourite, I think it will always remain, and I do not see any reason why it should not. The condemnation of blind holes has gone far enough, and much too far in the
past. After all this hole needs playing as much as any other, and a good shot gets its reward.”
Bernard Darwin        

[Phil_the_Author]

Noel, what are the dates for each of those comments? If more than a few months then maybe it is nothing more than a growing appreciation for the hole.

Hasn't that actually happened for many of us out here where we might have disliked a hole or a course and yet over time have come to appreciate it?

I, too, would love to know what Tom's thoughts are on it and hopefully he will post them himself.

[Andrew Mitchell]

Tom & Ran

Thanks for such a fantastic resource.  Having just read Patric Dickinson's "A Round of Golf Courses" this will follow on nicely!

[TEPaul]

I don't think I'll ever find enough written to satisfy me about the evolution of golf and architecture from the seaside links of Scotland and the early English seaside courses to inland sites in GB and America.

Darwin touches on this subject pretty well though.

I have little doubt that the thing that inspired him most about inland courses, all things being fairly equal architecturally, is the fact of really interesting natural topography---perhaps a synonym for his term "natural features" or a certain grandness or size of scale. In a phrase Darwin seemed to tend towards favoring greater "elevation change" on a golf site.

I think this is the thing that took a course such as Myopia to a slightly higher level in his mind than a Garden City or Chicago GC.

Another thing that is truly interesting to me in Darwin's observations is the transiton in early golf and architecture from blind shots and greens in natural bowls to more visibility and greens on higher elevations. It seems that Colt was very in tune with this transition and perhaps one of the earliest and most important to promote it in golf architecture.

[ed_getka]

I look forward to reading the piece. Thanks for sharing your work Tom.

[Neil_Crafter]

This is Tom's companion piece to the essay 'The Links of Darwin - A Bernard Darwin Eclectic Round' that we published in Issue 10 of Golf Architecture magazine earlier this year. It is a great piece of research by Tom and looks at individual holes rather than courses. I had encouraged Tom to write about Darwin for Issue 10 and the article he came up with - the one that Ran has now put into the In My Opinion section - was unfortunately way too long to be included in the magazine so Tom went off and came up with the idea to do an article on Darwin's eclectic holes. I am so pleased that Ran has allowed Tom's first wonderful article to see the light and I trust it will be enjoyed by many.
cheers Neil

[Phil_the_Author]

In response to Neil's post and question, Tom Mac asked this to be posted:

You're right, Darwin did love the Cader, and the original Maiden, and Majuba at Burnham, and a number of other blind holes. As a general rule he loved quirky old-fashioned holes, especially if they had an interesting or charming name. And he was an outspoken advocate for the preservation and protection of these quirky old holes, however there were exceptions, and Sandy Parlour was one of them. A couple of others exceptions that come to mind: he was not the crazy about Hades at Sandwich either, and if there was one hole he may have dissed more than SP it was the new Maiden.

Are you certain the British Correspondent for American Golfer was Darwin? I do not believe he was. Darwin was not a well-known writer in 1908 when the 'British Correspondent' began writing for AG. Add to it that Darwin was not fond of Travis. Around this time there were two camps: the Travis camp and the Macdonald camp. Horace Hutchinson and Darwin were definitely in the Macdonald camp. Darwin was also on the
opposite side of the Schenectady debate, the British Correspondent favored Travis's view. And AG never reviewed Darwin's 1910 book, they did however review Henry Leach's book published at that time. You would have thought if Darwin was writing for AG in 1910 they would mentioned his book. I'm pretty certain Leach was their foreign correspondent.

I found a few examples of Darwin discussing SP. I put in them in roughly chronologic order, beginning 1910. As you can see he was pretty consistent.

‘Golf Courses of the British Isles’ , 1910
‘The fourth hole, ‘The Sandy Parlour’, had for some years a great name, but, unlike some other blind short holes, has come gradually to live on its reputation.’

‘The Road into Devon’ (reviewing Teignmouth) 11/28/24
‘The second has been called the ‘Sandy Parlour’, but this does it an injustice for it is an infinitely better hole than the fourth at Deal.’

‘The Best Blind Hole’ 1/18/30
‘Once upon a time the Maiden or Hades at Sandwich or that really lamentable Sandy Parlour at Deal would have had many votes.’

Famous Courses, The Game of Golf, 1931
'There would be no blots such as the Sandy Parlour, which is, take it for all in all, the worst short hole in the world.'

This excerpt maybe the most telling. Here Darwin basically throws himself under the bus (along with the SP), and reverses his long standing rule of being the protector of all that is venerable, old, unorthodox and quirky. From this point forward add 'amusing' to the list.

‘Reforming Angels’ 4/24/37
‘In these matters I have always regarded myself as a true-blue Tory. I have argued that a hole, especially a hole with a name, if it has been love or grumbled at for long enough, acquires a prescriptive right to remain untouched, even though it be according to all standards of criticism a poor hole. I have quoted the opinion of a distinguished
architectural friend that every course, even an ‘eclectic’ one made up from all courses of the world, ought to have one bad hole. Still rules must have exceptions, and as regards this Sandy Parlour I am prepared to eat my words, and that with perfectly good appetite. Let me see, moreover, if I cannot formulate a new rule to justify myself. The great reason, apart from highly respectable sentiment, for letting a hole
alone is that, rightly or wrongly, people are amused by playing it. Is it really very amusing nowadays to play the old Sandy Parlour? There may be those who find it so; if they do their views are worthy of consideration, but for my part I do not so find it; I do not think I should, even if I could run all the way from the tee to the brow overlooking the green in order to know my fate. Doubtless it had a once certain quality of high adventure…but nothing could or can restore the glory or the fun of which the far-flying ball has robbed it. It does not seem to me even a good joke anymore.’

‘One Shot Course’ 12/7/45
‘The Sandy Parlour, once the pride of Deal, is likewise an entirely fresh hole and, I must add, an infinitely better one than its predecessor.’

TM

PS: You can post this message on GCA if wish, in fact I encourage it.

[Rich Goodale]

That is a very good compilation by Tom.  Thanks.

It is hard to think of a golf hole that is so irreperably bad that a writer as good and creative cannot ever find an encouraging word to say about it.  There must be some history there--perhaps from one or more Halford Hewitts--that has stimulated Bernie's bile ducts.

I look forward to Noel and Tommy N.'s replies.  Why, gents, was the Sandy Parlour so good, and why might have Darwin been so wrong?

[SL_Solow]

Tom;  a nice piece and its even nicer to hear from you.  We still hope to see you if you get to Chicago.

[David Stamm]

Tom, thanks so much for this. I truly miss you presence here.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I do note that the great man (Darwin) contradicted himself a fair bit.  I've seen him espouse Deal as one of his top courses but if you read the last line of what Tom's research found (about the Sandy Parlour) versus mine (the 2nd comment) he was in fact somewhat hypocritical.  If anyone can fwd this to Tom, thanks..  I realize it is a small point but just something amusing..

 
Deal: “To my thinking, Deal is the least engaging of the three [Sandwich, Princes & Deal], though it has many of the same qualities, and is certainly a most searching course. It is not so pretty as the other two because it is less private. There are some fine holes there, and some exciting ones, notably the last four, which, whether intrinsically good or bad, make for bloodcurdling finishes. There is also a glorious opportunity for the long hitter: there is no course on which he profits more. The ground is so good that one wishes that it had not been discovered until golfing architecture had come to its present standard. There would have been no blots such as the Sandy Parlour, which is, take it for all in all, the worst short hole in the world.”

 

Versus:--FROM MY RESEARCH

 

“Experiments have been tried in the direction of improving the fourth hole, the short blind one known as The Sandy Parlour, but hitherto without much success. It is easy
enough to make a hole that is not blind, and some have been made, but it is by no means easy to make such a one that is as interesting and good as the Sandy Parlour is now. The hole is a general favourite, I think it will always remain, and I do not see any reason why it should not. The condemnation of blind holes has gone far enough, and much too far in the
past. After all this hole needs playing as much as any other, and a good shot gets its reward.”
Bernard Darwin        

Well, quite obviously, there is plenty of conflicting evidence saying he both liked and disliked the hole. How often is one going to find Darwin in this position? (Which I find interesting)

My take on Tom's excellent researched article here is that the harsh critique--I'm assuming in Tom's words is that Sandy Parlour wasn't all that great of a golf hole. Obviously it would be hard to debate this since the hole really doesn't exist--at least in some sort of playable shape. But the real point here is that when Noel and I did our research of the Sandy Parlour, it became somewhat more and more interesting as we got into it. We found things we had never seen from other infamous "blind shorties" such as a unique definitive line to the hole which literally funneled the ball to the pin--which was always/usually in the very back of the putting surface.

You see, The Sandy Parlour was one of those holes which we've expounded upon before--one which literally has you fearing the shot from the tee, because it required accuracy and wasn't forgiving in any way. A directional pole guided you to "HIT IT HERE" and if you did, the ball took a magical path which to me, sheere excitment alone would have had me scampering up the side of that dune in hopes of seeing the ball come to rest in or near the pin. The path the ball would take in doing this was almost "S"-like. If you chillied dipped it off the tee, the walk into that gaping bunker would be enough to scare the bejeebees out of you--it was that deep and threatening; all of which would make this even more problematic from the tee.

I also want to add that Darwin both wrote good and bad things about the original Maiden at Sandwich and other blind one-shotters, and in this golfing life, I can attest to one time myself--liking and then not liking Ted Robinson-styled pot bunkers. Sometimes our opinions can and do change, even when we don't want to think about it. (convienently) We become more cultured; more knowledgable and sometimes, just don't even care.

But I do know this: the Sandy Parlour was once a hole that was revered and eventually became screwed with. God help great holes just like it.....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()