GolfClubAtlas in 1914

[Joe Bausch]

Seems perhaps a forerunner to our web-based forum might have been a question and answer column in the Philadelphia Inquirer, written by Verdant Greene.  Here is the citation for a neat post about architecture:

Headline: Golf Queries Answered by Verdant Greene; Article Type: News/Opinion
Paper: Philadelphia Inquirer, published as The Philadelphia Inquirer; Date: 03-08-1914; Volume: 170; Issue: 67; Page: 10; Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

[TEPaul]

The fact that there've been about 120 hits on this particular thread without a single response just may be one of the most indicative and depressing indications of what GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and its contributors has become.

Joe Bausch that's a fascinating article you hung on the website and particularly given its date it says a ton about where golf and architecture was at a most interesting time in its development in America both philosophically and actually.

[Doug Siebert]

TEPaul,

Perhaps because it sounds like a rehash of the argument about the recent changes that have narrowed the driving areas on ANGC.

[TEPaul]

Doug:

What a remarkably myopic statement!  

[Ken Moum]

I'm a little disappointed that the first response makes no attempt to discuss or examine the subject.

Of course, that could be a product of the fact that there's not much to say other than, "Cool!"

FWIW, my only reaction was about that useless. I thought "Hey, 93 years later and we're still arguing about the same dopey ideas."

<grin>

Ken

[Doug Siebert]

Probably some of the most interesting things I have learned during my five years on GCA has been from reading little historic article snippets like this.  Until I came here I really had no idea that a lot of same concerns existed way back then.  They were worried that the ball was going too far and obsoleting courses, they were worried that golfers were being spoiled and expected conditioning that was too perfect, they were worried that the pace of play was becoming slower.

So now that I know that, I have to say I think that its bad for at least two reasons:

1) those trying to argue that the ball isn't going too far, conditioning isn't getting too perfect or play becoming too slow too often point to these concerns being raised in the past and say "see, golf survived then, it will survive now, stick your head in the sand and stop worrying!"

2) it shows that we didn't learn from our mistakes then, and thus we probably won't learn from them now.  So maybe we are futilely raging against the dying of the light and ought to stop worrying about the future of golf and just enjoy it while it lasts

[Dan Herrmann]

I found interesting that they hint that Pine Valley (in 1914) was the only championship course in Philly.  Would that have been true at the time?

[wsmorrison]

Dan,

Philadelphia was under consideration at that time as host to a men's Amateur.  It was the only well-established district in the country that did not hold a men's Amateur.  Merion was considered because it had a lot of influential members, it was considered a fine course in its day and it was the only private club in the country with two courses.  Both courses were considered suitable at the time for holding the event.  

However, it is clear that the East Course evolved quite dramatically between 1912 and 1916 and even more so between 1916 and 1924.  In addition, there were significant alterations made before the 1930 Amateur and also before the 1934 Open.  While Merion East was a vast improvement in golf course design of that era, the finishing holes and the quarry holes were already highly regarded.  I think it was, from the beginning, a difficult test of golf.   Yet it took some years before it began to look and play in a way that would be familiar to us today.  It was another 10 years or so before it went from a very good golf course (rare in that day) to one of the world's best.  It would be another 10 years before the golf course was essentially in the design iteration we know today.  The 22 or so years of redesign and tweaking were essential to the greatness of the finished product.  In the best sense, these were improvements.

[TEPaul]

I agree with Wayne that the perception of Merion East as a championship golf course took quite a bit of time to develop but the club and the creators of the course were not exactly advertizing it as such in the beginning.

Pine Valley was another matter altogether. After being initially conceived as a "winter" course, its creators rather quickly developed the idea of making the course into a full-blown championship course for the purpose of something of a regional training ground to develop better regional players and hopefully champions on a national level. The written record is full of comments from many architects and others who saw Pine Valley under construction not as just a great golf course but a uniquely difficult one.

George Crump apparently took great pride in this perception and even joked about it. But as the 1914 article above suggests not all clubs and architects wanted championship courses that were too difficult for the average golfer.

The latter part of the article suggests there may be a way of designing and building a golf course to accommodate both ends of the player spectrum and that of course is the vision of the "ideal" golf course---eg ideal architecture!

It is interesting to me how intense the interest was that early in championship competition. It's also interesting that there was real concern so early that if too many courses were too hard it might serve to stifle interest in the game which was just beginning to develop in American back then. And of course most everyone involved back then, architects and clubs alike, certainly wanted to see the popularity of the game increase.

[BCrosby]

What a fascinating little piece.

It suggests a number of things. First, that people have always fussed about gca. Second, that they fussed about gca because gca matters. Third, gca matters because it determines the kind of game you will play. Which is to say, gca determines what golf, at any particular place at any particular time, is. (For you philosophy majors in the room, the piece is a reminder that gca has ontological significance. No?)

Good stuff. Keep 'em coming.

Bob  

[Sean_A]

What is most interesting to me is what folks thought of as a championship course.  I think the concept of a championship course is a bit more rigid in the UK.  A championship course is one that holds championships of some significance (at least regionally) either in the amateur or professional game.  While the definition may be a bit semantic, there is an implied acknowledgement by most involved that the course is worthy and willing to host a championships.  Does Pine Valley actually fall in this category?

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"(For you philosophy majors in the room, the piece is a reminder that gca has ontological significance. No?)"


BobC:

WHAT??

Golf course architecture has ontological significance??

Does that mean golf course architecture can cause cancer??

If so, why the hell are you telling me that now, at this late date? Do you think there's any question that you and me might need some chimo therapy?

[TEPaul]

"While the definition may be a bit semantic, there is an implied acknowledgement by most involved that the course is worthy and willing to host a championships.  Does Pine Valley actually fall in this category?"


Sean:

Of course the architecture and style of Pine Valley's course was conceived as and is a championship course. The fact that no full-blown championships have ever been held there only has to do with the fact that it would be very hard to practically impossible to get thousands of spectators around that course.

But that fact certainly does not mean Pine Valley's architecture is not championship style and championship caliber.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Yes, go immediately to you dcotor and tell him that you are having problems with your ontology.

They have pills for that sort of thing.

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

One of the things that's interesting about this local article is how similar it is to the national articles of the time, i.e. how  everyone agreed that PV was to be one of the best courses in the country.  And I don't know if I should be surprised by that, i.e. by the fact that there seemed to be such a clear notion of what constituted a great American course at the time that the Pine Valleys and NGLAs were barely finished before being dubbed great -- and all this in what was pretty early days in the history of American golf architecture (or weren't they as early as I'm assuming?)

Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Right. The great classic courses in the US seem to have been so annointed on opening day. At a time when travel was hard and not many people had seen them. And nothing anyone has seen or said since seems to nudge them from their throne. A bit odd.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Tom -
Yes, go immediately to you dcotor and tell him that you are having problems with your ontology.
They have pills for that sort of thing."

Bob:

I know they do. I think it's called LSD.

[TEPaul]

Bob and Peter:

I don't see how anyone can really deny that the perception back then and certainly still today amongst so many golfers is that descriptions such as "Best" or "Great" when applied to golf course architecture was and is  practically synonymous with "hard" or "difficult".

I know many of us on here don't like to consider that fact or even admit it but it surely is pretty hard to deny that both was and is the way most look at it.

The most interesting thing to me about that article is, again, it implies that there really might be a way of doing both with any single golf course----eg make it hard or challenging for the expert player while at the same time making it enjoyble for and accommodating of the less capable player.

Clearly this was the vision for what some came to call the ideal golf course or "ideal" architecture. Clearly this was much of the basis of the debate about penal vs strategic architecture. Clearly this is part and parcel of that elusive ideal that golfers and architects are still looking for and hoping for and trying to figure out how to do or even if it is possible to do effectively.

The supreme irony is also that the design of ANGC, for instance, as it was initially conceived and designed just may have been it, but for reasons we must someday come to understand better it was almost completely misunderstood in that way!!

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob - yes, you said it better than I did. And odder still is that those early and immediate judgements proved to be right (at least according to posters here whose views I value/trust).  But I'm inclined to think that there ARE fundamental principles of golf course architecture, so maybe it shouldn't seem odd to me at all that those principles could be manifested at PV,  and SEEN to be manifested by expert observers, almost immediately. I just didn't think that those fundamental principles were so clearly understood so early on in America.

Peter

TE - thanks, I just saw your latest but decided to post this one anyway

[Sean_A]

"While the definition may be a bit semantic, there is an implied acknowledgement by most involved that the course is worthy and willing to host a championships.  Does Pine Valley actually fall in this category?"


Sean:

Of course the architecture and style of Pine Valley's course was conceived as and is a championship course. The fact that no full-blown championships have ever been held there only has to do with the fact that it would be very hard to practically impossible to get thousands of spectators around that course.

But that fact certainly does not mean Pine Valley's architecture is not championship style and championship caliber.

TomP

You may disagree with me, but my response would be that having space for spectators is part and parcel of what a championship course is about.  The term "championship" is thrown around like the term "great" far too much. The effect is both terms are cheapened.  It may be a good or bad thing, but it is reality and this has been the case for getting onto 100 years.  

As for "championship style", I don't know what that means.  

Again, the definition may not be to your liking, but I contend that for a course to be called "championship", it must hold championships.  That is a specific, and quite special label imo, lay claim to.  Regardless of Pine Valley's quality, one can't and shouldn't say its a championship course.  IMO, it gives the wrong impression in both a positive and negative way.

Ciao

[Kirk Gill]

One of the items that I found interesting in the Richard Mandell interview regarding his book about Pinehurst is his assertion that a primary reason that the #2 course was singled out for "championship play" was the simple fact that it was the longest of the courses there. This certainly has to be considered as a primary element of "championship style," whether we want it to be or not. In the U.S. in particular, is the term "championship" course synonymous with a long course?

[Dan Herrmann]

Kirk,
Sure it is...  But today's "Championship" seems to be a marketing slogan - at least in North America.  

Shoot - if all you want is the longball, go to Las Vegas and watch the Long Drive Championship.

We need more articles and threads like this - it's fascinating!

(and, boy, am I glad I live in the Philly metro area!)