“Tom Paul can I ask you to revise some of your opinions?
E.G. that all anyone needs to know about golf design history is contained in the introduction to The Architects of GOLF by Cornish and Whitten. While I agree it’s an excellent summary it is so far short of the whole story that to suggest that someone should keep on researching and then no matter what they discover the must refer back to the received history by C&W is one of the loonier ideas I’ve ever read on here.”
Tony:
If you think my opinions are what you said there after the “E.G.” I don’t know that I need to change them because those are not my opinions. Here’s what I said about Part One of Cornish and Whitten:
“Frankly, I think Part One of Cornish and Whitten's book treats this entire era much better and in more informative way for a reader, even if it’s fairly general. I've never found that much of anything to top it, even if it does not treat or even mention some of the lesser known architects from that time, only a few of the ones most all of us have heard of.”
First, I did not say and do not mean that anyone should always refer back to Cornish and Whitten’s Part One in the “Architects of Golf”. Where do you see I said that? What I did say is it just has always felt to me like an extremely logical explanation of what happened in that era we are talking about here, even if its fairly general. I just don’t see much of anything in their Part One that just doesn’t seem to wring true to what really happened in that era and why.
On the other hand, it seems to me there are a few explanations in Tom MacWood’s essay I, for one, would like to question the historical accuracy of, for fear that it may be an inaccurate opinion of an historic era that may pass for fact in the future, if accepted as fact. Here is one such example, and it may appear, at first, to be a small one, unless someone really considers the significance of it.
Here’s what he said:
“Like most of his fellow architects at that time Park’s success (or lack of success) could easily be predicted. When given good material near the sea he produced good results, when given an ordinary inland site he did nothing of consequence—that is until 1899. That year he began Sunningdale, and it was a major advancement. It was considered revolutionary for two primary reasons: first its scale was enormous for that time, and secondly the severity of the site, not only topographically but also in the nature of the ground. At that time it was considered unadvisable to make a course over sandy ground overgrown with heather. Sunningdale was the first course to be wholly sown from seed, at a considerable cost I might add.”
I have no problem with what he said there until he mentioned; ‘At that time it was considered unadvisable to make a course over sandy ground overgrown with heather. Sunningdale was the first course to be wholly sown from seed, at a considerable cost, I might add.’
This is what Cornish and Whitten had to say about the apparently revolutionary and perhaps even phenomenal event that took place beginning in 1899 in the English heathlands with the creation of Sunningdale and Huntercombe by Willie Park Jr:
“Dozens of sorry inland courses built on impervious clay soils convinced most golf purists that only the ancient links could produce excellent golf. But a few golf course prospectors were unconvinced and kept searching for suitable terrain comparable to the best linksland. Their search was fruitful, for at the turn of the century they unearthed a mother lode of fine golfing land less than fifty miles from London.
Here were the “heathlands”, with well drained, rock free, sandy soil in gently undulating terrain. This was true golf country, and its discovery was a major step in the development of golf course architecture. Many of the world’s greatest courses have since been created on land similar to that of the heaths, which except for the presence of trees, is not unlike the links. The long delay in the discovery of the heathlands, despite their proximity to London is not difficult to understand. The heathlands were covered with an undergrowth of heather, rhododendrons, Scotch fir and pines. Only a fool, it seemed, would spend time building a golf course in such a wasteland when vast meadows were available for the purpose.”
The “fools” that did build courses in the heathlands became the most prominent golf architects of their day. Four names in particular stand out: Willie Park Jr, J.F. Abercromby, H.S. Colt and W. Herbert Fowler. Their prominence was due in part to their vision in recognizing the true potential of this unlikely terrain and in a part to their ability to shape the land into splendid golf holes.”
The problem I have with what Tom MacWood said about the discovery of the heathlands is that he seems to suggest that golfers and architects before its discovery had some problem with sandy well draining soil! I don’t think so, perhaps just the opposite in fact----they realized its benefits ala the linksland, it was simply a matter of the fact they had not yet discovered its existence inland before that---eg most of those impervious clay soil meadows they had been laying out all those less than appealing courses on that seemed to be either soggy when wet or alternatively baked like a dirt road when not wet, not to mention the rather disappointing agronomic results as a consequence of that, was simply something they’d been living with inland for a few decades because they had not yet DISCOVERED a vastly beneficial alternative inland that the discovery of the healthland terrain and soil makeup finally offered in 1899.
The point of the discovery of the healthlands is it offered well draining and a far more similar soil structure reminiscent of the linksland itself. It was merely that this well draining terrain had not been discovered until 1899 because it resided hidden under heather, rhododendrens, Scotch pine and fir. The expense necessary to strip it away and to actually have to “seed” to produce good golf turf and playability was simply a reality of good golf and architecture that also needed to be discovered and admitted to, with its incumbent need to take the time to work on a golf course’s architecture and agronomy that had really not been done on most all courses and architecture that preceded it inland. That realization was also part of the significance of the heathland discovery for the future of great golf course architecture inland around the world.
In other words, Cornish and Whitten treat it well and realistically, in my opinion, by treating it as the pure discovery it was and not something that it took previous golfers and architects time to simply getting around to finally admitting too. In my opinion, it was something that was theretofore not understood at all and which led to so many disappointing inland courses during the approximately two decade era that came before the heathlands with inland courses outside the linksland.
I believe, much of all that is captured in Sir Guy Campbell’s remark that was included in Tom MacWood’s essay;
“By that time, however, the game had become so popular here, there, and in a manner of speaking, everywhere, as to create an undeniable demand for ‘handly’ golf, regardless of whether nature had already prepared the way, or the ground available suitable. Where nature and the ground were kind and such ventures in landscaping were undertaken by players of experience and some artistic sensibility, the results, especially on links land, met with a measure of success. Elsewhere, and with the undertaking at the mercy of unprenticed hands, the results were not always happy. But—and this was an innovation—man starting as it were from scratch, and with recollections, too often uncertain, of established links and courses, set out to lay down fairways, hazards and greens, at dimensions, shapes and positions of his own choosing.”
I also have something of a problem with this from his essay as to its historic accuracy:
“Another observation surrounds the phenomenon of the amateur architect. This was a time when amateurs were making significant contributions throughout society—in the sciences and in the arts and elsewhere. The factors contributing to amateurism included superior education, the unprecedented dissemination of information (through books, magazines, newspapers, libraries, museums, etc,) and increased leisure, allowing time to follow other pursuits. John Ruskin, Robert Chambers, Nathaniel Lloyd, and Gertrude Jekyll are individuals who made major contributions in fields outside their formal training. Based on the societal trend it is no surprise golf produced its own group of amateur architects. It should also be noted that professionals, or more seasoned amateurs, often assisted these amateur architects. There has been a tendency to ignore that fact and give these amateurs a mythical persona. I hope we have avoided this pitfall.”
This remark---‘It should also be noted that professionals, or more seasoned amateurs, often assisted these amateur architects. There has been a tendency to ignore that fact and give these amateurs a mythical persona. I hope to we have avoided this pitfall.------ just seems to me to be another “foot-in-the-door” rationale that people like Tom MacWood has basically always used to make the assumptions that men like Crump and Wilson could not possibly have done what it seems they did without more help from the likes of Colt and Macdonald than most likely actually happened. I think this type of rationale is the very thing that taken too far has led a David Moriarty to assume that C.B. Macdonald MUST HAVE routed (and perhaps by implication, designed) Merion East and that all Hugh Wilson and his committee were capable of doing, at that time, was simply somehow “constructing” to that Macdonald routing and design!
It is not as if these men did not seek advice from men like Macdonald or Colt and the suggestions of others, and in Merion's case, likely in some areas that were not specifically architecture (more like the "amateur committee" modus operandi from Macdonald and Whigam), it’s just that men like Crump and Wilson very much probably do deserve their mythical personas for what they really did do on their own!
We should never forget the obvious fact that is always at the forefront and that is we do need to understand the potential meaning of what a few days advice really could mean compared to the years and years some of these amateurs put in on their select projects like Oakmont, Myopia, Pine Valley, Merion East, or even NGLA, for that matter.