[TEPaul]

Tony Muldoon and Sean Arble:


This is what Tom MacWood said in his essay

“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’ll reprint my comments from a former post on here:

“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 seems to have been and not something that it took previous golfers and architects time to simply get 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.

But if Tom MacWood or someone else has some good evidence that inland golfers and golf architects were aware for a number of years that the far better draining soil structure that lay under the ground cover of heather and rhododendrens on heathland sites like Sunningdale and Huntercombe were unadvisable to use despite the lack of success with impervious clay structure of most all the inland courses that preceded Sunningdale and Huntercombe I would very much like to see some of that evidence or else I would ask that he might think about amending that statement of his as it may be historically inaccurate.

In other words, I think it is extremely important to know if the heathlands sites of Sunningdale and Huntercombe with their well draining soil structure quite similar to the linksland was found around 1899 quite by accident or whether golfers and architects were actually aware of it for some years and considered it inadvisable to use it, even if due to expense. C&W’s explanation simply rings truer to me, but it certainly doesn’t mean I think they’re the last word on this era and I’ve said many times their treatment of the era was fairly general. I’m simply trying to determine if some attempt by Tom MacWood to treat the era in more detail is historically accurate in some of the points he made such as his point that this type of site use HAD BEEN considered inadvisable.

The fact that some or many may've considered the early healthland architects to be "fools" for attempting to use those sites is most certainly not necessarily the same thing as golfers and architect's being aware of it for years and feeling its use was inadvisable. C&W's point seems to be that before its discovery no one in early golf seemed to be aware what the soil structure was under that heather and rhododendrens and it's massive benefits to golf and agronomy.

[TEPaul]

I would very much like to see the following magazine report used in Tom MacWood's article used as a serious line of inquiry because if it really is historically supportable I think it might say an awful lot about Hall Blyth's significance in the evolution of architecture. For starters, no date seems to be given for that American Golfer article and I can't exactly tell when that Muirfield drawing was done and whether it was from Hall Blyth or for someone later off of something Blyth may've done. Since Blyth was obviously a pretty significant engineer, I think it's even more important. I'm still trying to figure out, along with a number of others, when fairly comprehensive architectural plans and drawers were first done in architecture PRECEDING construction! Perhaps Hall Blyth may've been the first to do this.

Is anyone aware whether Tom Morris ever did any fairly detailed plans and drawings that PRECEDED the courses he was involved with. That may be fairly significant too regarding what got on the ground from him.






"The foreign correspondent Henry Leach wrote this amazing tribute in American Golfer:


“Mr. Hall Blyth was sixty-eight years of age, and a life member of the Royal and Ancient Club. Being an engineer by profession he could not help applying some of his engineering and constructional instincts to golf courses. Probably he was the first real golf course designer. Until he turned his attention to the business, which is now pursued ardently and thoroughly by many persons, golf holes were to a large extent made themselves, as it might be said. Nature, the lie of the land, suggested the places where putting greens should be made, the places for teeing, and the main route to the hole. In course of time it might happen that a number of persons who were agreed upon the point, such as the committee of a club or society that played upon the ground, would dig a hole for a bunker at a spot where it was considered there should be some punishment waiting, but this sort of thing was very sparsely done, for it was considered and generally found that Nature made quite enough trouble for the golfer. It was more or less in this way that most of the famous holes on the old courses came to be made, such as those of St. Andrews, North Berwick and other places, though in latter times bunkers were added according to carefully arranged schemes. But Mr. Hall Blyth considered that fine holes might be made without waiting for the slow evolution from Nature, and he set himself about the design and construction of such holes at St. Andrews itself, North Berwick, Muirfield and Gullane, and on these famous greens there endure testimonies to his fine imagination, great golfing judgment, and skill as a designer.”


(using Hall Blyth's date of birth and his age mentioned in that American Golfer, that article must've been written around 1917 which might make his very early use of preconstruction plans and drawings (in the early to mid-1890s) much harder to verify).

[Sean_A]

Tony Muldoon and Sean Arble:


This is what Tom MacWood said in his essay

“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’ll reprint my comments from a former post on here:

“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 seems to have been and not something that it took previous golfers and architects time to simply get 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.

But if Tom MacWood or someone else has some good evidence that inland golfers and golf architects were aware for a number of years that the far better draining soil structure that lay under the ground cover of heather and rhododendrens on heathland sites like Sunningdale and Huntercombe were unadvisable to use despite the lack of success with impervious clay structure of most all the inland courses that preceded Sunningdale and Huntercombe I would very much like to see some of that evidence or else I would ask that he might think about amending that statement of his as it may be historically inaccurate.

In other words, I think it is extremely important to know if the heathlands sites of Sunningdale and Huntercombe with their well draining soil structure quite similar to the linksland was found around 1899 quite by accident or whether golfers and architects were actually aware of it for some years and considered it inadvisable to use it, even if due to expense. C&W’s explanation simply rings truer to me, but it certainly doesn’t mean I think they’re the last word on this era and I’ve said many times their treatment of the era was fairly general. I’m simply trying to determine if some attempt by Tom MacWood to treat the era in more detail is historically accurate in some of the points he made such as his point that this type of site use HAD BEEN considered inadvisable.

The fact that some or many may've considered the early healthland architects to be "fools" for attempting to use those sites is most certainly not necessarily the same thing as golfers and architect's being aware of it for years and feeling its use was inadvisable. C&W's point seems to be that before its discovery no one in early golf seemed to be aware what the soil structure was under that heather and rhododendrens and it's massive benefits to golf and agronomy.

Tom

I don't know enough about what was common know concerning agriculture and growing grass back in the day.  But, I do know that folks were very concerned about growing turf on sandy soil back in the day.  Heathlands is easy draining (but nearly as well draining as legends suggest), but these same attributes may have made some believe that growing turf would be difficult.  What we call heathland today is very different than 100 years ago.  The introduction of golf courses and methods for growing grass altered the heaths and made them more hospitable for good golfing turf, but also made them less heathy - which is why I call nearly all heathland courses really hybrids of heathland and parkland.  It was my impression that Tommy Mac was refering to this with his mention of Sunningdale being completely reseeded at considerable cost rather than your interpretation of folks not understanding the merits of heathland golf.  In other words, it was a tradeoff of getting better conditions for inland golf but the price to pay was much higher in terms of agronomy, land clearing and finding someone with creative vision to see a course under all the crap. 

I would also like to add that some clubs are now starting to realize that they have let the balance of heathland/parkland go too far in favour of parkland (really to make the greens smoother and faster) at the cost of consistently dryish and firmish conditions throughout the year.   Of course, there has to be some compromise, but getting the balance which makes the best golfing conditions throughout the year should be the goal rather than trying to get good greens in the summer months.  I hope more clubs understand this and take steps to reverse the parklandization of the great heathland courses. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

“Tom

I don't know enough about what was common know concerning agriculture and growing grass back in the day.  But, I do know that folks were very concerned about growing turf on sandy soil back in the day.  Heathlands is easy draining (but nearly as well draining as legends suggest), but these same attributes may have made some believe that growing turf would be difficult.”


Sean:

I think it is almost essential to understand not just the concerns of growing turf suitable for golf back in that day but also the reasons why they had those concerns on all the impervious clay soil sites golfers and architects had been laying out the first rudimentary courses on in INLAND England in the decades before the so-called break-through that took place in the Heathlands around the turn of the century.

Today, we may just assume that it really makes little difference to the growing of decent turf for golf where a course is built no matter what the soil makeup is because it is so common today to easily amend it, but that was just not the case back then----eg it had probably not even been thought of much less remotely understood.

I believe it is completely missing the point of the importance of the first real nexus in understanding of golf architecture and golf agronomy INLAND to suggest that people back then on inland sites ‘thought it inadvisable to look for sites of the soil structure and soil makeup unique to the inland English heathlands.' I think as Geoffrey Cornish has always inferred they simply had not yet discovered it inland or understood all its inherent benefits to the future of decent golf turf and decent playability.

His point is it was remarkably similar to the natural linksland in soil structure (sandy and well draining) but it was also quite similar in soil "makeup" that promoted the use of those two natural golf grasses God and Nature gave to the Scottish linksland---eg festuca (fescue) and agrostis (bent).

I think understanding all the ramifications and factors involved in this is absolutely essential to understanding why the heathlands was considered to be such a revolutionary break-through to those people back then. And I think if we fail to see it today as they did back then we will never be able to understand that time and all that the English heathlands meant to them not just in golf course architecture but in the first efforts ever to begin to develop decent agronomy for golf outside linksland or coastal sites on INLAND sites around the world.

The fact is the Scottish linksland did not just offer beautiful and hugely effective terrain to play golf over it also offered NATURALLY a soil “makeup” on which two types of grass (bent and fescue) grew naturally on those expanses of land they referred to as “swards” (the first natural fairways for golf) with almost NO NATURAL competition!

To date my understanding of why it was that way so long ago on that kind of soil “makeup” which the heathlands was so similar to was those two types of natural golf grasses (festuca and agrostis) were essentially the only ones that could survive in that kind of acidity. The fact that they also just happened to be naturally almost perfect to play golf on was something that could only be said was an incredibly lucky stroke of fate for the existence of golf and its future.

Of course they had to seed the heathland courses because the types of “meadow” grasses they had been using on natural inland impervious clay soiled sites had become really unacceptable for golf for a whole host of reasons not the least reasons being they have said they were either baked rock-hard or alternatively soggy!

The discovery of the English heathlands apparently for the first time resolved those two problems INLAND and may’ve had far more to do with golf agronomy than with architecture but it is up to us to understand how important the one was to the other back then, and how that had probably not theretofore been realized or understood.

I think very few of us today understand or appreciate how important to those men back then the original nexus of golf agronomy and golf architecture INLAND really was and why! In this way the English heathlands are probably just as seminal to the future of golf as the Scottish linksland was centuries before it.

Again, I think a remark like, ‘At that time it was considered unadvisable to make a course over sandy ground overgrown with heather', may seem inconsequential and innocence but in truth it is extremely inaccurate in an historical context.

I think the truth is it was considered to be extremely "advisable" and it was just a matter of finding it somewhere INLAND, and they first found it in the INLAND English heathlands around the turn of the century underneath a ground- cover of heather and rhododendrens, Scottish pine and fir!     

This is why, although Cornish may seem fairly general in their explanations of this important place and era they are, in my opinion, far more historically accurate! And it's probably no wonder as Geoffrey Corinish being an architect and long-time student of golf and architecture probably understands the history of golf agronomy too a lot better than most of us on here, including some of our IMO piece writers. 

And this is precisely why I think some of our IMO piece essay writers who even admit what they are doing with their essays and the research they do for them is a learning process for them, should cast and couch the things they say in those essays much more in the form of "questions" and "inquiry" and much less in the form of assumptions, and premises and conclusions of "FACT."

[Sean_A]

“Tom

I don't know enough about what was common know concerning agriculture and growing grass back in the day.  But, I do know that folks were very concerned about growing turf on sandy soil back in the day.  Heathlands is easy draining (but nearly as well draining as legends suggest), but these same attributes may have made some believe that growing turf would be difficult.”


Sean:

I think it is almost essential to understand not just the concerns of growing turf suitable for golf back in that day but also the reasons why they had those concerns on all the impervious clay soil sites golfers and architects had been laying out the first rudimentary courses on in INLAND England in the decades before the so-called break-through that took place in the Heathlands around the turn of the century.

Today, we may just assume that it really makes little difference to the growing of decent turf for golf where a course is built no matter what the soil makeup is because it is so common today to easily amend it, but that was just not the case back then----eg it had probably not even been thought of much less remotely understood.

I believe it is completely missing the point of the importance of the first real nexus in understanding of golf architecture and golf agronomy INLAND to suggest that people back then on inland sites ‘thought it inadvisable to look for sites of the soil structure and soil makeup unique to the inland English heathlands.' I think as Geoffrey Cornish has always inferred they simply had not yet discovered it inland or understood all its inherent benefits to the future of decent golf turf and decent playability.

His point is it was remarkably similar to the natural linksland in soil structure (sandy and well draining) but it was also quite similar in soil "makeup" that promoted the use of those two natural golf grasses God and Nature gave to the Scottish linksland---eg festuca (fescue) and agrostis (bent).

I think understanding all the ramifications and factors involved in this is absolutely essential to understanding why the heathlands was considered to be such a revolutionary break-through to those people back then. And I think if we fail to see it today as they did back then we will never be able to understand that time and all that the English heathlands meant to them not just in golf course architecture but in the first efforts ever to begin to develop decent agronomy for golf outside linksland or coastal sites on INLAND sites around the world.

The fact is the Scottish linksland did not just offer beautiful and hugely effective terrain to play golf over it also offered NATURALLY a soil “makeup” on which two types of grass (bent and fescue) grew naturally on those expanses of land they referred to as “swards” (the first natural fairways for golf) with almost NO NATURAL competition!

To date my understanding of why it was that way so long ago on that kind of soil “makeup” which the heathlands was so similar to was those two types of natural golf grasses (festuca and agrostis) were essentially the only ones that could survive in that kind of acidity. The fact that they also just happened to be naturally almost perfect to play golf on was something that could only be said was an incredibly lucky stroke of fate for the existence of golf and its future.

Of course they had to seed the heathland courses because the types of “meadow” grasses they had been using on natural inland impervious clay soiled sites had become really unacceptable for golf for a whole host of reasons not the least reasons being they have said they were either baked rock-hard or alternatively soggy!

The discovery of the English heathlands apparently for the first time resolved those two problems INLAND and may’ve had far more to do with golf agronomy than with architecture but it is up to us to understand how important the one was to the other back then, and how that had probably not theretofore been realized or understood.

I think very few of us today understand or appreciate how important to those men back then the original nexus of golf agronomy and golf architecture INLAND really was and why! In this way the English heathlands are probably just as seminal to the future of golf as the Scottish linksland was centuries before it.

Again, I think a remark like, ‘At that time it was considered unadvisable to make a course over sandy ground overgrown with heather', may seem inconsequential and innocence but in truth it is extremely inaccurate in an historical context.

I think the truth is it was considered to be extremely "advisable" and it was just a matter of finding it somewhere INLAND, and they first found it in the INLAND English heathlands around the turn of the century underneath a ground- cover of heather and rhododendrens, Scottish pine and fir!     

This is why, although Cornish may seem fairly general in their explanations of this important place and era they are, in my opinion, far more historically accurate! And it's probably no wonder as Geoffrey Corinish being an architect and long-time student of golf and architecture probably understands the history of golf agronomy too a lot better than most of us on here, including some of our IMO piece writers. 

Tom

I could be wrong about Tommy Mac's intent.  None the less and once again, I took his point to mean that it was bloody difficult to grow good turf for golf - anywhere, the heathlands were not excluded in this.  His proof was that Sunningdale needed to be completely reseeded at great cost.  In other words, golf wasn't just there for the taking on the heathlands.  It required knowhow to create quality turf because of the what was thought of as poor growing conditions (ie sand).  I think it was recognized that drainage element was quite attractive, but then how to grow turf?  Nothing sinister or contrary here.  However, I don't know the ins and outs of these things so it could all be rubbish. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"Tom
I could be wrong about Tommy Mac's intent.  None the less and once again, I took his point to mean that it was bloody difficult to grow good turf for golf - anywhere, the heathlands were not excluded in this.  His proof was that Sunningdale needed to be completely reseeded at great cost.  In other words, golf wasn't just there for the taking on the heathlands.  It required knowhow to create quality turf because of the what was thought of as poor growing conditions (ie sand).  I think it was recognized that drainage element was quite attractive, but then how to grow turf?  Nothing sinister or contrary here.  However, I don't know the ins and outs of these things so it could all be rubbish."


Sean:

Logically, I can't agree with what you said there. It really doesn't matter what the inland golfers and others in inland England at that time THOUGHT----what really matters is what Willie Park Jr THOUGHT, since he's the one who has basically always been given the credit for first developing the courses Sunningdale and Huntercombe in the heather and rhodendren covered English heathlands! 

Since it has always been admitted (at least Cornish and some other golf and architecure history analysts admit it) that the soil structure (sandy and well draining) and the soil "makeup" was remarkably similar to the natural Scottish linksland soil structure and makeup I can hardly imagine that he would have missed or misunderstood the significance of it. After-all HE WAS a Scottish LINKSLAND architect and GOLFER of the highest order! If it didn't occur to HIM who could it possibly have occured to in INLAND England at that time? 

When Cornish (in his various books) refers to that soil structure and soil makeup that was hidden underneath a massive ground cover of heather and rhodendren in the INLAND English heathlands as akin to discovering a "Mother Lode" I sense he is exactly right, historically and other-wise!

It sounds to me that this was the very thing a man like Park Jr had been searching for INLAND and it was just a matter of finding it and he did in the English heathlands. The fact that it was so completely hidden from sight by massive natural vegetation makes it all the more plausible and basically a pretty neat historical story, in my opinion.

[TEPaul]

"His proof was that Sunningdale needed to be completely reseeded at great cost.  In other words, golf wasn't just there for the taking on the heathlands.  It required knowhow to create quality turf because of the what was thought of as poor growing conditions (ie sand).  I think it was recognized that drainage element was quite attractive, but then how to grow turf?  Nothing sinister or contrary here.  However, I don't know the ins and outs of these things so it could all be rubbish."

Sean:

This is precisely my point, and I believe precisely Cornish's point and he said it in what he wrote---Tom MacWood didn't!

The fact that Sunningdale and Huntercombe needed to be reseeded is precisely the point too! This is basically the reality of modern golf agronomy anywhere----the course essentially needs to be seeded with the types of grass conducive to the ideal playing of the game and those types of grass basically happened to be festuca and agrostis----eg the two naturally occuring grasses of the Scottish linksland for so many centuries.

The expense and effort of doing that at Sunningdale and Huntercombe for the first time INLAND is not really the point either----the over-riding point is that this was the first discovery in golf agronomy and architecture that this is what HAS TO BE DONE----its just the way it is with golf architecture and agronomy and that became apparent in that place at that time.

Most all had certainly come to understand that quality golf on the preceding impervious clay soils sites of meadowlands on natural meadow grass (those early inland courses probably never were reseeded) were very clearly not cutting it, and this is logically why a man like Park had been searching INLAND for something much more similar to the soil structure and soil makeup of the natural Scottish coastal linksland.

I think this is much of the point and significance of the English heathlands to golf and golf agronomy and the future of inland golf and architecture all over the world.

[Sean_A]

"His proof was that Sunningdale needed to be completely reseeded at great cost.  In other words, golf wasn't just there for the taking on the heathlands.  It required knowhow to create quality turf because of the what was thought of as poor growing conditions (ie sand).  I think it was recognized that drainage element was quite attractive, but then how to grow turf?  Nothing sinister or contrary here.  However, I don't know the ins and outs of these things so it could all be rubbish."

Sean:

This is precisely my point, and I believe precisely Cornish's point and he said it in what he wrote---Tom MacWood didn't!

The fact that Sunningdale and Huntercombe needed to be reseeded is precisely the point too! This is basically the reality of modern golf agronomy anywhere----the course essentially needs to be seeded with the types of grass conducive to the ideal playing of the game and those types of grass basically happened to be festuca and agrostis----eg the two naturally occuring grasses of the Scottish linksland for so many centuries.

The expense and effort of doing that at Sunningdale and Huntercombe for the first time INLAND is not really the point either----the over-riding point is that this was the first discovery in golf agronomy and architecture that this is what HAS TO BE DONE----its just the way it is with golf architecture and agronomy and that became apparent in that place at that time.

Most all had certainly come to understand that quality golf on the preceding impervious clay soils sites of meadowlands on natural meadow grass (those early inland courses probably never were reseeded) were very clearly not cutting it, and this is logically why a man like Park had been searching INLAND for something much more similar to the soil structure and soil makeup of the natural Scottish coastal linksland.

I think this is much of the point and significance of the English heathlands to golf and golf agronomy and the future of inland golf and architecture all over the world.

Heavy sigh.

Ciao
 

[TEPaul]

Sean:

What is that supposed to mean?

[Thomas MacWood]

This in indeed a great piece!

In fact, I hate when people whine about the good old days of GolfClubAtlas.com – these ARE the good old days with GolfClubAtlas.com starting to hit its stride in provoking passionate debate. The center for such debating is YOU, the people kind enough to spend the time and energy developing well researched and laid-out In My Opinion pieces. GolfClubAtlas.com is thrilled to house lengthy works and to provide a platform free of the space constraints that hamper all other forms of media.
 Cheers,

Without commenting on Tom MacWood’s article except to say that IMHO he is good at collecting material but not so good at all in interpreting it. I should mention that I believe this is the end of the non-commercial era for GolfClubAtlas (The good old days Ran?)

With this article Ran has delved into solicitation of material for posting (I would not call it publication since there is no form of review process here on GCA) and PAYMENT for such articles using in part or whole the contributions of members.

Take this new turn of events for whatever you wish. Perhaps Ran will pay you for your ideas here as well.  You need only ask.

TWHLIW
This is very good news. Do you have any idea how much and when I will be paid. My wife is very excited!

I appreciate your comment about gathering info, but I'm not so crazy about the interpreting part. Have you had a chance to read the essay? Can you give any specific examples of where you were disappointed with the analysis?

[Thomas MacWood]

I'll just concentrate on whats written in the piece.



Well done Tom, it seems amazing that it's taken until now for someone to delve more broadly into the roots of golf architecture on here.  Very valuable, the considerable effort you must have put into this is much appreciated.

I knew about most of them but I hadn't previously recognised Hall Blyth.

Tom was there such a thing as a "Wimbledon school"?

I'm not sure I'm the best at identifying schools of architecture. I suspect there may have been a London school, although I'm not sure I could identify with the characteristics of that school might be.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom MacWood -

A wonerful contribution. I enjoyed it enormously and learned a great deal. I don't want to think about the hours of research you must have poured into this.

Congratulations. Well done.

Bob

Thank you and thank you to all the other's kind comments.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom M

Thank you. I want to read the essay again, and more carefully.

A couple of general thoughts/questions:

Off Sir Guy Campbell’s quote, i.e. “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.”  It seems to me that the same could be said of architecture 20 or 30 years later, or 50 or 60 years later, or even today – regardless of whether amateurs or professionals were involved.

In this very early period of amateur architects, were the very principles and foundational ideas about golf course design still being worked out? Were the courses mediocre only because some un-tried and in-experienced hands built them, or also because WHAT they thought worthy of building and the IDEAL they thought worthy to strive for was still being developed/fine tuned? 

Or, to put the thought another way: the principles of golf course architecture are either fixed or fluid, either essential and fundamental or a matter of changing tastes. If the former, the earliest courses might be mediocre by our standards either because no one had yet identified and/or articulated those principles, or, if they had been articulated, because the early amateurs simply did not know how to manifest those principles on the ground.

If that latter…well, then it’s just about changing tastes.   

Peter

I do think they were still trying work out their ideas, and continued to work on those ideas in the decades that followed. As far as the mediocre results Campbell's description of golf architects "with recollections, too often uncertain, of established links and courses" speaks to some of the bizarre practices and results.

[Thomas MacWood]

DMoriarty writes:
Is it possible that you are reading a bit too much into Tom MacWood's essay?

I'd say it is extremely possible. It's a shame Mr. MacWood doesn't participate here.

Would you have similar concerns had Macwood written that Blyth was heavily involved in the creation rather than the layout?

I wouldn't have the same concerns. I got a sense from reading the essay that it was downplaying the contribution of Tom Morris in the original Muirfield. But maybe I was being sensitive to that and read in more than MacWood meant to present.

Any thoughts on this plan, which was apparently based on one by Blyth?

It's very interesting. My original thought was that perhaps Blyth as a civil engineer only created the plan from drawings done by Morris. But I don't feel good about that hypothesis. I'd like to know a little more about this plan by Blyth. Where did it come from? Was there any other material along with it?

am sure Tom MacWood is pleased that his essay has got you and Rihc bringing forward this additional information.   I know that, as an interested bystander, I am. 

I'm not sure why I jumped in. Most of my information is just a single source. My advice, if Mr. MacWood were to ask, would be to go through Mr. Kerr's book. It was reprinted a number of years ago. (I just looked around, no libraries in the worldcat database have a copy of the book and bookfinder has the reprint selling for $500. Perhaps I should stop opening my book since it appears to be worth more than a grand.)

Sean Arble writes:
I enjoyed the piece and can't see any reason to get bent out of shape or bring up some of the names mentioned by TomP.  It is what it is - short and sweet.

I hope I do not come across as bent out of shape. My point is history is rarely black and white. Kerr brings up issues that disagree with some of what MacWood found. It doesn't necessarily mean Kerr is right and MacWood is wrong. There are countless reasons one could be closer to the truth that the other, and I don't believe we will ever know for sure. It is important to look at alternate views of history.

I personally think Tom Morris is one of the greatest people in the history of the game of golf (I dressed as Old Tom at the first King's Putter on dress as your favorite architect day,) so any of my reading of the era will be colored with that belief. It would be difficult (but hopefully not impossible) to come off that core belief. My arguing against Blyth had more to do with Old Tom than disrespecting Blyth, who seems like an enjoyable chap.

Cheers,
Dan King

The first extension of the green into the park beyond the west wall was, I think, in 1870. There were three holes, the first being in the neighbourhood of Perfection (presently the fourteenth hole); from there we played to the south-west corner of the park, to where the fourth hole of the ladies' green now is; from that to the Redan, which was a lovely shot. I used to play it with my spoon -- a full drive, thrown high, so as to land on the table and escape the bunkers on either side; thence to the gate and Pointgarry, and from this home, as the Gas hole was given up on the removal of the gasworks from the links to the present site, thus making the round one of nine holes.
 --Edward L. I. Blyth (Uncle of B. Hall Blyth)

Dan and I had an excellent email exchange a few days ago. Where I tried to clear up any confusion.

I had looked at John Kerr's book in the past but did not use it when preparing for the essay, which was probably a mistake. I had forgotten I had access to it. When Dan mentioned the book I went back and looked at it, and it is a remarkable book.  I relied more on George Pottinger's history of Muirfield and period reports in golf magazines and newspapers. By the way John Kerr reported for the early magazine Golf and the newspaper The Scotsman. There is a lot of good information in Kerr's book that I could have used - particularly on Hall Blyth, Lord Hope and AM Ross. Information that could have helped further support their significance.

As I told Dan I did not mean to diminish OTM's involvement at Muirfield and perhaps my wording could have been better. There is no doubt OTM is responsible for staking out the original Muirfield, there is an overwhelming amount of documentation to support that. What I was trying to bring to light was the important contribution of B. Hall Blyth. Pottinger's history of Muirfield emphasizes Blyth's important role. Pottinger relied on Kerr quite a bit, but he also had access to the club minutes, and he corrects Kerr on a few occasions. I get the impression Kerr was not part of the Honourable Company's inner circle. Pottinger wrote "His [BHB] services in acquiring and preparing the course at Muirfield were suitably recorded in a special Minute of 4th, April, 1894, and he, more than anyone else, is responsible for the present clubhouse and the Muirfield Green." That is a pretty strong statement IMO.

Regarding the map, that map included with my essay is from 1894 and is based upon a map from 1891, signed by Hall Blyth. That original 1891 signed map is in the 2nd Muirfield history (Muirfield: Home of the Honourable Company). I would have included it but I couldn't get a good copy. There is another Hall Blyth map of Muirfield after the major redesign of 1896. Those changes have been credited to PH Don Wauchope (briefly mentioned in Kerr's book). I found that map in Golf magazine.

There is a good report of the opening ceremony of May 1891 in Golf magazine, very similar to the one in Kerr's book. Old Tom teeing it up for the former Captain's inaugural drive, etc. There is one interesting difference, the Golf article reported that Hall Blyth led the guests on a tour of the golf course. I suppose one could read that any way they would like. He was obviously very familiar with the golf course. It is also interesting to note that the golf course was only 16 holes at this point, it would not be completed for another several months. In fact the Winter Meeting of the HCEG took place at Musselburgh in 1891.

Its difficult to say exactly what BHB did at Muirfield but I think it is pretty obvious he was heavily involved. There is also quite a bit of information that he was one of the important early contributors to golf architecture. That being said I did not mean to imply BHB should be credited with the design of Muirfield.

By the way there is new history of Muirfield in the works by Richard Latham, the gentleman who wrote the excellent books on Woodhall Spa and County Down.

[Thomas MacWood]

"Tom
I could be wrong about Tommy Mac's intent.  None the less and once again, I took his point to mean that it was bloody difficult to grow good turf for golf - anywhere, the heathlands were not excluded in this.  His proof was that Sunningdale needed to be completely reseeded at great cost.  In other words, golf wasn't just there for the taking on the heathlands.  It required knowhow to create quality turf because of the what was thought of as poor growing conditions (ie sand).  I think it was recognized that drainage element was quite attractive, but then how to grow turf?  Nothing sinister or contrary here.  However, I don't know the ins and outs of these things so it could all be rubbish."


Sean:

Logically, I can't agree with what you said there. It really doesn't matter what the inland golfers and others in inland England at that time THOUGHT----what really matters is what Willie Park Jr THOUGHT, since he's the one who has basically always been given the credit for first developing the courses Sunningdale and Huntercombe in the heather and rhodendren covered English heathlands! 

Since it has always been admitted (at least Cornish and some other golf and architecure history analysts admit it) that the soil structure (sandy and well draining) and the soil "makeup" was remarkably similar to the natural Scottish linksland soil structure and makeup I can hardly imagine that he would have missed or misunderstood the significance of it. After-all HE WAS a Scottish LINKSLAND architect and GOLFER of the highest order! If it didn't occur to HIM who could it possibly have occured to in INLAND England at that time? 

When Cornish (in his various books) refers to that soil structure and soil makeup that was hidden underneath a massive ground cover of heather and rhodendren in the INLAND English heathlands as akin to discovering a "Mother Lode" I sense he is exactly right, historically and other-wise!

It sounds to me that this was the very thing a man like Park Jr had been searching for INLAND and it was just a matter of finding it and he did in the English heathlands. The fact that it was so completely hidden from sight by massive natural vegetation makes it all the more plausible and basically a pretty neat historical story, in my opinion.

TE
Sunningdale and Huntercombe were two different stories. Sunningdale was sandy heathland site (with a rugged topography to boot). Huntercombe was built on uplands or downs. It was common land. Sunningdale took two years to build and Huntercombe a matter of months.

I found this quote from WPII which gives you idea what they were up against and why it was unique project:

"When we started at Sunningdale it was nothing but a mass of rough heather and dry sandy soil. There was not a blade of grass to be seen, and well I remember Hugh MacLean, the Scotsman, who is the greenskeeper, saying to me, 'It is like trying to cheat Providence attempting to grow grass here' -- and so it was. It was a fearful job at Sunningdale, and at the ninth hole the men said it was impossible to take the heavy manure up the steep hill. I told them it must be taken up, even if they carried it in teaspoons. The ninth green is looking all right I think, but we killed two horses in the undertaking."

It wasn't WPII's idea to build a golf course at Sunningdale, it was the Roberts brothers, and the housing potential was a major factor. The house builders of London discovered the benefits of well drained soil before the golf course-makers.

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom,

It is my understanding that Sunningdale was done as two separate projects. Beale claims that he was part of the project went from plough to play in one year, which I think was in 1900.

[Thomas MacWood]

Bradley
Work on the course began in Autumn 1899, and the opening was September 1901.

[Tony_Muldoon]

It wasn't WPII's idea to build a golf course at Sunningdale, it was the Roberts brothers, and the housing potential was a major factor. The house builders of London discovered the benefits of well drained soil before the golf course-makers.

Tom would you like to clarify what you mean here? My thinking is that these heathlands were not valuable farming land and therefore cheap.  Hence they were attractive to house speculators and The London Necropolis Company (Woking).

[TEPaul]

"My thinking is that these heathlands were not valuable farming land and therefore cheap."


Tony:

That's another interesting historical similarity of the "discovered" heathland and its soil makeup to the original Scottish linksland which was also not useable for farming.

It seems to me from an historical agronomic perspective much of this is the story of the heathland "breakthrough" discovery---eg they had finally found an overall soil makeup INLAND that was similar to the linksland and far more ideal to golf and its necessary agronomy than had been used or even understood before INLAND.

The "meadowland" sites almost always used in the previous few decades on early inland sites was of impervious clay soil and not conducive to good golf or good golf agronomy, alternately rock hard or soggy, and played over unseeded sites of meadow grass rather than those two ideal grasses that were NATURAL to the linksland (festuca=fescue and agrostis=bent).

The additional expense of clearing a site like Sunningdale of heather and rhodendren and "seeding" the site may've been daunting but the point it proved, for the first time, WAS that this was going to be a NECESSARY requirement for the future of good golf and good golf agronomy INLAND.

Obviously it would not prove quite that simple in the future but it did prove an important solution to the problems with the plethora of fairly poor golf playability and relatively uncontrollable golf agronomy on the previous impervious clay soil inland sites.

THAT WAS no doubt a most significant discovery and event in the history and evolution of golf and golf architecture, in my opinion!

When men like Macdonald talked about the importance of a sandy site in his search for NGLA's site and Crump talked about "getting into the sand" in his inland site search a decade later Sunnydale's discovery and lesson must have been on their minds. Even GCGC which was developed around the same time as Sunningdale was on the "Plandome Plain" that was of unusual inland sandy loam soil structure.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Welcome back to GOLFCLUBATLAS. In the future, if you don't like what's going on just don't post but don't unregister again. Welcome back. Let's all be productive.

[Thomas MacWood]

It wasn't WPII's idea to build a golf course at Sunningdale, it was the Roberts brothers, and the housing potential was a major factor. The house builders of London discovered the benefits of well drained soil before the golf course-makers.

Tom would you like to clarify what you mean here? My thinking is that these heathlands were not valuable farming land and therefore cheap.  Hence they were attractive to house speculators and The London Necropolis Company (Woking).

Tony
No doubt the speculators sought cheap land, but before the speculators there were individuals who moved out into those areas and built homes, and the main attraction for the architects was well drained land. Mr. T. Roberts built a house out there before he decided to take the dive.

I remember reading somewhere that there is a sandy ridge that runs through that part of England, perhaps there are two ridges, I don't recall. You probably know more about that than I. But anyway from what I understood the areas along those ridges is where the development concertrated. I think one of the ridges runs through Surrey and Berkshire, and perhaps the other one is a little further south down around Woking. As you know the railroads and rail stations were another important factor for speculators (which is largely why Huntercombe failed as a venture).

I wonder at what point the sandy suburbian areas hit the tipping point, going from cheap land to prime real estate. Do you know?

[TEPaul]

While I guess the motivations of heathland residential developers is of some interest to us the thing I would really like to determine about the Heathlands is if some of those early architects such as Park Jr (or Fowler, Colt or whoever) were actively looking to find soil conditions that much more matched the linklsand than anything that had previously been found or utilized or even previously understood for golf and agronomy in INLAND England.

In my opinion. THAT is what we should be focusing on here. I think for too long most have been completely missing what this apparently meant to the future of golf, golf agronomy and even architecture!

Matter of fact, I think the remarkable nexus of agronomy (and maintenance practices) and golf architecture and the ramifications of playabilities are still largely misunderstood by far too many!

[Thomas MacWood]

In studying these architects and how things developed back then I think we sometimes forget they were working for a client. Willie Park-Jr and the breakthrough at Sunningdale is often cited, how often do we here of TA Roberts, the guy whose idea it was to build a golf course there and who hired Park?

No doubt the architects like Park, Colt, Fowler, etc saw the advantages of heathland sites, especially after the success of courses like Woking, Sunningdale and Walton Heath. The question is when? It is interesting to note that Park chose a very different site when set out to build HIS project at Huntercombe.

The first acknowledgement of the advantages of the heathland (that I'm aware of) came from Horace Hutchinson in 1897:

”Raynes Park itself is a pleasant and interesting course in the summer, but its soil is of very clayey nature, and in consequence becomes almost unplayable in the wet weather. But the country about Woking is all of that light, almost sandy soil in which rhododendrons and Scotch firs especially love to grow. This is, of all inland soils, the kind that gives the best golf, and its characteristics are those that the prudent prospector of a golf course in Great Britain, in America, and all the world over will first look for. Provided the soil is light—such at least is our experience over here—all things are possible, no matter what the growth or what sterility appears on the surface of the soil.”

Ironically Raynes Park is where Carters set up shop.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

That remark by Hutchinson (in 1897) seems to be remarkably on point regarding what I'm talking about----eg the first awareness (and search) for that kind of soil structure and makeup INLAND (that essentially matched the soil structure and makeup of linksland sites).

Are we now to understand that Sunningdale was not the first in INLAND England to strip heather and rhododendren off an inland site and replant it with seed? Is early Woking looking like the first or perhaps even some other course in the English heathlands? Or is Hutchinson's remark in 1897 simply evidence that this kind of thing was being actively looked for but that it's discovery (Sunningdale or Woking or wherever?) had just not first taken place at that time (1897)?

My interest in determing this kind of thing involves when this first happened, and where it first happened, but primarily WHY they began LOOKING for this kind of soil structure and makeup INLAND. Of course WHO was the first to start looking for it is most interesting too.

For all I know, at this point, is some of these early architects like the Dunns or the Parks or Morris or those interested in golf and architecture like a Hutchinson may've been aware of this reality for years (perhaps at any time during those decades of golf's first emigration out of Scotland in those 2-3 decades preceding the turn of the century) but that no one was willing to invest the money (plowing up sites and reseeding) that it required.

If English clients of that early time were only willing to pay those early architects enough to "layout" (a basic routing) over the course of a day or two before they were back on a train home or to some other 1-2 day "layout" project (as Bernard Darwin explained) then perhaps none of those early architects felt it was appropriate to explain that they needed to pay many thousands of pounds to plow up and reseed and reshape landforms into good man-made architectural features (not to mention how hard that would have been to do on impervious clay meadowland sites compared to sandy sites) IF THEY WANTED the type of golf and architecture and playability available on natural linksland sites and courses.

If this is all true, then the fact is none of us today have much right or reason to hold those early linksland architects accountable for the crap that was produced particularly inland in those decades leading up to the turn of the century. Not to mention that fact after a day or so to "layout' the course they probably weren't even around to get involved in some of the rudimentary features done after their departure!

This is some of what Cornish and Whitten had to say about that:

"In defense of Old Tom, he probably did as much as was required of any golf course designer of that time, and he produced layouts that were functional for the game he knew so well. The statement of Hutchinson in 1898 that the layout of a golf course was a "wonderfully easy business needing very little special training" was not naive. It reflected the prevailing attitude of the time."

But perhaps Hutichinson's remark when it came to some of those linksmen architects was somewhat naive. Perhaps they did know how to do things better if any clients wanted to invest the necessary time and money and what-all that meant.

C&W also said:

"Another of the early course designers, Tom Dunn, has been accused of lacking imagination. In retrospect, it seems reasonable to conclude that Dunn strove for the functional in an age before funds and techniques were available for creating imaginative features. His great contribution was in designing inexpensive layouts for the multitudes who were taking up the game."

If this was all accurately the case we may have no right or reason to assume those early linksmen architects did not really know what they were doing or could do----it may just have been a case of noone asking for it or being willing to pay for it and to take the time and effort to do what some of those early architects may've known it would take if those early inland clients wanted something better or something really good.

If someone walks into a automobile showroom and asks to buy a Pinto, is the salesman really going to try to sell them a Ferrari or a Rolls Royce?

Maybe it was of no real difference with those early linksland designers in those first decades when golf and architecture first emigrated out of Scotland.

[Dan King]

Sean Arble writes:
If somebody doesn't fall hook line and sinker with C&W then TomP gets agitated and proceeds to tell the story of heathland golf again.

It took me a while to figure out what the C&W stands for. I couldn't figure out what that uniquely Americana music would have to do with golf courses in nineteenth-century Great Britain.

I really enjoy this thread. I don't have a lot to contribute, but I find anything about pre-Americanization of golf fascinating.

Cheers,
Dan King

Elwood: What kind of music do you usually have here?
Claire: Oh, we got both kinds. We got country and western.
 --Dan Aykroyd and John Landis (The Blues Brothers)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()