News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


TEPaul

Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« on: June 07, 2008, 12:27:09 PM »
Was it the architecture or was it the grass??

In other words, back in the 19th century as golf began to first emigrate with permenancy out of the Scottish linksland to other countries and for the first time to INLAND sites clearly unsuited to allow for a duplication of the game as it'd been known for so long on coastal sites (linksland) in Scotland, what really was the primary problems those people back then came to realize over perhaps two decades?

Was it that they came to understand they did not have the facility to duplicate the landforms and features that were natural to the linksland or did they come to realize they just could not manage to produce the type of turf for decent playability as existed for so long in the Scottish linksland?

Was it really about the limitations on architecture or was it mostly about the limitations on how to grow grass decent enough for the playing of golf?

I think it may've been the latter, at least to a degree way larger than we today understand or appreciate, and to understand that time at all we need to face those 19th century realities of golf and architecture and agronomy outside Scotland to see how the one affected the other and perhaps which one was responsible for actually developing it well (architecture) INLAND!

Bradley Anderson put an awesome post to this effect on a thread he started yesterday entitled "A Request To Tom MacWood."

I'm going to put his initial post on the next post.

I think this is an area we really do need to get to the bottom of if we are ever going to understand and appreciate that time, what was going on, and how they dealt with it.

I've been on this website from its very beginning and I do not remember this important subject ever being developed on here. I think the time has come to develop it. To REALLY develop it this time!
« Last Edit: June 07, 2008, 12:31:08 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2008, 12:28:35 PM »
From Bradley Anderson:

"Tom,

I enjoyed your piece on the pioneer golf course architects.

You indicated that Sunningdale was the first golf course to be entirely seeded, and that seems to be a dividing line in your research between the pioneer architects era, and the golden age that followed. May we say then that the availability of golf course seed was what allowed the post-pioneer architects to be more creative with shaping the land, particularly on inland golf courses, to provide more strategy in design?

I ask this question for my own clarification, because if it is so, then the men who pioneered the agronomic side of golf's development might have been as instrumental in furthering the game as the golden age architects that we all know and love.

Could you devote your next essay to those men who wrote the grassing specifications for the golden age golf courses? As a greenskeeper, I am as fascinated by their story as I am by all of the great names that we associate with the development of golf. But the stories surrounding golf's formative agronomy is much more difficult to uncover.

My guess is that if you researched this aspect of golf's development, you will find a cast of characters who are quite colorful and interesting. And this is a missing piece of the puzzle that will help us all better understand the game."

TEPaul

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #2 on: June 07, 2008, 12:49:49 PM »
Wayne Morrison and I have been in possession for about 5-6 years of a rather massive collection of coorespondence we've come to call "The Agronomy Files". They are a collection of over a thousand letters between Hugh Wilson (and sometimes his brother Alan) of Merion and two men from the U.S. Department of Agriculture by the names of Russell A. Oakley and Charles V. Piper. Eventually those two men would move from their work as botanists for the US Governement to the USGA to form the USGA Green Section!

For years Wayne and I have wondered with the very extent of this agronomy coorespondence why we've never been able to find something somewhat similar in extent about the architecture! We've always figured maybe some commensurate architecture files from Merion just got lost and are gone.

I think I am now ready to accept the fact they may never have existed.

Maybe the reality has just been staring us in the face these last 5-6 years. Maybe it was really mostly about THE GRASS!

We would be more than happy to make any of these letters available on here. They sure aren't as sexy as talking about the development of architecture but one thing they really do say, to me anyway, is even through the teens these guys were pretty much at SQUARE ONE with developing decent grass to play golf on, particularly INLAND!

Hugh I. Wilson's and Merion's roll in this seminal American golf agronomy effort was frankly awesome! He certainly wasn't the only one at this time (Columbia---DC's) Walter Harban was another but it looks to me due to the extent of it that Hugh Wilson from the club side pretty much stood at the top of the heap!

I do not believe this was something he set out to do when he began in 1911 but it sure is something that happened to him and it does tell a pretty important story in the evolution of American golf.


Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #3 on: June 07, 2008, 09:43:47 PM »
Tom,

I affirm your zeal on this issue. But unfortunately the summer time is not ideal for a greenkeeper to do research. But I sure would like to have access to those Wilson and Piper files.

The grass seed industry was entirely geared for agriculture; namely bunchy grasses that would provide cover that the ball more or less nestled down deep in, with sun baked soil beneath it - probably like the stuff that you mow on your back forty - not the "fine springy" turf that was ideal for golf; namely the fescues and bents that had more or less evolved on links-land areas. All that the links where really useful for from an agricultural standpoint was sheep grazing, and the rabbits thrived also in that environment. Through the centuries of this kind of short cut grazing, those grasses evolved and developed into golf turf. And then people became hitting balls around on it.

Every Thanksgiving my brothers and I would go out and hit balls on my grandfathers pasture. I swear those where some beautiful lies out there, and some of that grass was of a creeping nature from years and years of over-grazing.

What Beale, and no doubt others figured out was how to harvest the seed of that grass in large enough quantities to be used on golf courses. And they were way ahead of the Americans in that. The best clubs in America from a turf standpoint were the clubs that Beale consulted with and provided seed for. And I wonder if the work of Piper was actually in cultivating plugs from greens that Beale had originally provided seed for. Now THAT would be an interesting story if it could be fleshed out.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2008, 12:32:13 PM »
TEP,
How does the work of someone like J. B. Olcott fit in? He was the first person in the U.S. to cultivate a turf garden (in S. Manchester, Ct.) and he began this endeavor around 1885.

There's a good article in the turf section, written by CV Piper, about the man and his work.  It's on the '1921' page and is entitled "The First Turf Garden in America".

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1920s/1921/210223A.pdf
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 12:42:38 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2008, 12:57:59 PM »
JimK:

I've heard of Olcott (from the Piper and Oakley book) but I don't know that much about him. The deal back then sure wasn't just about who individually knew what about golf grass back then, it was pretty much how to get it all together and disseminate that information. That was the real problem back then compared to today, in my opinion.

Much of what the Wilsons of Merion and Piper and Oakley did together was to just collect all the information they possibly could and make it as public as possible to prevent other people and other projects from making the same mistakes.

That book that Piper and Oakley wrote they actually first asked Hugh Wilson to write but he declined for a variety of reasons.

TEPaul

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2008, 01:02:19 PM »
"But I sure would like to have access to those Wilson and Piper files."


Bradley:

I sure do understand this is not a great time for supers to be doing other things. ;)

With the agronomy files, you got it. We will make some disks for you and get them to you. IM or email me your mailing address.

TEPaul

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2008, 01:13:35 PM »
"The best clubs in America from a turf standpoint were the clubs that Beale consulted with and provided seed for. And I wonder if the work of Piper was actually in cultivating plugs from greens that Beale had originally provided seed for. Now THAT would be an interesting story if it could be fleshed out."


Bradley:

Believe it or not it doesn't really look to me as if even Beale (or Carters) was doing much of any collaborating with Piper and Oakley and what they were doing with golf grass throughout the teens. Carters was just one of a large number of seed merchants that they (and Merion) were dealing with the products of. It seems like Macdonald may've had a bit more of a connection to Beale than the Wilsons did. Actually around the middle of the teens they happened upon some really pure plots on some island up here somewhere that belonged to one of those big rich New York guys like a Vanderbilt or Woodward or one of those kinds of names. Basically all of them put in for as much of that as they could possibly get.

But even back then you can see some indications that people like Piper and Oakley felt that some of the things that might work on the other side were not going to work in some areas over here, if at all.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2008, 01:54:42 PM »
Tom,

Are there a few of those letters that are especially interesting to you that might be worth putting on here to really kick start the discussion?

Also...as to why agronomy was so much more pressing a topic, for someone like Hugh Wilson, than actual architecture; it seems to me pretty easy to think of agronomy as scientific while architecture would be viewed as more artistic.

Clearly, both contain large amounts of both (art and science) but in those days (90 or 100 years ago) it seems reasonable to think there IS an answer to an agronomy question while typically GCA questions might not be so cut and dry.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2008, 05:35:22 PM »
If I'm not mistaken, we here on GCA.com had a few threads in years past about the history of mowers, and mowing.  I haven't taken the time to try and look up those old threads.  But, I believe we all came to the [reel-ization]  ::) ;) that the invention of the grass mower was no small event in the history of GCA and how the game took off.  I think Edwin Budding invented the lawn mower 1830 (I did look that up), and the first push variety was invented by Elwood McGuire. 

Combine the grass seed cultivators and breeders of cultivars, and the new fangled mowing devices, and you can't hardly argue that golf course architecture had full dependency on those advances to go forwards.

It is amazing to think that our concepts of clipped lawns didn't really come about until the late 1880s, then only for wealthy folk.  And that the typical residential lawn didn't really become a standard feature until later than that.  Then came the weed killers, ferts, and desire to do more with ones turf than what the grazing sheep and a scythe could do. 

Many of the early archies are documented in their studies and efforts in turf management.  The GCSAA must have a great library of early developments.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2008, 06:08:42 PM »
TomP

You ask an impossible to answer question.  However, my guess is that the archie is still the driving force with matters concerning golf design.  Someone has to imagine what sort of playing design they want and the conditions to support that design.  Others then figure out out how to get the job done.  Is is really any different today with archies who work on sandy soil?  Sure, we have a lot more info know, but someone still makes decisions and folks figure out how to impliment those decisions.  Furthermore, it takes a lot of work just to maintain that original decision.  As everybody knows, the science side of things have gone overboard to the detriment of traditional links grasses which provide the best year round surface for golf.  Folks concentrated too much on acheiving in the short term rather than what happens over the long term.  It hasn't been all that long since folks realized what was happening to playing surfaces and how to alter the trend.  So I am gonna stick with science as a supporting role and further say that science should never take the lead in decision making.   

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024:Winterfield, Alnmouth, Chechesee Creek & Old Barnwell

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2008, 07:02:19 PM »
Sorry for the huge size of this, but there is a lot to mine from this piece, and it is definitely worth reading the whole thing. I suppose it's possible that Beale is exagerating his credentials.

Golf Illustrated & Outdoor America, 1914 April Vol. 1, Issue 1, pgs. 40-44. by Reginald Beale F.L.S..

TURF AND GOLFING TURF
By REGINALD BEALE, F.L.S.

MY only excuse for writing on this subject is
that I have been asked to do so by my
good friend the Editor of this magazine,
but before getting under way I must present my cre-
dentials.

In the first place, I claim to be the pioneer of rapid
turf production and the art of greenkeeping as it is
now practiced. In support of this I bring forward
Sunningdale, which was the first golf course produced
from seed and which was sown in September, 1900,
and in full play in twelve months' time—a feat then
considered more or less miraculous, as at that time
it was generally conceded that it took a minimum of
three years to form turf of any sort and at least a gen-
eration to produce a fine, close-knitted, thick-soled
turf, but now commonplace,as I have since produced
twenty-five courses from plough to play in less than
a year, with a record of five months made at Sandy
Lodge.

I have inspected at least 250 established golf
courses and prescribed mixtures for not less than 100
new ones standing on all classes of soil, from pure
sand to hard clay, in all countries of Europe.
But what has all this to do with turf in the
United States of America and the Dominion of Can-
ada? Admittedly very little, excepting that the
same thing is required there, i.e., good turf, for the
same purpose, the Royal and Ancient Game, but
under different geological and climatic conditions.
Until the year 1908, I knew nothing of golf or
turf in America and certainly cared less, but that year
I had an interesting proposition put before me by
the Chairman of the Greens Committee of The Coun-
try Club, Brookline, Mass. This Club was extend-
ing its course by taking in some thirty acres of new
ground; samples of soil were sent to me together with
a very accurate description of the climate and in-
structions to prepare sufficient seed for the greens
and fairways. I carried out the instructions to the
best of my ability, hoped for the best and awaited
results, which were so satisfactory that in 1911 I de-
cided to tour the Eastern States, myself, so that I
could thoroughly investigate conditions on the spot.
My tour embraced the golf courses connected with
the following clubs—The Country Club (Brookline),
Arcola, Baltusrol, Brae-Burn, Chevy Chase, Chicago
Golf, Columbia (Washington, D. C.), Detroit, Gar-
den City, Glen Echo (St. Louis), Hackensack, Hunt-
ingdon Valley (Philadelphia), Kanawaki (Montreal),
Mayfield (Cleveland), Merion, Myopia, Onwentsia,
Philadelphia Cricket, Royal Montreal, Shinnecock
Hills, Tedesco, the National Golf Links of America,
Toronto, Whitemarsh Valley, and many others.
On my second tour, from which I have just re-
turned, I visited Piping Rock, Garden City, Sleepy
Hollow, Pine Valley, the New Merion, Atlantic City,
Westmoreland (Pittsburgh), Oakwood, Indianapolis,
Chicago Golf, Onwentsia, Skokie, Winnetka, Old
Elm, Westmoreland (Chicago), Detroit, Mayfield,
Wanakah, Rochester, Scarboro' (Toronto), Toronto,
Kanawaki, Outremont, and Essex County, and so
revisited many old friends, which enabled me to note
results and at the same time extend my territory and
experience.

By visiting the country, I got an absorbed knowl-
edge of its geological, and more important, the cli-
matic conditions under which one has to grow turf
in the Eastern and Central States of America and
Canada, and I can now sit in my study chair with
closed eyes and picture in my brain the existing nor-
mal conditions in those sections any time of the year.
In order to discuss the question of turf intelli-
gently, it is necessary to divide it into two sections,
viz., Turf for the Putting Greens, and Turf for the
Fair Green.

TURF FOR PUTTING GREENS
It is well to remember at the very start that a
modern putting green is artificial both in its make-
up and upkeep, consequently it may not be necessary
or desirable to choose grasses that are natural to, or
thrive best in, a certain district under natural con-
ditions, but rather to choose those that are best
suited to the purpose for which they are to be used;
this, no doubt, sounds unscientific and all the rest of
it, but when all is said and done, science is a good
servant but a very bad master, and the man with a
good fund of common sense and knowledge of apply-
ing same usually gets the better results.

It has always been my opinion and I state it here
right boldly, that turf of the best English quality can
be developed on putting greens anywhere in the
sections of the country covered by my tours, provided
that the greens are properly prepared, fertilized, and
top-soiled if necessary, so as to form a seed bed of rich,
friable soil of a minimum depth of four inches with all
undulations fashioned with runaway surface outlets
for storm water or melting snow in order to prevent,
as far as it is humanly possible,any such accumulations
when freezing and thawing conditions alternate and
when the natural or artificial drainage, as the case
may be, is put out of commission by the frozen sub-
soil. The so-called winterkill is bound to occur if
such methods are not adopted and valuable time and
money will be wasted.

A green made on these lines and sown with a mix-
ture of seeds, say for the sake of argument, the Coombe
Hill Mixture, should produce turf similar in all re-
spects to that at Coombe Hill in any section of the
United States and Canada that I have seen.
In support of my contention that the best Eng-
lish, or perhaps I ought to say British turf, as there
is some wonderful stuff in Scotland and Ireland, can
be produced in North America, more or less to order,
I bring forward the Country Club at Brookline, where
they sowed the greens with our Mid Surrey Mixture
and have obtained greens equal to those at the Mid
Surrey Golf Club, Richmond, England, which means
a lot to anyone who has seen Peter Lee's famous pro-
ductions at the latter club.

The greens at Brookline, especially the 9th, 10th,
and 11th, taking them year in and year out, are in
my opinion the best in North America, and while I
may claim some of the credit of obtaining such re-
sults for myself it is only fair to say I should not get
it all—I explained how the greens should be made
and sown, but if that Club had not seen that my in-
structions were faithfully carried out, nothing would
have been accomplished.

Before leaving the question of greens, I may as
well give a few hints on the making and upkeep in
tabloid form, so that they can be easily digested.
Always, if possible, arrange for early fall sowing
and regard the period between mid-August and mid-
September as the selected moment. When the first
rains come in the fall the soil is so warm that the seeds
germinate very quickly and if sown thickly get well
established and self-protecting before the winter
sets in.

In the spring the soil is cold and in consequence the
seed not only germinates slowly but it also grows
slowly and the young grass plants have to face the
heat and more especially the drought of the summer
when in a very young, weak state, very often with
evil results. Also in spring weeds and other obnox-
ious growths are much more prevalent than in the
fall.

When making or contouring a green, remove the
top soil, work with the subsoil and finish off by re-
placing the top soil in an even layer over the green.
The separation of the soil and the replacement of the
same cannot be done properly by scoops, so it is al-
ways advisable that this section of the work should
be done by hand with spades and barrows.

All drains should be laid before the top soil is
replaced.

In making up greens, each scoop or barrowful as
it is shot down, should be carefully trodden; other-
wise, the surface will sink later.

Always, if possible, make surface runaways from
undulations, otherwise water will accumulate with
disastrous results to the turf.

Water freely during droughts and in the evenings,
if possible, as best results are then obtained. The
water applied at that time does most good and does
not evaporate as quickly as it does if applied in the
heat of the day. In any case, water freely, and re-
member that one good soaking is worth a dozen light
sprinklings.

It is hardly necessary to state that pond or stream
water of a natural temperature gives the best results,
but where this cannot be obtained and the water is
pumped from a depth, or city water is used, some
means, if possible, should be taken to get it up to the
natural normal heat by exposing it to the sun and air
in a shallow pond or reservoir tank or if it is pumped
direct by laying the pipes close to the surface where
they will feel the influence of the sun.

If the latter system is adopted, draining cocks
should be put in all low places so that the pipes can
be emptied in the winter; otherwise they will freeze
and burst.

To avoid the tired, sickly appearance that turf
gets after a long period of artificial watering, give it
a monthly or bi-monthly dose of Complete Grass
Manure, at a rate not exceeding 20 pounds per 400
super yards, mixed before use with at least 100 pounds
of dry, fine soil or sand. A light fertilizing as above
will keep the grass growing and in good heart, whereas,
if artificial watering is relied upon alone it just keeps
it alive, especially if the water is hard, low in tem-
perature, or contains any impurities.

Eradicate and destroy all weeds as soon as they
appear, do not let them multiply, and remember that
wire, witch, crab and September grasses get hold
best in weak or exhausted greens. If you cannot
exterminate the latter, keep them, like clover, in check
by lifting the creeping or prostrate stems and branches
with a close-toothed iron rake and mow closely; re-
peat this as often as necessary and use our Anti-
clover manure for the drought dressings when the
trefoil is prevalent.

Topdress freely with a finely sifted compost of a
light, friable, porous nature, rich in organic or fer-
tilizing matter, so as to reduce the plasticity of the
soil if it is too heavy and to add body if it is too light,
and when doing so remember that a cubic yard of
compost will cover 144 superficial yards to the depth
of a quarter of an inch, and that sixteen dressings at
the above rate spread over, say, three years, will re-
duce the natural top spit soil of the dressed area to
the secondary position of the subsoil, so there is hope
for all greens, no matter whether they stand on sand
or clay. The contouring and general preparation of
a green is costly and its upkeep is more so, conse-
quently it is the worst economy to be parsimonious
when seeding. In England, with our warm genial
climate, we sow one ounce to a superficial yard and
expect to get a close turf in a year or less, and when
we are in a hurry we sow at the rate of two ounces
per super yard.

In America and Canada, where the climatic
conditions are, to say the least of them, extremely
severe and difficult, the minimum rate should be two
ounces per square yard and the maximum, four ounces.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2008, 07:03:22 PM »
Second half of the 1914 Beale article

TURF FOR THE FAIR GREEN
A true golfing turf is composed of dwarf creeping
grasses, which form a close-soled, springy sod, which
is both a delight to walk over and play on, as it holds
the ball from the ground so that it sits up and looks
at the player and when a divot is taken the club cuts
through the matted fibrous roots of the grass without
hardly touching the soil.

Turf which does not answer the above description
is not golfing turf at all; it may cover the ground
and make it look nice and green and so mislead the
casual observer, but it is worthless from a golfer's
point of view, and that's all there is to it.

This sort of turf will pass with those who have
not played on or seen anything better, but those who
have can tell it at once by the way it feels to the foot
and club.

As I have already explained, a true golfing turf
is springy to the foot and when a divot is taken the
club slides through the mat of grass without hardly
disturbing the soil.Turf of the non-golfing quality, on the other hand,
is uncomfortable to walk over, there being very little
fibre under the foot and it is difficult and unfair on
the player because the ball falls through it and rests
on the hard baked ground, which the club has to cut
through to take a divot, a difficult and unpleasant
stroke which oftentimes jars the wrists.

Of all the clubs I visited in 1911 and this year,
only a small proportion could show even a reasonably
good turf on the fairways and as far as I know there
are not many clubs in North America that can at
present boast of a true golfing turf.

This is a very bold statement, but if a golfer who
knows what a true golfing turf is will make a tour of
inspection in the same section as I did he cannot but
bear me out. That the results required can, however,
be obtained, I stand convinced and as proof of this
would point among others to the Country Club
of Detroit, Toronto and Mayfield (Cleveland) where
there is a young but true golfing turf—all having been
sown in accordance with my system and with my
mixtures.
To avoid any hair-splitting, I must say here that
I have taken the courses as a whole and have avoided
all mention of those that I have not seen or those that
have some good or reasonably good turf and some bad.
I will now attempt to explain the reason for the
lack of really good turf in America. In the first place,
the best natural turf in the British Islands is found
in locations that have been nibbled close by sheep or
rabbits for years, and the best artificial turf where
mixtures of grasses have been sown and where the
turf has been closely mown, from the very start.
These conditions suit the finer grasses which tiller
out, mat and increase, while the coarser grasses die
out to a very large extent. In some instances I have
seen just the reverse happen; that is to say, a fine
rabbit or sheep fed turf has been saved for hay, which
allowed the coarse grasses to gain the mastery.
Probably many of my readers have seen exactly
the same thing happen on an abandoned green, which
I think in conjunction with the above conclusively
proves that to get a fine turf, close grazing or mowing
is absolutely necessary.
Secondly, the great majority of the artificial or
sown courses in America have been sown with ven-
erable prescriptions propounded years and years ago
for agricultural purposes before golf was known out
of Scotland.

I might state here that eighteen years ago not
only was it considered impossible to produce fine turf
from seed, but there was absolutely no demand for
it, but when the game of golf took hold of the civil-
ized world I saw that the ordinary commercial mix-
tures of lawn grass seeds and the old methods of turf
production must go by the board and new methods
and new mixtures take their place.

The third reason is the antiquated idea that the
indigenous or native grasses are best in their own
sections or zones, because they are indigenous or
native, an argument which absolutely bolts and bars
the door to any sort of improvement and is as worth-
less as it is futile.

The fourth and last reason is the improper ratio
in which the various varieties are used (even when the
mixture is made up of correct varieties) and also the
thin sowing.

It takes years of patient observation and costly
experiment before one is fitted to propound mixtures
of grass seeds for a neighbor's lawn by propounding
mixtures of which they really know nothing; yet quite
a few persons are prepared to gamble with the pros-
perity of a golf club, when it is well understood that
a club is, or rather should be, judged by the quality
of its turf rather than by the comfort of its club-house.
I met one man who intended to base the prescrip-
tion of grasses for sowing a course situated on raw
sand from about half a dozen quaint little handwatered
trial plots, each about one yard square. He pointed
out the grasses to me and asked me to note how well
they stood on the sand without any fertilizer at all;
the plots were barely a month old and the expert
evidently did not know that any grass seed will germ-
inate freely and keep alive for months on a piece of
cloth or an old sack, or anything, so long as it is kept
moist.
Another showed me with pride a course on which
he had used almost every named grass procurable;
he certainly had got a turf, but it was far better suited
for dairy farming than golf and the cost of it must
have been simply cruel.

A third sent me out on a hot dusty trip to see an
"eye opener" in the rapid production of fine turf by
sowing fescues and bents, and when I arrived the per-
fect turf had absolutely no bottom and looked like
a stubble field, as it well might, considering that the
seed was sown in equal quantity of each description
at the rate of 120 pounds per acre. The significance
of this will be better understood when it is known that
the number of seeds that go to one ounce varies rough-
ly in the different varieties from 14,000 to 500,000.
There are a few other little pitfalls which are quite
easy to fall into, such as the different rates of growth;
that is to say, some grasses take twice as long to reach
maturity as others. The area covered by one grass
plant may be two to ten times as large as the area
covered by a single plant of another variety of the
same age, and some grasses amalgamate and go well
with other grasses and some will grow only in isolation.
By just pointing out a few little difficulties such
as the above, one can easily understand why there
is not much good golfing turf on fair greens in America.
The rate the seed is sown per acre is another very
important question and no matter from what point
of view the subject is tackled, financial, common sense,
or golfing, heavy sowing is undoubtedly the best and
cheapest.
For a start, let us assume that the course in ques-
tion is a first-class venture with sixty acres to sow,
calling all told for a capital of, say, $250,000 and an
annual upkeep of, say, $10,000, the latter of which is
very reasonable. If money is worth six per cent,
which I understand it is in America, the club has to
face a steady outgo of six per cent on its capital which
in this case would be $15,000 plus the cost of the up-
keep, $10,000 or $25,000 per annum in all, or say
$2,000 per month. Now, if the greens and fairway
are sown at the minimum standard rates of one ounce
per square yard on the greens and 200 pounds per
acre on the fairway, the approximate cost of the sow-
ing would be for eighteen greens of, say, 900 super
yards, $330 and sixty acres of fair green, $3,360, or
$3,690 in all.
The above rates per acre are the minimum stand-
ard rates as used in England, which admittedly pos-
sesses the best grass growing climate in the world,
and are calculated to produce a turf fit for play in
from nine to twelve months from the date the seed
is sown, so if I allow a full year to produce a playable
turf in America where the climate is difficult to say
the least of it, I am being under rather than over
sanguine.
I will now bring the figures into collision; the up-
keep bill all told is $2,000 per month and the sowing
cost $3,690.
If the seed is sown at the double rate of two ounces
per square yard on the green and 400 lbs. on the fair-
way, the sowing cost would be $7,380, which should
bring the course into play, give normal seasons, some-
times between six and nine months from the date it
is sown, but assuming that a saving of only two
months is made it will pay for itself. These are hard
figures which no doubt will be carefully scrutinized,
and whilst not being a financier I do not think I have
made a mistake.
A friend, after reading a rough proof of my notes,
tackled me on the upkeep question by saying the
sooner a course is got into play the sooner will one
have to start paying for its upkeep, a truth so palpa-
bly true that it is untrue.
The upkeep of a course does not start from the
time it is fit to play, but from the time it is sown,
and between these two dates the course is not earning
a red cent.
There is another very valuable point for the con-
sideration of the financial committee which is usually
not given proper thought, and that is the speed of
growth or quantity of herbage produced in a season
by various varieties of grass.
Grass, from the standpoint of the farmer, who is
of course the greatest producer, is valued solely by
its feeding value and weight of herbage produced per
acre, whilst the golfer, who constitutes a small part
of the small minority, values the same family wholly
by its texture, the lie it affords the ball and the cost
of mowing. Generally speaking, the most valuable
grasses from the farmer's point of view are of the
broad-bladed, fast, tall-growing, non-creeping class,
which give the heaviest cut, and conversely from the
golfer's point of view they are of the fine, dwarf,
creeping varieties, which give the smallest cut.
It follows, therefore, that a valuable farmer's turf
is uneconomical to the golfer and that a good golfing
turf is uneconomical to the farmer.
Now, as the farmer is in such a great majority, it
is safe to assume that his requirements keep the Boards
of Agriculture and Seed Merchant experts busy and
that the golfer is badly served unless the latter fully
understand his requirements and has sufficient knowl-
edge, which cannot be acquired in a day or a year,
to meet his case.
The above will be more readily understood when
I explain the well-known fact that a good farmer's
turf will grow to a height of about thirty inches on
an average soil, in an average season, whilst a good
golfing turf will grow only about ten inches in the
same period.
I do not, however, wish my readers to think that
the mowing bill of these two classes of turf is exactly
in the ratio of 3-1, as this would be wholly inaccurate;
it is more like 4-1.
Speaking generally, the growth of the coarser
grasses is stimulated by repeated mowing, as there is
no other outlet for the energy of the plant, whilst the
surplus energy of the finer grasses is absorbed by
their spreading, creeping nature.
If it were possible for me to produce a turf which
43
G O L F
I L L U S T R A T E D
________________________________________
Page 5
after reaching perfection would cease growing, it would
easily be worth $1,000 per acre, and as I can pro-
duce one the upkeep of which is at least one-third
of that of an ordinary meadow turf, I feel that my
reputation stands on a sound base.
Judged from the common-sense point of view the
advantages of heavy sowing are just as striking,
especially if one remembers that a close turf is either
composed of relatively a few large grass plants which
may take a year or more to mature, or a multitude
of small ones which can be produced in a few months
and which improve with age. Furthermore, if a club
decides to sow lightly and wait for the turf to mature,
not only does it face a long, tiresome costly wait, but
worse still, the chances of a partial or total loss through
adverse weather are increased about threefold.
If the seed is sown heavily at the right season the
little grass plants are crowded together and so afford
each other shade and protection from wind or sun
almost from the start, whereas, if light sowing is re-
sorted to the little grass plants have got to stand
alone and a poor chance they get if adverse weather
sets in either in the shape of a cold dry wind or a hot
scorching sun. It is wonderful what a little shelter
will do; I have frequently noticed that the seed in
the hoof-marks made by horses harrowing and rolling
in the seed gets quite a start on its exposed neighbors
and where the seed has been gathered together by a
wash-out it comes up like hairs on a cat's back and
is self-protecting from the very start.
When a golfer joins a club, he wants to play on
the course as soon as possible and not wait for a
year for the turf if it can be produced in a shorter
time.
Most of the golf courses I have seen in America
possess interesting natural features, which, if prop-
erly handled, are of sufficient importance to earn
reputations for their clubs in exactly the same way
as they do at home; as a matter of fact a goodly few
have already done so and have been copied, such as
the tenth at Brookline.
To my mind, however, to copy the work of another
is a sure sign of weakness and any attempt to repro-
duce nature, futile and ridiculous; a genius accepts
hints from both and produces original masterpieces.
Before writing Finis, I will discuss in a few words
one or two points in regard to keeping the course
"through the green" which are peculiar to the North
American Continent.
Although water and fertilizers are freely used on
the greens, the fair greens get none, and yet the play
of the long shots is or should be just as important as
the short shots and if it is necessary to have good,
true putting greens, surely it is equally necessary to
get a good lie on the fairway, yet, as a rule, little or
no attempt is made to improve matters.
If the above is admitted as it must be, I ask, why is
the turfon the fair green allowed to peter out from sheer
starvation when it could not only be kept alive but
improved year by year by an annual dressing of
fertilizer at a cost of about $15.00 per acre and an
occasional sprinkling of water? The answer to the
question is always the same, the area is too big for
any club to handle; but is this true?
Acourse6,000 yards long by 50 yards wide occupies
approximately 60 acres; from this deduct say 15 acres
for the rough in front of the tee and short holes where
good fair green is unnecessary, which leaves 45 acres
to deal with.
The fertilizer for 45 acres would cost about
$675, but that of the water I cannot even guess at,
but surely it would not be prohibitive to put in hy-
drants, say, 100 yards apart and devise some method
of semi-automatic watering by means of demountable
perforated tubes, after the style of the Skinner sys-
tem, anyhow for clubs which own their own water
plant.
An occasional watering would not only be a great
help to the grass but it would also improve the play
of the whole course by reducing the hardness of the
soil and the abnormal summer run of ball.
The next question is the use of heavy automobile
mowers, weighing 2,000 pounds or more. These
heavy tools may be economical so far as the wage
sheet is concerned, but I am quite sure that there
are few soils and less turf that can stand their regular
use without injury.
If they are used on medium to heavy soils when
they are wet, they cap or seal the surface and so arrest
the natural flow of air and water and generally get
it into a state inimical to the growth of grass and they
crush and bruise the grass if they are used when the
ground is dry. On light soils they do not do so much
damage, assuming that the turf is thick and well-
rooted, but where it is not, the back thrust of the
driving roller actually moves the surface soil, espe-
cially when starting or grunting up a gradient.
If one with a knowledge of mathematical engi-
neering was to calculate the hammerstroke imparted
to the turf by the driving roller in terms of pounds
per square inch, the result would be simply staggering.
The ideal automobile mower does not weigh more
than 1,200 pounds, it cuts thirty inches wide and is
operated and steered by a man who walks behind it.
Those who own a heavy automobile mower and
do not wish to scrap it can use it with advantage in the
early spring as a roller when the frost is out of the
ground, provided that care is taken to see that the
soil is neither too wet nor too dry, or in other words
is in good condition for rolling.
If the few suggestions that I have made are given
careful consideration, especially those in reference
to the making and upkeep of fair green turf, I am
sure good will come of it, as the fair greens of the
American golf courses are undoubtedly their weak
spot.

Peter Pallotta

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2008, 09:16:09 PM »
I'm playing catch-up on this and the old Tom Morris thread, so please excuse a preliminary observation/point of view.

I'm inclined to think that value-laden words like "functional" are mis-used when applied to the early architects and their golf course designs. I think the old ones knew very well what the fundamental principles of good design were, even if they didn't know that they knew, i.e. the principles came first; the language we're now so familar with second. I'm guessing that when the land offered  opportunities for them to manifest those principles on the ground easily enough, the architects made the most of that; and when the land didn't offer much, they did the best they could. But what in any case they didn't strive for, it seems to me, was the consciously imaginative; nor did they labour over the interesting and unique. (And when they did, that's when courses started getting ugly and unnatural and geometric looking). But when it comes to the agronomy side, it seems that not only didn't they know very much about it, but they didn't even know how much they didn't know. And when you combine that with a growing awareness that the fundamental principles of good golf design were sometimes dependent on (or at least related to) certain or specific landforms, that's when the troubles really started; architects were trying to run after a newly conscious ideal when they could barely even walk. (Of course, I'm one who tends to think that the consciously imaginative or interesting is what does more harm than good in any creative endeavour, then and now...so my views may be suspect).   

My pen has run away with me. I'm going back to read the other posts more carefully.

Peter   

« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 09:51:48 PM by Peter Pallotta »

TEPaul

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2008, 09:32:12 PM »
Bradley:

Man alive, thank you so much for posting that really long Beale article. I fear most on here may not want to get into all of that and consider all the technicalities and ramifications extant at that early and really rudimentary time in American agronomy but I feel like there may be a ton to be learned from that article at least about the over-all situation in that vein of this important early era.

I haven't finished reading it and considering it by a long shot but I did notice that Beale said he visited Merion in 1911. Clearly that had to be the Haverford course before the move to Ardmore and the initial construction and seeding of Merion East and certainly before the beginning of Hugh Wilson's important contributions to American agronomy.

TEPaul

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2008, 09:58:21 PM »
Peter:

Once again, I can just sense from your post you are really struggling to figure out what some of those guys knew way back then and why they didn't try more often to really pull it off. It's getting to me too these days. I'm afraid this whole flow, particularly the architecture, was just never really written or explained very well contemporaneously back then and I can't figure out why that was. It seems like the best we can find are some descriptions of some interested and informed observers but it seems like they were at a vantage point from which they were always looking back and reporting some limitations in the past but nobody seemed to be reporting something that could be done with the real reasons why it wasn't being done with more regularity. I know it's true to say that everything has it's own time to occur but in this case with architecture first emigrating out of the linksland I think it's more complex than that.

I have this sort of odd feeling that some of those early linksmen architects like Park Jr may've sensed early on that he sure could do architecture that looked like some of the natural features of the linksland like blowouts or whatever but if he actually proposed something like that (forget about the expense) people in inland England might actually think it was a waste of time and money and effort because the idea at that time in perhaps inland England (not necessarily with the linksman designers but with their clients) was to make something that was clearly man-made looking like a rectangular cop bunker or something that looked like a steeplechase pit before a jump.

But that's just the architectural side. This development of the grass outside the linksland with the linksland having its naturally occuring beautiful sward fescues and bents is another matter altogether.

The truth is the natural links naturally occuring fescues and bents occured with little vegetative competition because the soil makeup was remarkably acidic from a combination of some pretty odd occurences unique to those narrow linksland sites boxed between the sea and the dunes on one side and farmland on the other side of those narrow site generally prone to alluvial river deposits.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 10:02:48 PM by TEPaul »

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2008, 10:03:08 PM »
There is one mention of Reginald Beale in the early archives of the Philadelphia Inquirer, the article by Verdant Greene on July 6, 1913.  Here is the relevant snippet, with the amusing mention of the grass growing ability of Beale in the last sentence:

@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Peter Pallotta

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2008, 10:13:34 PM »
TE - thanks.

It makes sense to me, intuitively. That is, Park Jr would have know what functional/practical role a certain blowout had on a given hole of a great linksland course; he'd have understood the principle behind that, even if that principle was only becoming conscious post facto.  And, since the value of that principle was only slowly emerging (especially among non-architects),  it's not surprising to me that some clients in England would focus on and prefer the letter of the principle and not the spirit, i.e. that they'd want a rectangular cop bunker or something like a steeplechase pit before a jump instead of the blowout. It makes sense because  something analogous to those choices have been made by client/developers in every decade since, it seems to me

Peter

TEPaul

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2008, 10:29:28 PM »
"TE - thanks.

It makes sense to me, intuitively."


Peter:

Are you sure? I feel like I'm thinking too much and getting a bit analytically loopy. From time to time, when I get like this I like to think of the sentiment of my old and good friend Ron Prichard who says sometimes we really need to understand that some of those early guys who practiced that early architecture on the fly outside Scotland really just weren't very bright. Believe me, before someone else freaks out over that Ron meant that in the nicest and most historically realistic way and he definitely wasn't trying to include everyone. All we basically need to find is one or two who conjured up a real "breakthrough". ;)
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 10:33:02 PM by TEPaul »

Peter Pallotta

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2008, 10:51:27 PM »
Tom -

I'd bet that Ron knows more than me. But yes, it does make sense because I'm separating out the design from the agronomy. Design-wise, I'm imagining the best of the very old dead guys having a love for the game and an appreciation for its fields of play -- and I think they saw and understood something in the great British links courses, even if they couldn't (or didn't) articulate that. And what they saw I'd called the fundamental principles of good golf design. And I'm guessing that this appreciation developed maybe a lot earlier than some experts think.  BUT, the art form hadn't matured to the point where anyone put such a high value on those principles, or at least on the ways those principles were manifested on the great links courses. What I think happened was that BEFORE such value was assigned, you got good architects using square bunkers; and AFTER such value was assigned, you got good architects having agronomic failures. Given this, it's not surprising that looking back we might think those early guys kind of dumb :)

Peter   
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 11:09:31 PM by Peter Pallotta »

TEPaul

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2008, 11:07:54 PM »
"BUT, the art form hadn't matured to the point where anyone put such a high value on those principles, or at least on the ways those principles were manifested on the great links courses. What I think happened was that BEFORE such value was assigned, you got good architects using square bunkers; and AFTER such value was assigned, you got good architects having agronomic failures. Given this, it's not surprising that looking back we might think those early guys kind of dumb.  ;)"



Hmmm, interesting!

"What I think happened was that BEFORE such value was assigned, you got good architects using square bunkers;"


Why do you think they got good links designers (who may've know better) using square bunkers? I'm sure it's occured to you, as it has to me, that maybe some of those fast moving early "layout" designers, including the famous ones, from that early era who very well have known better just weren't at those projects long enough to even get involved in what things like bunkers which may've been quite far after the fact looked like. Had clients actually paid them for that or asked for that from them it may've been a very different deal. As it generally was, things like that were perhaps left to others who knew nothing better and who did things like that quite a bit after the fact and long after even a good links designer was far down the road and onto other 1-2 day layout projects.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 11:11:41 PM by TEPaul »

Peter Pallotta

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2008, 11:30:36 PM »
Tom -

Yes, that does fit with the general picture or idea I have about that time, which is that one of the attributes of those early days was that something like bunker shapes wouldn't have been thought very important. No one was that precious about those kinds of particulars. (I think of some early jazz played by some of the greats, and it's amazing how "sloppy" the music was by later, more polished standards. But the heart and soul of the music and the construction of some of the solos -- the principles and routing as it were -- has never never bettered; and how could it be, since it was the early greats themselves who INVENTED what we later came to think of as the heart and soul and architecture of the jazz solo...and did it almost completely on the fly.)  The greats moved fast because they could, i.e. because they knew their stuff and becaue what they believed were the important and fundamental principles were not significantly affected by the shape of a bunker (whether they did it themselves or left others to fill that in or dig it out). But again, like in jazz, it didn't take long for them or for others (perhaps less creatively talented men) to begin to formalize and polish up and refine and add surface touches to those principles....and I guess that all went fairly well until this newly rareified and polished and precious form tried to get transplanted to less than ideal terrain...

Peter     
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 11:36:58 PM by Peter Pallotta »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2008, 12:01:58 AM »
?
« Last Edit: June 09, 2008, 12:13:03 AM by Tom MacWood »

Thomas MacWood

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2008, 12:03:29 AM »
Tom -

Yes, that does fit with the general picture or idea I have about that time, which is that one of the attributes of those early days was that something like bunker shapes wouldn't have been thought very important. No one was that precious about those kinds of particulars. 


Peter
What do you base that opinion upon? At that time some of the most famous (and intimidating) features in golf were bunkers. Hell at St.Andrews, Pandy at Musselburgh, the Cardinal's Nob, Himalayas Out & the Alps bunker at Prestwick, Perfection at North Berwick, the Maiden Bunker, Hades & Saharah at Sandwich, and The Cape at Westward Ho!

Were their shapes of little importance?
« Last Edit: June 09, 2008, 12:11:59 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re: Was it the chicken or was it the egg?
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2008, 12:36:00 AM »
Peter:

Honest to God, don't even attempt to answer those last questions of Tom MacWood. To even come close to trying to answer those things we will probably need to take him back through so many of the things we've been discussing on here for the last two years probably starting all over again at Square One. Let him just figure it out for himself or just take the time to read our threads and try to digest them. Alternatively, he may never figure these things out but what does that really matter anyway?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back