[Scott Stambaugh]

I have a file of various articles and other printed material about A.V. Macan that I received from Michael Riste- historian for the BC Golf Museum and the PNGA.

Mr. Riste states that the two biggest influences on the design work of Macan were John L. Low (as a mentor) and Harry S. Colt (as a guide.)  Macan was a strict follower of Low's principles of strategic design as outlined in his 1903 book- Concerning Golf.

Other than reading somewhere that Low served on the R&A Rules Committee in the early 1900's, I know nothing about him.  Concerning Golf is a great read, but it still does not answer as to why Low was such an influence on Macan and possibly others.

Low's principles of design are quite similar to those of Alister MacKenzie, only Low's were written (or at least printed) seventeen years prior.

Some questions-

-Why was Low's book so influential?

-Is there any documentation of any interaction/relationship between Low and Macan (or others) or was it just by chance that Macan read Concerning Golf and was in agreement with its contents?

-Could Low be more influential on Golden Age architecture than some think?

Comments please...

Scott

[Thomas MacWood]

Scott
Low was a very important figure. A powerful force with the R&A, one of the better amateur golfers, and wrote a column for a newspaper whose name alludes me.

Macan played in at least one British Am, perhaps more, and the field would have included both Low and Colt.

Low was very influential, although I wonder how influential Concerning Golf was. Colt had tremendous respect for him. Tom Simpson was greatly influenced by Low, and wrote an article on Low's principals which you can find in The Architects of Golf. Those must be later principals because you won't find them in Concerning Golf.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Could it be that Macan also learned something of the design *process*, especially for remodels, from Low?

And / or: the strategic use of bunkering?

How might have Low's work experience at Woking played a role?

[Rich Goodale]

Low was the Chairman of the Green Committee for the R&A at the turn of the last century when it widened the Old Course (essentially creating much of the outward nine fairways in use today).  Most of the bunkers going out are man made, and Low must have had a large part in placing them.

[BCrosby]

Low was very important. Simpson credits Low and Paton at Woking as stimulating his original interest in gca.

The three or four pages about gca in his Concerning Golf are as good as it gets. Aside from the fact that the book is very well written (Low was a lawyer), was there an earlier articulation of the principles of strategic design than Low's? There were earlier references to "strategic" holes. But was Low the first to lay out the basic principles involved?

Rich -

Interesting about Low and TOC. Are historians resolved that the evidence of Low's contributions, if any, are now lost?

 

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bob

Can you elaborate on that last question?
 Do you mean TOC only?

Thanks
Mark

[Thomas MacWood]

Low was very important. Simpson credits Low and Paton at Woking as stimulating his original interest in gca.

The three or four pages about gca in his Concerning Golf are as good as it gets. Aside from the fact that the book is very well written (Low was a lawyer), was there an earlier articulation of the principles of strategic design than Low's? There were earlier references to "strategic" holes.

Bob
In 'Concerning Golf' Low made the statement that there was no such thing as a poorly placed bunker, but other than that I'm having hard time recalling anything else he wrote in the book that was earth shattering. What passages stood out to you?

[Andy Hughes]

Most of the bunkers going out are man made, and Low must have had a large part in placing them.

Rich, I know you have made a study of this--how do you know the outward bunkers were mostly man-made? What is your take on the inward bunkers?

[Rich Goodale]

Bob and AHughes

My source is Tom Jarrett who wrote the official history of St. Andrews Golf Links for the Links Trust in 1995.  My understanding is that all the little pot bunkers on the right hand side going out for holes 2-6 are Lows.  They were meant to replace the hazard of the gorse after the latter had been cleared out by OTM in the widenting of the course.  IMHO, Low's bunkers are amongst the least appealing aspect of the Old Course.  He must have really raised his game when he worked at Woking....

Rich

I haven't yet read Scott McPherson's book on the evolution of the Old Course, so my (Jarrett's) interpretations may have been revised.  Hopefully Scott can chime in on this, if he is lurking today.

r

[Peter Pallotta]

Rich,

to follow up on Bob and Mark's request, can you get into this a bit more, i.e. the widening of the course around the turn of the century, and what Low did with it. To be honest, I'm kind of looking for a "Width for Dummies" type answer - what were the pratical and/or philosophic considerations and thinking behind that move? How long had those ideas been brewing? Were the results part of what, a couple of decades later, Joshua Crane would be complaining about?

Thanks
Peter 

[Sean_A]

Rich

The location of the "new" bunkers was discussed in the in The Scotsman of June 1905.  13 new bunkers were added probably sometime in the winter of 1904-05.  12 bunkers were placed on the right side of the fairway on holes 2-4.  Nisbet's revised plan of 1907 shows the added bunkers and tees which were in play for the '05 Open.

Rich is right, the supposed low scoring of the 1900 Open prompted folks to believe the course had become too easy because of the widening of the course. This combined with the extra length of the Haskell made many believe that changes were essential. 

There is an R&A minute from October 1899 which relates how more bunkers should be placed down the right side of holes 2-5.  Some of Dr A Robinson, Messrs Oglivie, Fairlie, Everard, Balfour, Macfie, Tait, Low and Greig (from St Andrews GC) met on the links and determined where to place the  bunkers.

I will continue to look for the responsible parties involved with the 1904/05 bunkers.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Peer

The course was actually widened (aka "dumbed down") over a period of time extending to the 1870's.  To read about the effect of this please buy a copy of James Balfour's "Reminiscences of Golf on St. Andrews Links" published 1887." Reprints are available for $20-30 or so.  It is fascinating.

As Sean says, by the time Low came on the scene all the damage had been done for some time.  His (and others) solution/execution was piss poor, IMHO, which is why I am amazed at how much he had learned by the time he got to Woking!

Rich

[Tony Ristola]

Calling Jeff Mingay:

Didn't you write some time ago Macan built a fair number of greens that fell away? That it drove pro's nuts way back when? That many of his greens were redesigned-rebuilt?

If so, I remember Low created a list where he'd included in it greens falling away being of import. Seems like a he took that Low's recommendation to heart ... or my memory is flawed.

[Peter Pallotta]

Rich -

thanks; and generous of one author to recommend another author's work, especially when the other doesn't need the royalties....

I wish I knew enough to be able to engage you in an interesting and mutli-faceted debate about the "dumbing down" on TOC...but I don't.

Peter   

[Andy Hughes]

Rich, was the 'dumbed down' your opinion of the change, or your interpretation of how others such as Balfour felt about it?  Do you believe the widening itself was 'all the damage'--not sure what you are referring to?

[BCrosby]

Rich -

What were the dates of the Low changes to TOC? Or is you don't know the exact dates, were they pre-1903?

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

AHughes

1.  Balfour does a much better explanation for the dumbing down of the Old Course after they widened the course and doubled the greens than I could ever do.

2.  The "damage" was taking an extremely exhilirating course with all sorts of strategic options and turning it into a slog out and back (my humble opinoin, but Balfour would ahve agreed).

3.  Do you have a first name?

Bob C.

Sean's dates above are as good as any.  Again, McPherson's book must have this nailed down.  Short answer, no comprendre!

R

[JohnV]

Low was very important. Simpson credits Low and Paton at Woking as stimulating his original interest in gca.

The three or four pages about gca in his Concerning Golf are as good as it gets. Aside from the fact that the book is very well written (Low was a lawyer), was there an earlier articulation of the principles of strategic design than Low's? There were earlier references to "strategic" holes.

Bob
In 'Concerning Golf' Low made the statement that there was no such thing as a poorly placed bunker, but other than that I'm having hard time recalling anything else he wrote in the book that was earth shattering. What passages stood out to you?

As I recall, he did a good job whining about how far the new golf balls went.  He really was ahead of his time.

[Sean_A]

Rich -

What were the dates of the Low changes to TOC? Or is you don't know the exact dates, were they pre-1903?

Bob

Bob

In my quick search (including MacPherson's book) I can't find anything which states these bunkers were the work or idea of Low.  He was a member of the committee which identified spots for bunkering, but I am not sure the Minute of October '99 is referring to the 13 bunkers placed not long before the 1905 Open or if Low was actually on site during the decision making.  Low was obviously one of the most influential men golf and particularly the R&A at the time, but so were many of the other chaps on the committee!  Bottomline, I think the 13 bunker additions were done in the winter of 1904/05.  However, there may have been some bunkers added pre 1900 - maybe in time for the 1900 Open.

Looking at MacPherson's book here is how he explains the bunkering.

#1 No change form 1900 to 2005

#2 At least 3 of 7 bunkers down the right added just before 1905 Open.  At least 3 of the 4 bunkers near the green added by 1924.

#3  5 new bunkers added down the right between 1905 & 1908

#4  At least 2 bunkers added down the right in 1905.  One more bunker added between 1920 & 24.

#5 The 7 Sisters added between 1905 and 1908.

#6 4 new bunkers down the right added between 1905 & 1908.  1 more added down the right between 1920 & 24. 

Thats a total of about 27 bunkers of which half are likely to have been added for the 1905 Open.

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Thanks Sean.

JVB - Can't fool me. No subtle setups to a defense of the USGA's technology stance are allowed on this thread.

Let me urge everyone to go back and reread Low's stuff on gca. I think he articulated the basic principles of strategic design as well as anyone ever has. He might have also been the first to articulate them. It's short, really good and way ahead of its time.

Bob 

[JohnV]

Not a defense, just that everything was better before X came along.

Generation A to Generation B - It was better in the old days
Generation B to Generation C - It was better in the old days
...
Generation X to Generation Y - It was better in the old days

ad infinitum

[Thomas MacWood]

From Golf Illustrated June 14, 1907, the article was titled 'The St. Andrews Hazards' by Garden Smith

"A question which interested people, more, perhaps, than any other, was whether the St. Andrews course maintains its position as the best test in golf. There have been heard of late years in authorative quarters, questioning and criticism of the old links, and these criticisms have not diminished in number since the holes have been lengthened, and the new bunkers have been made to meet the conditions created, and the new theories set afloat, by the advent of the rubber-cored ball"

"The doctrine of what may be called 'the narrow way and the open, but straight gate,' for which Mr. John Low is mainly responsbile, has recieved the widest acceptance, and may now be held to have superseeded the old doctrine of the obstacle hazard which the crooked and straight alike had to surmount before winning the green. The obstacle hazard is now reserved for those who fail to keep the straight or crooked, but always narrow, path mapped out by the authorities as correct line to the hole. We have no quarrel with this doctrine, which perhaps provides a more testing and sifting trial of players' skill than the somewhat undiscriminating and stereotype defenses of the past decade. But it is possible to think that St. andrews the new theories have not yet been rigidly applied or carried to their logical conclusion."

[Forrest Richardson]

Low may have been so important as a result of such wisdom as the following — my favorite quote attributed to him:

"The short hole should not be long."

[Scott Stambaugh]

Low was the Chairman of the Green Committee for the R&A at the turn of the last century when it widened the Old Course (essentially creating much of the outward nine fairways in use today).  Most of the bunkers going out are man made, and Low must have had a large part in placing them.

From Concerning Golf-

"St. Andrews has the most perfect golfing hazards which the mind can imagine, but even there these traps are not always successful in catching the bad shots; for the course contains too much good ground on the outside of the bunkers.  Formerly the whins bounded the fair course narrowly, and the wild shots resulted in the loss of the ball as well as the loss of the hole."

Richard- Does this passage reference what Low had in mind for TOC?

[Rich Goodale]

Scott

This does reflect what I took from Jarratt's analysis--the whins to the right going out at the Old Course were severely thinned out around the turn of the century and so the Committee decided to dot bunkers along that side to replicate that hazard, but in a more forgiving way.  Per Sean's reporting of McPherson's book, most of this was done in the 1904-5 period.  These bunkers do "protect" the normally perferred line to the most interesting pins on these greens, but not as much as they used to, due to improvements in technology.  From your quote it seems that the Committee were trying to make the course more "penal," which corroborates Balfour's assertions that the course had effectively been "dumbed down."

Interesting discussion.

Rich

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()