Should Macdonald's question be asked a century later in America?

[TEPaul]

It is not clear to me if the question and poll that generated the holes from abroad that Macdonald used as the basis of his time tested NGLA template holes was actually asked by him but nevertheless here it is:

"Which do you consider the most testing holes on any course in the United Kingdom, having special regard to these salient point: (1) length, (2) accidents of hazard? The question should be answered in respect to the three great classes of holes; namely, those which require one, two and three shots each to reach the putting green."

It is some pretty interesting terminology used in that paragraph that was responded to abroad over a century ago by what was described as 20-30 of the leading amateurs and professional golfers in the United Kingdom. Of particular interest is the term 'accidents of hazard'. Also of particular interest is the word 'testing'.

If a poll like this was done in America a century plus after Macdonald's poll back then who do you think should make up 20-30 leading experts in America to answer the poll?

But don't let that stop you.

Using Macdonald's questions which generated the template holes from abroad he used at NGLA what do you think should be selected from America in the same vein if somebody wanted to do the same thing he did here in let's say China?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  I think the question you quote was posed for the "Best Hole Discussion" by Country Life Magazine [CORRECTED - it was GOLF ILLUSTRATED], just after the turn of the century ... and notice how they asked about the "most testing" but then the title of the article was "best".

I think Macdonald was an interested reader, but not the man who phrased the question.

[TEPaul]

"Tom P:  I think the question you quote was posed for the "Best Hole Discussion" by Country Life Magazine just after the turn of the century ... and notice how they asked about the "most testing" but then the title of the article was "best"."


TomD:

That's what I always thought but that may not have been the case. If one reads that first page from the chapter "The Inception of the Ideal Golf Course", it may've been after that but perhaps not. It seems sort of odd to think only 20-30 responded to Golf Illustrated's "The Best Hole Discussion" but perhaps not in that early day.


Macdonald's wording makes me wonder though; "Inspired by the controversy started in the London GOLF ILLUSTRATED and known as the "Best Hole Discussion" the following question was put to the leading golfers in Great Britain." Also the London GOLF ILLUSTRATED "Best Hole Discussion was in 1900 or 1901. The COUNTRY LIFE competition was in 1914 and was generated for The Lido not NGLA.


It seems sort of odd that London's Golf Illustrated would've just asked 20-30 golfers. It seems more logical to assume it was a general question. Plus Macdonald said the question was inspired by the GOLF ILLUSTRATED "Best Hole Discussion" not that it was GOLF ILLUSTRATED's question.

[Adam Clayman]

If a poll like this was done in America a century plus after Macdonald's poll back then who do you think should make up 20-30 leading experts in America to answer the poll?

Asking the best players of today would be huge mistake.
 

[TEPaul]

Adam:

What do you think the leading players back then knew that the leading players today don't?

It seems to me one of the major concerns today is noone trusts anyone else's opinion other than their own with some very limited exceptions.

I guess I should probably attempt to come up with a list of 20-30 leading amateurs and professionals I'd recommend to field that kind of question today.

I sure can't do 20-30 now but off the top of my head I'd sure pick Doak and Crenshaw as they seem to have such encylopediac knowledge and recall of architecture and both to me have most interesting taste.

Believe it or not from the amateur side I'd pick Pat Mucci. The guy has really been around and he knows his stuff and he has strong but interesting opinions, again, most of which I agree with----not ALL, mind you, but definitely most!   

I'd also pick Geoff Shackelford. That guy's intuition of what's interesting and good and particularly why about GCA has never ceased to fascinate me. What I'd look for are those I think have their own unique opinions on architecture and not those who are sort of consensus purveyors!

[Thomas MacWood]

Macdonald did not ask the question. It was the editor of Golf Illustrated, who I believe was Garden Smith at the time. TD is correct, CB was an interested observer, he did not participate.

CB did write an article on Golf Illustrated a year or two later in which laid out his ideal golf course idea.

[TEPaul]

"Macdonald did not ask the question. It was the editor of Golf Illustrated, who I believe was Garden Smith at the time. TD is correct, CB was an interested observer, he did not participate."

It's probably a small point, all things considered, but just for kicks let me see you prove that. I will definitely accept that question as it's reflected in Macdonald's book if printed the same way in the original London GOLF ILLUSTRATED article. You're the "research guy", right Tom MacWood? I've always said so----so let's see the question as printed in London's GOLF ILLUSTRATED. The responses would be pretty cool too!

PS:
Who do you figure knows Mike Hurzdan's library better---Mike Hurdzan or you?

[Thomas MacWood]

Doubting TE
You are an idiot.

October 26, 1906, page 85.

It begins, "Within the last few years much has appeared in golfing journals upon the subjects of lengths of holes, cross and wing hazards, and blind holes, and it may be of interest to golfers who frequesnt the five links on which the Amateur Championships are held, as well as other golfers, if some of the views of those who have taken the trouble to publicly express them, were given in a narrower compass than they are at present to be found in, in the pages of GOLF ILLUSTRATED and other journals..."

I must end it there, I'm not nearly as proficient a typer as you, but I'll be glad to answer any questions however.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, I limited my objection to the best players for a couple of reasons. One, society has changed so much in the last 100 years and most pros of today would not represent a subjective sounding board. Especially as it relates to architecture.
 I like your idea of a select group of enthusiasts. However, you'd probably need a committee to pick the committee to pick the committee. 
 

[Peter Pallotta]

TE -

I'm dying here. You're killing me. This has got to be one of the most interesting and promising threads/questions I've ever seen -- the royal straight flush of threads, and I'm sitting here with jack-seven in my hand.  Arrgh!

I can't put it into words, but it seems to me that this has the potential to get to some of the fundamental issues about/underpinnings of golf course architecture. I hope it goes on for like 30 pages, with all the big guns weighing in (and weighing in on the substance of the question)

All I got is ideas popping in and out of my head about what the answer(s) to this question might reveal about the state and ideals of gca then and now...

Arrgh!

Peter 

[Thomas MacWood]

Peter
I'm right with you...I'm about ready to blow a gasket I'm so excited! I'll start.

What do you think are the best lengths of holes?

[TEPaul]

"Doubting TE
You are an idiot.

October 26, 1906, page 85.

It begins, "Within the last few years much has appeared in golfing journals upon the subjects of lengths of holes, cross and wing hazards, and blind holes, and it may be of interest to golfers who frequesnt the five links on which the Amateur Championships are held, as well as other golfers, if some of the views of those who have taken the trouble to publicly express them, were given in a narrower compass than they are at present to be found in, in the pages of GOLF ILLUSTRATED and other journals..."

I must end it there, I'm not nearly has proficient a typer as you, but I'll be glad to answer any questions however."


Tom MacWood:

That just might be the most incomprehensible post I've ever seen on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. Is it even worthwhile asking what it could possibly refer to or should I just continue to marvel at your odd nonsequitors?  That quote is perhaps accurate to London's GOLF ILLUSTRATED in 1906 but what in the world is its relevance to anything on this thread? 

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom M - No, I was thinking more along the lines of the potential for a fairly comprehensive theory developing/coming out of this thread, one based on the kind of answers experts could -- and couldn't -- give about modern golf holes.  I don't have any length hole in mind I'd consider best.

Peter

[TEPaul]

"All I got is ideas popping in and out of my head about what the answer(s) to this question might reveal about the state and ideals of gca then and now..."


Peter:

Do you really think so?

Maybe I'm getting a bit burnt out and jaded because even I'm having a hard time seeing it but some edification can sure help. Let me see you just go for it and don't worry for a second about being inexperienced or uninformed as you've always claimed on here that you are. I don't believe you are at all. Just go for it---let it all hang out. In my mind you are one of the freshest, most original and most interesting minds on here. Do not in any way at all be waylaid by an arrogant, self-promoting nimbrod like Tom MacWood and his critical and nonsensical posts. Just go for it and ignore people like that altogether.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Tom - that's kind of you to say. Yes, I do believe something fundamental can be discussed here. And the fact that so few have responded so far proves it to me.

I think that the challenge in answering your question lies in the fact that the very parameters have changed, i.e. that 30 modern experts – whom I think would form a more experienced, wide-ranging, knowledgeable and committed group than could even have been imagined back then – would refuse to be constrained by the artificial constructs and frameworks of the past.

I think there are a few architects working today who have "in their bones" an understanding of and appreciation for the fundamental principles of golf course architecture that has never been matched, either in breadth or depth.   They see for what they really are the conventions about how shot-testing principles must manifest themselves on a golf course and through golf course architecture, i.e. they see them as just that, conventions, not the principles themselves.

I think there would be no consensus about what was ideal in any regard, either in practical terms (construction techniques, irrigation) or in theoretical ones (design and business philosophies); and that the 18 holes that might eventually be selected would have only one thing in common, i.e. they'd each be sui generis, one of a kind – and one of a kind because each would manifest fundamental principles that were inextricably tied to and realized through a unique site/topography/landform that could not be copied.

In other words, the 18 great modern holes would be great not in spite of the fact that they couldn't be replicated but because of that.

All of which suggests to me that this thread might develop the theory that we are living, right now as we speak, in the true golden age of golf course architecture in America. I'm not saying a "renaissance" of American golf course architecture, which is a word I know you’ve used in the past. That word refers to the re-birth of the greatness of 1920s architecture, while I'm thinking that the golden age was actually born here about 20 years ago or so, after a 60 year gestation period.

And I think that characterizing our era as one of birth instead of one of re-birth opens up the door to a very fundamental (and maybe very fruitful) re-thinking our what we're doing and striving for today and what those in the 20s were thinking and striving for.

Anyway, that’s what occurred to me after I’d thought about your question/thread for a while, and why I thought it was an important one. There are no “facts” here, Tom -- as you may have noticed in the last year, for better or worse I'm not all that interested in "facts",  which I think are a dime a dozen and easily memorize.  But still, that's the reason I didn't want to comment originally. And so if this post seems all a bunch of nonsense, please feel free to completely ignore it....even if you're the one who encouraged it 

Peter

[Thomas MacWood]

"Doubting TE
You are an idiot.

October 26, 1906, page 85.

It begins, "Within the last few years much has appeared in golfing journals upon the subjects of lengths of holes, cross and wing hazards, and blind holes, and it may be of interest to golfers who frequesnt the five links on which the Amateur Championships are held, as well as other golfers, if some of the views of those who have taken the trouble to publicly express them, were given in a narrower compass than they are at present to be found in, in the pages of GOLF ILLUSTRATED and other journals..."

I must end it there, I'm not nearly has proficient a typer as you, but I'll be glad to answer any questions however."


Tom MacWood:

That just might be the most incomprehensible post I've ever seen on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. Is it even worthwhile asking what it could possibly refer to or should I just continue to marvel at your odd nonsequitors?  That quote is perhaps accurate to London's GOLF ILLUSTRATED in 1906 but what in the world is its relevance to anything on this thread? 

That article was rehash or final tally of the debate...more or less an analysis of the results. The debate went on for five years pretty much uninterupted through letter to the editors. The proper length of holes was a major area of contention. I was wrong the original questions were not posed by Garden Smith but Horace Hutchinson, he contributed to Golf Illustrated. Early in 1907, shortly after the article I quoted, Macdonald published an article in Golf Illustrated on his 'Ideal Course" concept.

[TEPaul]

"I think there would be no consensus about what was ideal in any regard, either in practical terms (construction techniques, irrigation) or in theoretical ones (design and business philosophies); and that the 18 holes that might eventually be selected would have only one thing in common, i.e. they'd each be sui generis, one of a kind – and one of a kind because each would manifest fundamental principles that were inextricably tied to and realized through a unique site/topography/landform that could not be copied.

In other words, the 18 great modern holes would be great not in spite of the fact that they couldn't be replicated but because of that."


Peter:

Very good take there. The way I read what you're saying it sure would play into that interesting term in the original question----ie "accidents of hazard". The term "accidents" sure does bespeak to me something site-natural and probably pretty interesting or unique too. That GOLF ILLUSTRATED question was also probably pretty well considered and thoughtout which makes the term even more interesting or should I say significant to that time.

Most all the great holes voted on back then do have some significant natural feature pretty interesting and salient about them that was used for golf. I guess the only one that sort of misses that mold would be the Road Hole which merely used the close proximity of an existing road at an interesting angle and enhanced the use of it with a pretty unique man-made propped up green and a brilliant rather small and deep bunker on its opposite side. (Some say the Road Hole green and Road Bunker were some of the first man-made golf architecture ever done).

[Jim Nugent]

I don't know if they are 20-30 leading experts, but George Peper and the editors of Golf Magazine wrote a book called "The 500 World's Greatest Golf Holes."  It was published in year 2000, so it's pretty close to that century mark you asked for, Tom. 

They first chose the 18 greatest...then the 100 greatest...then the 500 greatest.  While the holes were from all over the world, the U.S. was very well represented.  For example, 10 of the top 18 were American. 

Wouldn't some of the classics (including some templates) likely appear on many lists of top American holes?  The Alps and Redan at NGLA.  Quarry at Merion.  15 and/or 16 at CPC.  Maybe 8 at Pebble and 10 at Riviera...maybe 12 and 13 at ANGC.  Maybe all sorts of holes at Pine Valley. 

The list of experts will determine which holes make the list.  I suspect Tom Fazio might choose some different holes than Ran Morrissett. 

I bet our Chinese friends, who want to make a 21st century NGLC, would do better to find a contemporary Charles Blair Macdonald, than pay attention to a consensus list from the experts, though. 

[TEPaul]

Jim Nugent:

It sounds to me like George Peper and Golf Magazine did a sort of half-assed job of it. They should have done an article on all 5,000,000 of the World's "GREATEST" holes.

[TEPaul]

"I bet our Chinese friends, who want to make a 21st century NGLC, would do better to find a contemporary Charles Blair Macdonald, than pay attention to a consensus list from the experts, though."


You know JimN, that remark is pretty interesting and here's why---I don't know if anyone has ever mentioned it on here but it is pretty interesting that Macdonald's group of template holes used over and over again did not seem to be holes that he said he actually favored----they were generated more by a consensus of the opinions of others. In that way Macdonald may've been really hedging his bets about what to duplicate.

It seems to me Macdonald only said one time that there was a hole he himself was just dying to do and that was a replication of the 16th at Littlestone that turned out to be the famous "Channel" hole---#4 at Lido. He even said he thought that Littlestone blew it with their 16th because the high risk alternate fairway was not functional and effective enough. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Peter,
Given the proper amount of equipment and money most any feature, or 'accident' is replicable, save an ocean.

I do agree that no consensus of what is ideal could be reached today, but I think it's because there are too many types of golfers and too many market segments for there to ever be an over-arching ideal.

Those guys back then had it easy.