Pre Modern, Scientific or call it what you want, the real point, I believe has been missed, as with everything there is a learning curve. We must look to our past with open eyes, to seek the actual truth not in the hope that it may fit this or that agenda. I more than most have a self-interest connected to more that one individual in course design, but all I want to know is the truth. But not just the truth I want to understand the process of design, how it developed and grew, the way in which different generations of designers moved the process on step further whilst at the same time utilising all the electronic/mechanical aids available to them. I have no agenda or theory to prove, I just want a real record of the whole story of Golf Course Architecture.
I am not going to repeat all the comments I have mentioned above, but I just want to view the history with a constructive eye. I would dearly love to identify each course with its original designer(s) and record exactly what was undertaken or changed over the years. To this end when I find information not connected with the Morris or Hunters, I collate all of it and pass it on to the clubs in GB. Sometime without even an acknowledgment of receipt – that is simply down to plain poor manners from the clubs management team. However, I can claim many successes so far.
The problem in GB is that the original club houses for the most part were timber buildings which with the early club records many were consumed by fire by the beginning of the 20th Century.
I believe the biggest damage to the real history of golf course architecture came from the like of those mentioned in TEPaul’s post. Their interest was clearly in themselves and promotion of self. They sprout comments that if actually investigated is quite frankly a total load of old rubbish, they failed to actually check out the full story. I don’t dispute that some part time designers may have designed a course in the way proscribed by them, but for the most part the record (as I have found little proof) does not match their comments. Their problem I sincerely believe was (what I have tried to warn others today about) trying to judge the early designers on the basic of the information, knowledge and records available in their later period, i.e. we would not dream of comparing the first steps of flying and stabilising the early aircrafts with that of the 1920-30’s or for that matter what we have today. Yet was that not the real period of development, making giant steps forward, a real Golden Age of Flight. Each step was rightly at the peak of its art, but the first few steps set the targets, proved the point that flight was possible, that set the path for other generations to follow. This IMHO is also the story of golf course design, yet we have the later designers making unfair, arrogant and ignorant comments about their predecessors based upon standard and developments of their day some 40 to 80 years later. Hence I dismiss most of what theses guys have to say. Thanks to these later Legends of GCA, the early designers have been put into boxes like a square peg in a round hole. This in unfair, the records proves that the main designers of the 19th Century were not one day wonders. Reports show, multi visits to site, the addition of bunkers after the courses had opened, of construction and earth moving. There are photos for those that are interested in the truth of men (from a few to a few dozen) with wheel barrow constructing course pre 1900. These guys also used what was considered modern and scientific in their day and it angers me to think that our history has been distorted because of vain men with agendas.
So I would request that when we view history, particularly GCA history, please do so with an open mind, these early guys used the latest available to them and what they achieved gave the likes of Simpson, Holt etc the ability to take the design stage to the next level. Without Old Tom, The Dunns, C Hunter etc. would Simpson or Holt have taken up golf in the first place?
If you must judge people, do so based upon the facts of their day not ours. Doctors of the 1850’s would I expect today be regarded as little more than butchers by their modern counterparts.
Melvyn