What really was the beginning of golf course architecture?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Do you remember the course or what town you were near?

[Tony_Muldoon]

  Does Ran's list need revising?

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/Courses_by_Architect.html

Actually that could be interesting.  I don't have much time at the moment, but if someone wanted to start a thread asking people to nominate dates and significant developments/events in the history of golf course architecture we could make quite a list.

DATE/ EVENT / 50 WORD MAX, JUSTIFICATION OF THE SIGNIFICANCE.

I nominate you Tom Paul as moderator to decide what is significant enough to make it on there and to reject the ephemeral.

[Dan Moore]

Is leveling off 18 squares of land for sodding some pathcy bits of putting surface type turf, and digging abuttment style trenches perpendicular to the flow of the hole, for bunker hazards, golf course architecture?

I would vote no again because the "building" that is undertaken here is not "masterful" in any sense, but rather utilitarian.

Bradley,  are you saying Allan Robertson's construction of the Road hole green in the 1850's and Old Tom's construction of the 18th green in 1866 at St Andrew's don't constitute architecture because they only involve construction?  Both would seem to satisfy your masterful criteria.  Also wouldn't what is considered masterful (or what constitutes architecture) need to be judged by the standards of the era.  

Also I think the whin removal at St Andrew's in the 2nd half of the 1800's combined with expanding greens and a plethora of new bunkering in the clearded area which created entirely new hole corridors (the right hand course) certainly constitutes the practice of architecture.  An ancillary qustion raised by those changes is the extent to which they were motivated by strategic or more utilitarian concerns (safety, pace of play etc).   My guees is they were motivated by utilitarian concerns then executed with care to create the best golf possible.  

[Neil_Crafter]

Dan
You asked:
"Bradley,  are you saying Allan Robertson's construction of the Road hole green in the 1850's and Old Tom's construction of the 18th green in 1866 at St Andrew's don't constitute architecture because they only involve construction?  Both would seem to satisfy your masterful criteria.  Also wouldn't what is considered masterful (or what constitutes architecture) need to be judged by the standards of the era."

Robertson and Morris had to decide what to build as well, and that to me (as both a building architect and a golf course architect) is perhaps the most important part - the decisions that are made in designing something are a crucial component of defining architecture. Every line on a plan constitutes a decision, even if you are retaining an existing feature intact, that is an architectural decision. If you laid out a course in sand dune country, like Sand Hills, and the earthworking was very minimal, then that is still very much architecture.

[Sean_A]

Very interesting guys.

It may be splitting hairs a little but Park did at least one template green at Huntercombe when he deliberately copied this from Musselburgh.





I suspect there were others.  I don't wish to diminish MacDonald in all this.  I think he made a big difference to people perceiving how important it was to create interesting holes and his influence was felt over here.

In truth it was a thousand tiny steps that led us to where we are today and I would rather see a timeline of significant milestones rather than say X was the first.  Does Ran's list need revising?

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/Courses_by_Architect.html

Tony is unquestionably correct with his view.  It doesn't much matter if one person or another believes they were the first architect as the field developed gradually over at least a few hundred years.  The truth is Mac designed in a certain way for all 18 holes and for that he can take credit for whatever credit is due - which I don't think is a lot other than the actual product he produced.  At the end of the day it was architecture, but it was certainly far from the first architectural effort, "classic" or otherwise.  Just the idea of him copying ideas should tell us something about Mac not being original other than he decided to use what he and many others believed were tried and tested archie principles. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"I nominate you Tom Paul as moderator to decide what is significant enough to make it on there and to reject the ephemeral.  "


Thank you Tony, but I seriously doubt I'd be the right one to do something like that for the simple reason I would think that whatever the beginning of golf course architecture was---ie perhaps Alan Robertson around 1848 at TOC (as a number of historians and analysts have mentioned) or perhaps something earlier or much earlier, I would assume it had to have begun in the Scottish linksland or in Scotland and the fact is my knowledge of Scottish golf and architectural history is nowhere near as good and comprehensive as a lot of guys on here. Frankly, not even in the same ballpark.

BTW, for my own personal take on this kind of thing I like very much what Neil Crafter said above in the second paragraph of Post #78. I think that's a good basic set of criteria. Who all that would encompasses early on though I'm not certain.

I am still very interested in Macdonald's take on this in the way he presented it in his book. I don't really agree with him with what he seemed to believe was the first example of golfing architecture but it sure does highlight where he was coming from. It might also explain why a fairly large number over here beginning in the teens and such disagreed with Macdonald's way of going about creating architecture.

[Dan Moore]

The problem with this thread is that we keep trying to find one answer to two different questions.  The first question was posed in the title of the thread and the second in the body of the thread.  The first had to do with the begining of golf course architecture which seems to be trending in favor of when someone first modified nature's landscape to make it more conducive to the game of golf, no doubt an event  long lost in history.   The second, entirely different question, had to do with Macdonald's claim that he was the first golf course architect.  That question seems to be trending in favor of someone who was a master craftsman in the trade of conceiving and building golf courses.  Allan Robertson appears to be the first documented example of someone who was engaged for his expertise to conceive a golf course layout (though I'd still like to know more about what Robertson and Morris did at Carnoustie in 1840).   This second question also poses the issue of why Macdonald thought that to be the case in light of his fairly detailed knowledge of golf course history  and development of architecure since 1872 when he first visited St Andrew's.   

Neil, I am in agreement with you in principle, but I think our view is different than my friend Bradley so I was posing a rhetoricasl question for him. 

Tom,  where in Scotland's Gift did Macdonald make his claim.  I remember the claim, but after several times paging through my edition, I can't find his claim anywhere.

[Bradley Anderson]

Dan,

Getting back to the question: "what really was the beginning of golf course architecture", my vote still goes to Sunningdale. For that seems to me to be the first place where masterful building was done on an entire COURSE of golf holes. But I may stand corrected by someone on here who knows more of that history than I do.

I would agree with you Dan that there was masterful building going on of golf holes and golf features long before Sunningdale, and for that matter NGLA. Certainly MacDonald would have agreed with that too. But GOLF COURSE Architecture, the like of which where the dirt that is being cut on one hole is likely to be moved to another hole - on that kind of NGLA scale - I just wonder if MacDonald was thinking of that when he coined the phrase?

You might be able to persuade me to look at if differently, but I guess I can not agree with the idea that clearing land is golf course architecture. That only worked on very unique sites. You can not transfer that method to other sites because of drainage issues.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Dan,
Pg. 173, end of paragraph 3.

Sean,
What CBM did at NGLA was probably the most original idea that GCA had ever seen at that time, and as we've seen from past posts and other sources, he constructed that masterpiece. He built the 'flawless' course by combining the time tested principles found on the best holes from the home of golf with a flair that at that time was not be found anywhere  in America. Look at the result, 100 years later it stands as one of the foremost achievements in the world wide history of GCA.

The ongoing praise would have never materialized if NGLA, and Macdonald, weren't original pieces of work.

   

   
 

 

[Sean_A]

Dan,
Pg. 173, end of paragraph 3.

Sean,
What CBM did at NGLA was probably the most original idea that GCA had ever seen at that time, and as we've seen from past posts and other sources, he constructed that masterpiece. He built the 'flawless' course by combining the time tested principles found on the best holes from the home of golf with a flair that at that time was not be found anywhere  in America. Look at the result, 100 years later it stands as one of the foremost achievements in the world wide history of GCA.

The ongoing praise would have never materialized if NGLA, and Macdonald, weren't original pieces of work.

Jim

I agree with you.  However, as I suggested, the focus of kudos is based on the quality of the course rather some vague idea of recreating architecture in some way.  Especially since we know ideas were copied long before Mac decided to do so.  Are you giving extra credence to the fact that he did t over 18 holes?  If so, I wonder why the idea never caught on.  This concept essentially died with with Mac's proteges.

Dan

Thank you pointing out that Tom shifted the focus of this thread dramatically by zeroing in on a question mid-stream which the title of the thread has nohing to do with.

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
As he was the first man to create the first course using the ideal of 'no slouches' anywhere within the 18 holes, then yes, I think that concept deserves extra credence because it proved out.
The architecture stands on its own merits.

As for the concept never catching on? I think the answer to that can be found in C&W when they speak of the few men who, because of this same focus, had standards of design that put them into a class by themselves.
It's seen at places like Augusta and Shinnecock, and I think it's the ideal that drives some of our modern architects (You pick 'em  ).

[Sean_A]

Sean,
As he was the first man to create the first course using the ideal of 'no slouches' anywhere within the 18 holes, then yes, I think that concept deserves extra credence because it proved out.
The architecture stands on its own merits.

As for the concept never catching on? I think the answer to that can be found in C&W when they speak of the few men who, because of this same focus, had standards of design that put them into a class by themselves.
It's seen at places like Augusta and Shinnecock, and I think it's the ideal that drives some of our modern architects (You pick 'em  ).

Jim

Quite clearly the idea of building a course which could stand up to the quality of the wonderful links was around before Mac.  Again, Other than the obvious qulaity of NGLA, Mac's idea of trying to create 18 ideal holes, many of which were based on holes which had already stood the test of time, was the significant aspect of NGLA.  It is also clear that this design model did not live on beyond the Macophiles.  Remember, a lot of very clever archies were around at this time and they didn't copy the Mac model.  Which in and of itself is a very interesting fact.  Why didn't they?  Personally, I think it in part has to do with the divide between professional and amateur archies.  Pros, to be paid and to further their growth as archies, would necessarily had to keep their ideas fresh and many of these guys relied on the terrain to provide that diversity in design.  The amateur archies would have not needed any such drive.  Folks could take or leave their work and these guys wouldn't have cared too much so long as their ideas were utilized.  In Mac's case, I think he was literally attempting to transplant the Scottish game to the US, lock stock and barrel.  Of course he couldn't succeed, but as we say, he did leave a legacy of courses which can still be considered unique to him (and his) nearly 100 years later.

Ciao   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
Quite clearly, I didn't say that the idea wasn't around before CBM, just that he was the first to successfully pull it off.
Correct me if I am not understanding you, but are you saying that no one else had, as their standard, the ideal of creating golf courses that contained 'no slouches' within the eighteen holes?

[Sean_A]

Correct me if I am not understanding you, but are you saying that no one else had, as their standard, the ideal of creating golf courses that contained 'no slouches' within the eighteen holes?

Jim

Huh?  It was my impression that you were saying something of that ilk.  I said that Mac was the first to come up with the idea of 18 ideal holes, many of which were based on existing holes.  I don't see where this model of architecture carried on much past MacRayBanks.  That doesn't mean the idea was a failure, just that other archies, professional archies, obviously didn't think this was the best way for them to design a course.  I believe Mac used and stuck to this model in part because he didn't have to "move on", in part because he was trying to import the game as he knew and loved it and in part because he thought his ideas of design were superior - why try to reinvent the wheel?  I must say from a practical PoV it is difficult to argue with Mac.

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
You're conflating CBM's use of the holes in his repertoire with the ideal, I am saying that the ideal stands by itself and was adopted by a few others, then and now, and the results of that ideal show themselves at places like Augusta and Shinnecock.

[Bradley Anderson]

The question originally posed by Tom is asking us is essentially "what was the beginning of 18 holes that are built masterfully".

The question is not asking us "when was the beginning of building golf features or golf holes".

I don't mean to be a prick about this, but there really is a big difference in terms of achievement and accomplishment. And you have to hand it to MacDonald for how amazing NGLA really is as an expression of building. Even Sunningdale, where there was significant building a decade before NGLA, was a second go around, with probably portions of the original left intact. Most of the predecessors to NGLA were evolutions of remodeling that included great examples of feature building within a course that was routed by a sort of nature + man phenomena. There was great architecture being done by men who came in and remodeled greens and bunkers, and altered the routing of three or four holes etc.

But an entire course that involved moving huge amounts of earth with a great surveyor on hand to see to it that it would be done in a scientific and calculated way - NGLA may indeed be the first place where that happened.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Dan,

Getting back to the question: "what really was the beginning of golf course architecture", my vote still goes to Sunningdale. For that seems to me to be the first place where masterful building was done on an entire COURSE of golf holes. But I may stand corrected by someone on here who knows more of that history than I do.

I would agree with you Dan that there was masterful building going on of golf holes and golf features long before Sunningdale, and for that matter NGLA. Certainly MacDonald would have agreed with that too. But GOLF COURSE Architecture, the like of which where the dirt that is being cut on one hole is likely to be moved to another hole - on that kind of NGLA scale - I just wonder if MacDonald was thinking of that when he coined the phrase?

You might be able to persuade me to look at if differently, but I guess I can not agree with the idea that clearing land is golf course architecture. That only worked on very unique sites. You can not transfer that method to other sites because of drainage issues.

Bradley, again I don’t wish to undermine how important Sunningdale was but I have trouble seeing it as a complete break from the past. E.g.

Often people criticise the inland courses that went before with their “artificial features “ and steeplechase like centreline bunkers.  Surely this is architecture, albeit not to our taste today?  Many of these courses do still exist but were improved by Colt and others and it’s hard to be sure how much work was done on the totality of the original course.

Darwin described the heath at Woking as being like a swamp before it was converted to golf.  (Dunn 1893).  I guess he was probably only talking about the lower part of the course - in those days holes 3 to 10.  Engineering not architecture?

In 1895 and only a few miles away, Mure Fergusson carved New Zealand Golf Club out of dense woods. This much disturbance must have required the land to be put back in place, Architecture?

Sunningdale became influential because it was better than what came before and had a great membership and unlike Woking (which had already closed its books) it welcomed outside events and competitions. Add in the fact that Colt ran it like a machine and it became The Club in the London area.  But in my mind the architecture was evolution to a new level, rather than a first.  (Remember Colt subtly improved it over its first decade.)

[Sean_A]

Sean,
You're conflating CBM's use of the holes in his repertoire with the ideal, I am saying that the ideal stands by itself and was adopted by a few others, then and now, and the results of that ideal show themselves at places like Augusta and Shinnecock.

I am not quite sure how to explain it to you.  I am saying that Mac used the ideal holes to recreate a perfect ideal if you like, then tried the same methods to recreate this perfect ideal (though I think with mush less zeal as Mac displayed over many years at NGLA) at other clubs.  Mac didn't seem to progress his notion of the ideal which was directly linked to the ideal holes of his earlier adulthood.  An Augusta or Shinny could have happened with or without the existence of Mac because I don't believe he was all that much a direct architectural influence - hence the reason his style of design died with MacRayBanks.  What we see today in parkland architecture is essentially the British model with some obvious twists and turns.  Mac didn't import this style of design - he was doing something very different and it was perceived this way when he did it. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

One of the reasons this is such an interesting thread is all the assumptions that lie behind the answers/posts, and how those assumptions tie into so many of the more 'practical' kind of threads we have around here. What I mean is, I think that the "best of" and "top ranked" and "most of out a poor site" and "least out of a good site" kind of threads that dominate this board all assume the importance of -- and put a premium on -- the skill and talent and intention and philosophy of the ARCHITECT....and here we are now on this thread wondering about when/if/whether there was a time BEFORE that skill and talent and intention and philosophy were valued so highly when good fields of play were created nonetheless, and by people who didn't even think of THEMSELVES as architects.

Peter 

[Jim_Kennedy]

I'm quite sure I can explain it to you. CBM was like the good "father" who set a standard, and even though the youngsters may have rebelled against it and gone their own ways, it made them better adults.

[Sean_A]

I'm quite sure I can explain it to you. CBM was like the good "father" who set a standard, and even though the youngsters may have rebelled against it and gone their own ways, it made them better adults.

Jim

I see.  Well then, I would say that Mac had UK brothers who also set standards, but ones which the children didn't rebel against!

Ciao

[Bradley Anderson]

Often people criticise the inland courses that went before with their “artificial features “ and steeplechase like centreline bunkers.  Surely this is architecture, albeit not to our taste today? 

It was certainly "building" but it was not good building. Even someone with bad taste can see that those steeplechase bunkers were utilitarian structures that were poorly built. One of the reasons they disappeared so quickly was because they were so poorly built and they simply fell apart.

Until we remove the a-r-c-h-i from the word, architecture is stuck with distinguishing the quality of what is built. We are becoming so reckless with our superlatives, that we will have nothing left to distinguish excellence from mediocrity.

[Bradley Anderson]

This statement by Reginald Beale supports the assertion that Sunningdale might have been the first example of golf course architecture.

"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."

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bradley,
I'm sure you have an unshakeable belief in your perception that the etymology of the word somehow applies to GCA, but if:  "Until we remove the a-r-c-h-i from the word, architecture is stuck with distinguishing the quality of what is built."  was applicable we would have no need for the words good, bad, or ugly.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I see.  Well then, I would say that Mac had UK brothers who also set standards, but ones which the children didn't rebel against

Sean,
That's 'cause those children were more boring than their raucous cousins.