Architectural Rules to Live By from 1913 - Do they still apply?

[Mike_Cirba]

Joe Bausch sent me an article he found from 1913 in one of the Philly papers discussing the proposed public course at Cobb's Creek.

In the article, a "well known golf course architect' is quoted and I was struck by what seems to be a clear reaction away from the idea of formulaics or templates in golf course architecture.

I sure wish I knew who it was, but the rules still seem pretty good from my perspective.  There are others at the bottom of the article that were unreadable, but perhaps we can get a better copy down the road.

So, are these "hints" still applicable today??

Public Course Demanded

The proposed 18-hole links in Cobb’s Creek Park, it is generally conceded, will bring golf into more popularity than ever.   The demand for a public course has been insistent for a long, long time.

A well known golf course architect reportedly gave out several hints on the construction of a golf course.

Here are some of them –

“If you have any high ground on the course, try and arrange for a green and a tee to be placed there.   Scenery may be a very bad substitute for golf but they run well in double harness.”

“Avoid square greens and straight-out courses; in that, avoid formality of any and every description.”

“Don’t blind yourself by cast-iron rules.   Some of the most charming holes in golf violate every principal of golf construction.   But abnormal holes must always be artistic.”

“The more difficult the approach, the greater the joy when you get there.”

“If you have a pond on the course, bring it in – once, at any rate.  It will do for a pull or a slice, as well as to drive over.”

“Compulsory carries over a stretch of water should not be too long.   They are apt to scare the short driver, lose him balls, and cause constipation of the course.”

“It is sometimes a pleasing feature to have two greens adjoining, and it makes time in the mowing.”

“Let every green and every approach be full of character.”

Avoid Pawky Play

“Have at least one or two plateau greens on the round.   They lend themselves to beautiful treatment, especially at the short holes.

“If it can be avoided, never lay out a hole which compels or develops “Pawky Play”.   Always give the short hitter a chance to “Get there” if he cares to take risks. "

[Joe Bausch]

Mike, did you know that I was hiding this article too for awhile?    

Gosh, when the architects on board here read and digest the details of this article, the golf world will never be the same.   

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike, did you know that I was hiding this article too for awhile?    

Joe,

I prefer to use the term "hoarding" when I think of you.

Gosh, when the architects on board here read and digest the details of this article, the golf world will never be the same.   

Joe,

The thing that struck me is that these "hints" are all very different from the idea of taking existing "ideal hole" models and trying to emulate them in some purposeful way.

Considering that this was published a year after NGLA opened, it certainly suggests something of a countering opinion.

[Joe Bausch]

I'm anxious for our experts to weigh in on this thread and those quotes.  I, too, wonder the identity of the quoted architect.  Could it have been Wilson?  Or Tilly?  Or Crump?  Or Findlay?   Or???

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm anxious for our experts to weigh in on this thread and those quotes.  I, too, wonder the identity of the quoted architect.  Could it have been Wilson?  Or Tilly?  Or Crump?  Or Findlay?   Or???

I think I'd start by trying to figure out who used the term "Pawky"! 

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

I had to look it up:

pawk·y
adj. pawk·i·er, pawk·i·est Chiefly British
Shrewd and cunning, often in a humorous manner

[Joe Bausch]

The first place I've seen 'pawky golf' used in some searching on the Web is in The Game of Golf, by Willie Park, Jr.

[Chuck Brown]

Now I understand.  I've played several daily fee courses at which five and a half hour rounds were common.

Now, I understand; those were "pawkland" courses.

[Phil_the_Author]

"I think I'd start by trying to figure out who used the term "Pawky"!"

Mike, that's probably NOT going to help you. The following used the term "pawky" in their golf writings:

Tilly, Thomas Uzzell, J.S. Worthington, John G. Anderson, Miles Coen, Bernard Darwin, James Braid, W.H. Follet, James Sullivan, Horace Hutchinson, Herbert Fowler, John Caven, Henry Leach, Jean Portland, O.B. Keeler, Henry Leach, Isaac Ford, Harold Hilton, "Bunker Hill" & Walter Travis.

These used the terms from as early as 1903 through the 1940's...

 
 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
I used to think you had some semblance of an open mind, but it sure seems to be closing up.
If you read the 'rules' without an agenda there is only one, perhaps two, that might suggest what you are saying, but it's still a stretch of the imagination to come to that conclusion......and an unbiased reading of them shows the writer has his own 'formula' when offering up 'rules'.

What is..... "If you have any high ground on the course, try and arrange for a green and a tee to be placed there"....if not a rule?    

..or... "If you have a pond on the course, bring it in – once, at any rate.  It will do for a pull or a slice, as well as to drive over.”

....or....“Compulsory carries over a stretch of water should not be too long.   They are apt to scare the short driver, lose him balls, and cause constipation of the course.”

...and how about this for a formulaic concept... “Have at least one or two plateau greens on the round.   They lend themselves to beautiful treatment, especially at the short holes.


Do you guys from Philly all suffer from a CBM complex?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I think what CB Macdonald did for American golf was revolutionary and amazing, and I love virtually every Mac/Raynor/Banks course I've played.

I think the template model is fascinating, and I love to see the various iterations utilized in differing environments.

I'm also fascinated from a historical perspective to study the evolution of early American architectural history, and the fact is that golf architecture pretty quickly veered away from that "ideal hole" model, and quickly became fascinated with more original, more naturally-based holes.   Guys like Tillinghast wrote about it, and I think it led to the type of wonderful variant courses created during the Golden Age.

Can you imagine if the next wave of architects in the 1910s and 20s all followed precisely the Macdonald model and tried to build the "ideal holes" on every course they designed?   

As far as the "rules" in this article, I sort of like that the overriding rule in the article seems to be, "there are no rules" when he says, "“Don’t blind yourself by cast-iron rules.   Some of the most charming holes in golf violate every principal of golf construction.   But abnormal holes must always be artistic.”
 

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

That's a very good response to Jim Kennedy, and it pretty much reflects the points that Wayne and I have been trying to make on here for what seems like years.

But I was pretty disappointed by Jim Kennedy's question; "Do you guys from Philly all suffer from a CBM complex?"-------as that's the very same kneejerk response and question I've come to expect as automatic about Philadelphia from only MacWood and Moriarty. I've always felt Jim Kennedy has a far more expansive, curious and open mind about architecture's evolution, Philadelpia and Philadelphia golf architecture analysts than just that.

[Jim_Kennedy]

But I was pretty disappointed by Jim Kennedy's question; "Do you guys from Philly all suffer from a CBM complex?"-------as that's the very same kneejerk response and question I've come to expect as automatic about Philadelphia from only MacWood and Moriarty. I've always felt Jim Kennedy has a far more expansive, curious and open mind about architecture's evolution, Philadelpia and Philadelphia golf architecture analysts than just that.

....and you would be right in your assumption. I should have put the smiley at the end of:
"Do you guys from Philly all suffer from a CBM complex?" 

But having said that, do we need another thread that takes a shot, even a sideways one, at what CBM did, knowing full well what his contributions were, when he made them, why he made them and how useful they were to the American golf scene? After a decade of posts on this subject is there anyone left who doesn't know that GCA branched out in different ways?


.....and Mike, after all the time and effort you've put into studying the evolution of early American architectural history, you can't possibly be serious when you said  ...."I was struck by what seems to be a clear reaction away from the idea of formulaics or templates in golf course architecture".
I'd have to ask you "Struck by what?" You clearly have held this same idea for a long time, and the ideas in the article you posted are nothing new to you.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

I was struck by the fact that they appeared in writing so early as January 1913.

I guess I thought it was a bit later, or at least I didn't recognize that some of the architecture of the time that today we see as more naturally-influenced was done with purposeful reactionary intent, if that makes sense.   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
No, it doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. They weren't creating  reactionary architecture, they were CBM's contemporaries and were already building courses with styles of their own.

If anything, the articles themselves were written as a reaction to the tremendous praise that CBM was receiving for his work.

[TEPaul]

"....and you would be right in your assumption. I should have put the smiley at the end of:
"Do you guys from Philly all suffer from a CBM complex?"    "


JimboK:

Thanks for that. I consider myself one who mostly tries to use humor or a humorous response to a tight and adverserial confrontation on here that I don't think really deserves a tight and adverserial confrontation on here---so I thank you for clarification above!




"But having said that, do we need another thread that takes a shot, even a sideways one, at what CBM did, knowing full well what his contributions were, when he made them, why he made them and how useful they were to the American golf scene? After a decade of posts on this subject is there anyone left who doesn't know that GCA branched out in different ways?"


First of all, Jimbo, it's not me and I don't think it's some of us today (in Philadelphia) who are taking a shot at Macdonald's Template style or prototype GB famous hole via template/"principle copy" style architecture that the famous "National School" is and basically has always been so well known for.

I think what Mike Cirba is saying and I certainly have for years is not what WE today are saying about his style, his architectural modus operandi etc, BUT what some of his contemporaries back then were saying about his style and HIS "GB copy hole" concept!

I think some of us here in Philly are just interested in why some other architects like probably Hugh Wilson embraced Macdonald's GB copy hole concept early on but for numerous reasons started to walk away from it even in the teens. I think there were a lot of them who were moving away from even the idea of it like Wilson did; I think a lot of good American architects of that time did and some of like Tillie apparently even criticized his style and architectural modus operandi of the GB "copy hole" concept early on.

That is all that interests us here; it's not that we don't like it now. That was a dynamic we very much suspect was going on back then but with us it's about 90 years later and there is no question at all Macdonald/Raynor et al and his unique GB prototype template style is enjoying one helluva renaissance and revival---but this today and what's going on now is a long time gone from what some of those back then thought about it and some said about it.

We think it inspired some of them to sort of react with different ideas off what they felt back then was something of an architectural negative.

That's all we're saying here in Philly, or I am.

Personally, I've become totally fascinated by Macdonald's template style but I wasn't always and I probably grew up on or around more Macdonald/Raynor golf courses than anyone on this website. If you'd like me to name them I will.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Tom has explained it much better than I can. 

I'd only add that I knew they were building different style courses beginning around the same time as the official opening of NGLA.

I just didn't know that they knew that they were consciously doing it in reaction to NGLA, and had their thoughts formalized enough at that time to actually be writing about it.

Hope that helps...thanks for your questions.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I just didn't know that they knew that they were consciously doing it in reaction to NGLA.

This is the part of your position that I disagree with, it's like saying Coore/Crenshaw developed their style as a reaction to Rees Jones. I've never read anything, nor seen it posted here, that suggests other architects of that time were creating their courses to counter what CBM was doing. I give them more credit than that, they believed in what they were doing and moving away from CBM was due more to their own egos and their desire to be recognized. Do you honestly believe AWT( and others) had or wanted neither, and would have been content flying under the radar while the biggest egoist of them all, CBM, soared above? No way, they were going to stick the needle in any chance they got.

[Anthony Fowler]

I think it would be fun to discuss the merits of these recommendations.  I won't pretend to be an authority here, but I'll try to get things going in hopes that others will chime in.

Overall, it seems like these recommendations are sound and applicable to golf in the 21st century.  However, I have concerns with 2 of them.

“It is sometimes a pleasing feature to have two greens adjoining, and it makes time in the mowing.”

I don't find this to be pleasing and I don't imagine that it saves maintenance time.  First, it's dangerous.  Second, the area required for a shared green is greater than that required for two separate small greens (Doak discusses this issue nicely in "Anatomy"), so it seems costly from a maintenance perspective.

If an adjoining green is the best thing for both holes, then great; but I would never sacrifice the quality of a golf hole just to have adjoining greens.

“If you have a pond on the course, bring it in – once, at any rate.  It will do for a pull or a slice, as well as to drive over.”

If a pond adds strategy and interest to a golf hole, I'm all for it.  However, I would oppose bringing a pond into play for its own sake.  I don't  care for ponds as hazards because there is no recovery option, so I would only bring them into play when they really do add something or it is a necessity to make the routing work. 

I especially don't care for a drive over a pond simply because it unnecessarily punished the shorter hitter.  It is of no interest to the long hitter and an unfair burden on the shorter hitter.  I cannot think of a single example of a drive straight over water adds anything to a golf hole.  (This does not include diagonal carries over water where there is some strategy involved or situations where there are safer alternatives.)

[TEPaul]

"This is the part of your position that I disagree with, it's like saying Coore/Crenshaw developed their style as a reaction to Rees Jones."


JimboK:

Well, I don't know that Coore/Crenshaw's style was a reaction to Rees Jones but that kind of reaction thing definitely can become the influence on some architect's style. Pete Dye claimed his essential style at Harbor Town sort of came to him in flash as a reaction he had while driving by another RTJ course in the area. If you've never read that or heard it before just call up Pete and ask him because it's definitely true---he's said it himself to a lot of people.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Maybe my C&C/RJ analogy was lacking, let me try it this way.

I don't think C&C's style was a reaction to CBM, AWT, DR, AMac, HSC, etc..

....and I don't think that all the guys from that era of GCA who branched off into their 'styles' did so because CBM was using solid, well tested, stratagems.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I was just reading C&W again and if you and Mike get the chance read page 61.

They speak of all the 'laudatory articles' written about NGLA by Darwin, Hutchinson and Sayers that were published in Britain from 1910 through 1913, and how the course's "...excellence...caused the rebuilding of many American golf courses, even some of the best, and would influence the quality of courses yet to be conceived" in the US as well as in Britain.

It is much more plausible to believe that the other architects who worked in this same period weren't 'reacting' to the architecture (they must have known how good it was). Some, like Wilson, probably came to the realization that Macdonald 'owned' his style, and they weren't going to make a name for themselves or have any imapct on the world of GCA by going that route.  Others, like AWT who wrote disparagingly of the style, felt their work was equally as good as CB's and one way of promoting your work is to rap someone else's stuff. I think the motives of such articles are highly suspect, especially in light of the fact that they were written by the competition!

[TEPaul]

"It is much more plausible to believe that the other architects who worked in this same period weren't 'reacting' to the architecture (they must have known how good it was). Some, like Wilson, probably came to the realization that Macdonald 'owned' his style, and they weren't going to make a name for themselves or have any imapct on the world of GCA by going that route.  Others, like AWT who wrote disparagingly of the style, felt their work was equally as good as CB's and one way of promoting your work is to rap someone else's stuff. I think the motives of such articles are highly suspect, especially in light of the fact that they were written by the competition!"


That's not very plausible to me JimboK. I don't think people who eventually wrote disparagingly of Macdonald's stylistic modus operandi, as Tillie did, did it just because they were trying to promote their style by rapping Macdonald's. I think they did it because they felt they had some real philosophical issues with the way he went about it versus the way they felt they should go about it. The other indication of what I mean can also be clearly seen in simply looking at the vast stylistic differences between many of those architects and Macdonld's highly recognizable style.

[Jim_Kennedy]

That's fine Tom, they had differences in design philosophies, mainly in the approach to, not the quality of, Macdonald's product.
 
Again, my belief is that these fellows already possessed their own ideas, they were not driven to them because of their distaste for CB's work. The very best of them weren't doing anything different that CBM, they too were practicing the same ideal, that of building the very best golf courses they could, ones with zero clunkers. They took their own paths because of their desire to be the best, and as every 'artist' knows, you must travel on a road of your own making to be seen as 'great'. 

....but I still think the negative articles aimed at Macdonald had more behind them than simple criticism. 

[Mike_Cirba]

Jim,

Personally, I love playing MacRaynor courses because of the visual audacity of their man-made defenses.   They tend to be stark, severe, and pull no punches.

I also understand the countervailing philosophy that tended towards a more subtle, sophisticated, and softer blending of man-made features, and I do think in early golf there was some very purposeful reactions against Macdonald's style, whether for profit or for principle.

What I mostly favor, however, is that the second school seemed more intent on finding and/or creating golf holes that blended with the unique nature of each site than trying to take existing puzzle-pieces and then find appropriate spots on the landscape to place them, much as I now find it historically fascinating to view examples of that and see how it all worked out so well in varying environments.

In either case, at some point I'd love to see some folks actually tell us what they think about the "Hints" provided by our mystery 1913 architect.    I probably should not have mentioned the reaction against the Macdonald School and just left the thread more open ended, but I still would love to hear people's criticisms of what was laid out in the article.