Taylor and anticompetitive behavior

[Peter Pallotta]

Tony - I thought you'd appreciate that. A lovely story and (maybe it's my imagination) while Darwin tells it with restraint he seems  well aware of the history and back-story, and he lets those ghosts of the past drift in between the lines.  I think he does it best right here, referring to Taylor (who must've been almost 60) and the other pros: "They all stayed in college rooms, in Christ Church; they dined in Magdalen, and in short for a day and a night became undergraduates themselves."  He could have said -- but wisely didn't --that "for a one blessed day all the class-distinctions and humilations of Taylor's youth were washed away."

Peter

[Sean_A]

Sean - I think the term "penal' is a misnomer, but that's a topic for another day. Whatever it means, it's not a particularly American concept. Taylor and many others in the UK were talkn' the talk at about the same time that Fownes was.

MacK's problem with Taylor wasn't just about the rules of the profession. They had honest to goodness different design philosophies.

Bob

ere
ere is no
Bob

I don't think penal (read championship course) is necessarily an American concept, but there is no doubt American designers brought the idea to full fruition.  One can't even say that the British designers doing well in the States at the time were remotely penal. Indeed, they way we look at penal architecture today really is what American championship golf is mainly about.  Poor old Oakland Hills gets the rap for this, but the idea as expressed at OH existed in the States fully 25 years earlier.  Once again, I don't know of single course that the two main pro archies (Braid and Taylor) built that can remotely be called penal.   

Ciao 

[Tony_Muldoon]

Tony - I thought you'd appreciate that. A lovely story and (maybe it's my imagination) while Darwin tells it with restraint he seems  well aware of the history and back-story, and he lets those ghosts of the past drift in between the lines.  I think he does it best right here, referring to Taylor (who must've been almost 60) and the other pros: "They all stayed in college rooms, in Christ Church; they dined in Magdalen, and in short for a day and a night became undergraduates themselves."  He could have said -- but wisely didn't --that "for a one blessed day all the class-distinctions and humilations of Taylor's youth were washed away."

Peter

I'm sure the Pro's were honoured to be there.   I also feel sure that they fell into the language trap.  Peter I'm sure you know that the Oxford College Magdalen, is pronounced "Maudlin". But on the course they were all truly equals.


“It is impossible for an Englishman to open his mouth without making some other Englishman hate or despise him.”

George Bernard Shaw (an Irishman) .

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Tony - I hope one day to "dine in Magdalen", and I would've been horrified if I learned only then and there that it was pronounced Maudlin 

By the way, I don't have the article in front of me now, but I believe in the singles matches the pros gave the youngsters 3 shots a side. Darwin reports that the Oxford team was their equal in terms of driving the ball and even putting, but that the old pros clearly excelled in chips and pitches around the greens, i.e. in turning, as Darwin says, three shots into two.

Peter

[Tony_Muldoon]

Sean - I think the term "penal' is a misnomer, but that's a topic for another day. Whatever it means, it's not a particularly American concept. Taylor and many others in the UK were talkn' the talk at about the same time that Fownes was.

MacK's problem with Taylor wasn't just about the rules of the profession. They had honest to goodness different design philosophies.

Bob

ere
ere is no
Bob

I don't think penal (read championship course) is necessarily an American concept, but there is no doubt American designers brought the idea to full fruition.  One can't even say that the British designers doing well in the States at the time were remotely penal. Indeed, they way we look at penal architecture today really is what American championship golf is mainly about.  Poor old Oakland Hills gets the rap for this, but the idea as expressed at OH existed in the States fully 25 years earlier.  Once again, I don't know of single course that the two main pro archies (Braid and Taylor) built that can remotely be called penal.   

Ciao 

just to play Devil's advocate.. Carnoustie - Braid?  

[BCrosby]

[quote author=Sean Arble link=topic=40504.msg852747#msg852747 date=1247263636

I don't think penal (read championship course) is necessarily an American concept, but there is no doubt American designers brought the idea to full fruition.  One can't even say that the British designers doing well in the States at the time were remotely penal. Indeed, they way we look at penal architecture today really is what American championship golf is mainly about.  Poor old Oakland Hills gets the rap for this, but the idea as expressed at OH existed in the States fully 25 years earlier.  Once again, I don't know of single course that the two main pro archies (Braid and Taylor) built that can remotely be called penal.  

Ciao  
[/quote]

Sean -

Yes, there's not much question that the Yanks took "penal" designs to places not dreamt of by British architects. But the basics of the idea had been around as long as there were man-made inland golf courses. The biggest promoters (though not the only ones) of such ideas early on were professional players. Who first appeared in Britain.

As we have discussed, most accounts of early inland courses focus on how they developed more naturalistic designs. That's an important part of the story. But what I personally find more interesting is how people groped their way towards basic strategic design ideas. It wasn't easy, it took a while, there was a bit of controversy along the way (some town and gown stuff). But the big thing that they had to overcome was (what are called today) "penal" type assumptions about, for example, rationales for locating hazards on a hole. Leading the charge early on for those sorts of "penal" (again, using the term as a fudge word) ideas were the early British pros.

Peter -

Great Darwin passage. I had run across it several months ago while digging though musty old magazines. It was a remarkable sociological moment. Lots of fault lines being straddled for a day or two.

I suspect us Yanks/Canucks have trouble imagining the magnitude of the class distinctions in England at the time. Certainly we had (and have) our own class issues over here, but nothing as wide and deep as in England. The worlds of J H Taylor and John L. Low didn't intersect in many places - physically, mentally, educationally or culturally.

Bob

    

[Sean_A]

[quote author=Sean Arble link=topic=40504.msg852747#msg852747 date=1247263636

I don't think penal (read championship course) is necessarily an American concept, but there is no doubt American designers brought the idea to full fruition.  One can't even say that the British designers doing well in the States at the time were remotely penal. Indeed, they way we look at penal architecture today really is what American championship golf is mainly about.  Poor old Oakland Hills gets the rap for this, but the idea as expressed at OH existed in the States fully 25 years earlier.  Once again, I don't know of single course that the two main pro archies (Braid and Taylor) built that can remotely be called penal.  

Ciao  

Sean -

Yes, there's not much question that the Yanks took "penal" designs to places not dreamt of by British architects. But the basics of the idea had been around as long as there were man-made inland golf courses. The biggest promoters (though not the only ones) of such ideas early on were professional players. Who first appeared in Britain.

As we have discussed, most accounts of early inland courses focus on how they developed more naturalistic designs. That's an important part of the story. But what I personally find more interesting is how people groped their way towards basic strategic design ideas. It wasn't easy, it took a while, there was a bit of controversy along the way (some town and gown stuff). But the big thing that they had to overcome was (what are called today) "penal" type assumptions about, for example, rationales for locating hazards on a hole. Leading the charge early on for those sorts of "penal" (again, using the term as a fudge word) ideas were the early British pros.

Peter -

Great Darwin passage. I had run across it several months ago while digging though musty old magazines. It was a remarkable sociological moment. Lots of fault lines being straddled for a day or two.

I suspect us Yanks/Canucks have trouble imagining the magnitude of the class issues in England at the time. Certainly we had (and have) our own class issues over here, but nothing as wide and deep as in England. The worlds of J H Taylor and John L. Low didn't intersect in many places - physically, mentally, educationally or culturally.

Bob

    
[/quote]

Bob

I think part of the reason the pro designers weren't able to win out with more penal designs is because they didn't get to have much say in the designs of championship courses.  From memory, I think Braid may have had the most impact on a championship course in Carnoustie, but you couldn't really call him the designer.  Which leads me to a qualifer, I don't think the pro designers ever promoted penal designs for non-championship play.  These pro designers were concerned with championship play and how scores were dropping.  So in this sense, we are really talking about at least two classes of courses.  It is also interesting to note how the heathland courses never did follow the penal school even though many pro events were held in near London over the years - even the News of the World Matchplay, which was just a cut below championship golf.  These clubs were mainly (and still are) for member play and designed to be a challenge for the memberships.  That isn't to say that the best pros ate these courses alive, because they were still difficult.  In a strange way, the heathland courses may have been the proof in the pudding as to why penal designs weren't necessary to present a good challenge. 

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

I agree with Sean. The American's were more penal leaning. I disagree with him that there were no Brits of that mind set. IMO Colt leaned in that direction too, and he was very influential in the States.

[Peter Pallotta]

From that 1906 article called "Thinking Golf" that outlined the thoughts of a number of architects, including Taylor, Braid and Colt:

"All agree that rough grass is fine as a continuous side hazard. Side bunkers are endorsed, the best so placed so that they will not be affected by the wind. James  Braid endorses side bunkers  at  150 to 180  yards from the tee.  Side hazards and hazards in and across the fairway   to   the   hole   are   agreed on as the most severe tests of skill.  Colt regards pot bunkers as preferable to  all  but natural ones..."

Peter

[Sean_A]

I agree with Sean. The American's were more penal leaning. I disagree with him that there were no Brits of that mind set. IMO Colt leaned in that direction too, and he was very influential in the States.

Tommy Mac

I don't recall saying that the Pro Brits didn't lean toward penal design - in theory. I said in practice, it was far different and probably because the pros weren't really let loose on altering championship courses.  So far as Colt is concerned, I don't think he was in the least penal.  It is interesting that we have two of his championship courses still intact.  I wouldn't characterize either Muirfield or Portrush as penal unless the fairways were as narrow in the old days as today.  If this is the case, it doesn't matter what was constructed becasue the rough to a large degree defines both of these courses today.  Certainly, what was constructed couldn't be deemed penal.  Look at a course like Lytham for the stark difference in design.  Colt inherited the vast majority of the bunkers - in fact I think he eliminated a great many.   

Ciao

[Niall C]

Isn't it largely the case with these classic designs that how penal they are largely depends on the set-up and how much grass they cut !

Niall

[Paul_Turner]

I'd say that Colt mixed up "penal" and "strategic" fairly well.  Muirfield is mostly strategic in its bunker placement (and Simpson enhanced this in a few places) but it does have a mainly penal hole in the 10th and I guess the 4th has some cross bunkers that are penal.  Also the 17th is a great holes which shows a mixture of strategic wing bunkers and penal cross bunkers.

St Germain has quite a few cross bunkers that would be deemed penal.  Whereas a course like Whittington Heath isn't a penal design at all, as far as I see it (maybe 2nd is).  He definitely liked penal carries on his par 3s:  St George's Hill 8th,  Pine Valley 5 and 10, Hamilton 6th (as drawn), Brancepeth 9th....but then it's difficult to make a par 3 "strategic" and a lot of the great par 3s are "penal"

Interestingly Colt's 12th at Sunningdale is illustrated as Tom Simpson's favourite "penal" hole in his book.  I guess Simpson calls is "penal" just because of the cross bunkers being difficult for the handicap player.

[Tom MacWood]

Sean
Colt was known for his elevated well bunkered greens; that practice was picked up by Ross and many other Americans. Colt was also not shy about bunkering, his redesigns of Hoylake, Lytham and Murifield for the Open involved liberal use of bunkers, and liberal may be an understatement. Lytham had nearly 200 bunkers and Muirfield close to that figure.

Colt was not a penal architect and he certainly understood strategy, but his ideas of strategic ideas leaned toward the penal, in contrast to T. Simpson.

[Tom MacWood]

This is some of what Darwin wrote about the controversy:

"So much for the question as to whether or not a few gentlemen, mere atoms in the great world of golf, should be allowed to enter certain competitions. There is a wider question, which concerns the golfing community in general. It is for the general good that courses should be laid out as well as possible, and any legislation tending to restrict rather than to encourage the best work might be deemed as being in legal phraseology, contrary to public policy. At the risk of a rather invidious assertion it may be said that most of the best modern work in the laying out of courses has been done by amateurs--nor, indeed, is it all surprising that this is so. To lay out a course is a task requiring keen powers of observation and large amount of hard and intelligent thought. The professional though, as a rule, a charming companion and possessed of considerable shrewdness, has not had the same advantages as the amateur; and the better and wider education of the latter generally bears fruit in the form of holes more carefully thought out and far more original. There are, needless to say, professionals who lay out very interesting courses; but the typical professionally-designed course is on strongly stereotyped lines. The professional in times past clung too affectionately to the 'steeplechase' system of cross-bunkers; and the abandonment of that system, the adoption of the more ingenious one of lateral bunkers, and the enlightened gospel which demands that the shot should be not merely hit but placed, we owe chiefly to the amateurs. Of course, in order to acquire the necessary knowledge and experience the amateur has to devote himself heart and solid to the game, and in that case there is a good deal in the oft-quoted dictum of an old Scottish professional that the only difference between Mr. So-and-so and the professionals was that he had 'mair to eat and mair to drink.'"

[Sean_A]

Sean
Colt was known for his elevated well bunkered greens; that practice was picked up by Ross and many other Americans. Colt was also not shy about bunkering, his redesigns of Hoylake, Lytham and Murifield for the Open involved liberal use of bunkers, and liberal may be an understatement. Lytham had nearly 200 bunkers and Muirfield close to that figure.

Colt was not a penal architect and he certainly understood strategy, but his ideas of strategic ideas leaned toward the penal, in contrast to T. Simpson.

Tommy Mac

You are right, Colt did use elevated greens a lot, probably too much, but I don't think of this as penal.  Usually, one can still bounce a shot in.  Paul is right, Colt certainly mixed in some penal stuff, but it wasn't liberal as you put it.  Nearly of all of Muirfield's bunkers are strategic working angles rather than lining fairways as at Lytham.  I still believe Colt inherited a huge number of bunkers at Lytham and that the penal aspect of the course existed before Colt's arrival - he didn't change the nature of the course.  Hoylake has had bunkers added after Colt's work, but I don't know what was the story with some of the holes - there are probably six holes I would call penal, less than Lytham, but  more than Portrush and about equal with Muirfield.  In truth, it is amazing how strategic the bunkering is at Muirfield considering there are about 150. If you are comparing Colt's bunkering to Simpson's I would probably agree that Simpson's were more strategic as he liked centre-line bunkers. 

Paul we must be working on a different definition of penal.  I would call Muirfield's 2nd, 5th, 11th, 14th, 15th & 18th as candidates for penal.  With all these things, the wind makes a difference in how the bunkers play on a daily basis and how wide the fairways were.  As  say, nowadays, the rough defines Muirfield and  Portrush as much or probably more than the actual design elements.  I am sure Muirfield was wider back in the day, but Tony Muldoon believes Portrush was always relatively narrow and punishing.

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

Hey Bob,
In reading your initial post....I don't see much different happening today....in simple terms ....there is a lot of BS in golf design and many different antics are employed to justify using one archie over the other....but the fact is any one that wishes can design a golf course if they have the money or the client with the money.....the word "professional" is often used to distinguish now as then and I can just see Mac fuming over these golf pros.....this business is more about sales than anything.....but then isn't everything?
Mike

[Tony_Muldoon]

.  I am sure Muirfield was wider back in the day, but Tony Muldoon believes Portrush was always relatively narrow and punishing.

Ciao

Just to clarify this belief  is based on Frank Pennicks description of the course as it played in the 1951 Open.  That leaves a 20 year period after Colt and the possiblitly that the course was narrowed for The Open and they then opted to keep it that way.

[Tom MacWood]

Sean
I didn't say he was a penal architect, if there is such a thing. I said he leaned toward the penal based on his free use of bunkers, and his elevated well bunkered greens. His courses were generally more heavily bunkered than many, and you can his influence in America. In N. America Toronto, Old Elm and PVGC, were all well bunkered. He had a strong influence on Ross, in particular his elevated well bunkered greens.

[BCrosby]

Tom Mac - Thanks for posting that Darwin passage. MacK says much the same thing in SoSA, but says it less well.

Bob

[BCrosby]

Mike -

MacK was upset with the pros at two levels. One was that they had obvious name recognition advantages, which still holds true.

Second, he was upset with them (as Darwin describes well in the quote Tom MacW posted) because of their approach to architecture. The "educated designers" were doing better, more thoughtful designs. Not the stereotyped stuff the Taylors and Braids were doing. At least that was the dig.

After applying the proper discounts for professional jealousy, competition for jobs, etc., whether or not MacK or Darwin were right about the quality of the professional designs is probably less true today than it was in say, 1905. There are more good courses being designed by former professional players today. Crenshaw comes to mind. But overall the MacK/Darwin point still has some validity in today's world, imho. There are a lot of not so great golf courses designed by great ex-pro golfers. Course that might have been much better if done by a more "educated" architect, whatever that means.

So yes, as you often say over your chicken fried steak at Thelma's, "Le plus ca change, le plus c'est le meme chose. N'est ce  pas?"

Bob

[Sean_A]

Sean
I didn't say he was a penal architect, if there is such a thing. I said he leaned toward the penal based on his free use of bunkers, and his elevated well bunkered greens. His courses were generally more heavily bunkered than many, and you can his influence in America. In N. America Toronto, Old Elm and PVGC, were all well bunkered. He had a strong influence on Ross, in particular his elevated well bunkered greens.

Tommy Mac

Yes, for sure, Colt used more bunkers than most (if not all the Brits of his time with the probable exception of Dr Mac), but using bunkers is not synonymous with penal.  

I couldn't say if Colt influenced Ross and if he did, I wouldn't say it was a bunkering influence.  Probably more influence in green sitings, but this could be only a matter of drainage practicality.  Both tended to go for raised greens.  That said, Ross routings feel different to Colt routings if we are talking about decent terrain.  In a strange sort of way, Colt is more rudimentary, but this may be a by-product of design evolution.  Ross was very clever at using the lay of the land to create the interest from tee to green rather than using bunkers and Ross generally went a step further than Colt in creating bolder putting surfaces.  I know many on this site don't rate Ross, but the guy was very consistent in creating very playable courses with interest.  In this way, he is very similar to Colt.  I think one thing is for certain, the broad idea of an attractive, playable by all, strategic inland course was perfected by Colt and I have to believe this influenced Ross.  

Ciao

[Paul_Turner]

Sean

My definition is pretty straight forward and the same as Simpson's...cross bunkers and essentially forces carries over bunkers= penal design.  Which is why I picked those holes at Muirfield that have cross bunkers and not the candidates you've picked, which have obvious routes around the traps.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think the professionals back then were in a way more 'honest' than their modern counterparts. They valued their skill, they judged themselves as golfers in terms of those skills, and so they wanted golf courses to play that clearly rewarded the good shot and punished the bad one, i.e. golf courses that identified the most skillful player. And when it came to designing their own courses, they brought that ethos whole hog into the process  -- a good golf course in their minds was one that was equitable, that rewarded the better player for his superior skill set; and one way to reward the player who could carry a cross hazard, for example, was to punish the player who couldn't carry it.  And what's wrong with that? You can sure make the argument that this is one, and one very legitimate, way to design a golf course, given that identifying the best player is one legitimate aim of a round of gof. And better that honesty than the mish-mash of almost mutually-exclusive ideas/philosophies thrown into the mix of a modern course by the professional golfer-turned-architect, attempting to be all things to all people. (Of course, the analogy is flawed: today's professional architects are not the brethren of the Braids and Taylors but of the MacDonalds and Crumps; and today's amateurs don't actually design anything, we just talk about it...) Besides, the modern architect who was not a pro golfer and who designs courses with wide fairways and very cool and contoured greens isn't actually making it any easier on the mediocre golfer in comparison to the good golfer (if 'easier' is being defined in the only way that ultimately matters, i.e. what score a golfer actually posts at the end of his 18 holes) -- he is just shiftng around the challenge and reward-punishment equation to the green instead of at the, say, cross hazard in the landing zone; though he is thereby making the course more fun to play for all, generally speaking
 

Peter

[Sean_A]

Sean

My definition is pretty straight forward and the same as Simpson's...cross bunkers and essentially forces carries over bunkers= penal design.  Which is why I picked those holes at Muirfield that have cross bunkers and not the candidates you've picked, which have obvious routes around the traps.

Paul

I agree that forced carries are penal, but that is only one piece of the puzzle and I am not sure many of the cross bunkers of the old days didn't have a way around - fairways have shrunk.  The other piece of the puzzle for penal design and far more common is bunkers (or rough, or water) on both sides of the fairway - creating a narrow pinching effect.  Effectively, a penal shot is one where there is only one way to play successfully. 

Peter

That is my point, I don't believe Braid or Taylor practiced penal architecture.  I think they advocated it for championship golf, but they didn't really get the opportunity to put their money where their was.  We have to remember to separate the writing from the reality.  Whereas in the States, they took these penal theories far beyond what was done in GB&I with the idea of trying to improve the level of play in the States.  Read some stuff by Bobby Jones to get a flavour of the difference.

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Well said. I would quibble with your reference to "legitimate". No one said that the design ideas expressed by Taylor, Vardon, Braid and others weren't legitimate. They had a perfect right to their opinions. The objection of Low, Colt, Darwin, Simpson and others was that those sorts of ideas resulted in boring courses for better players. I will spare you the irony alerts.

Sean - Perhaps I am misreading you. Can I assume you aren't suggesting that Bob Jones advocated "penal" (again, the fudge) architecture?

Bob