[Tom MacWood]

One of the more interesting aspects of this article is the fact on page 1 Emmet seems to be acknowledging the state of golf design is more advanced in Chicago (thanks to Whigham and Macdonald) than it is in NY, and W & M methods should be the model going forward in NY. A few years later W & M would be living in NY; I wonder if Emmet played any part in their move?

[Sean_A]

Tom P

You gotta stop writing "sentences" like the one below.  Who do you think you are - Faulkner?  

"As for that post #46 you are definitely welcome to your own conclusion, but in my opinion, with his opinion on your statement about your interest in the philosophy of history I would submit that post has nothing much to do with that or with what you meant by your interest or opinon in the philosophy of history and pretty much everything to do with the way that poster thinks the discussion  of any historical subject on this website should be conducted which is something akin to a court of law and its procedures and protocols."

My head feels like it is caught in a vice.

A question, why can't we take what these old dudes wrote at face value?  So far as I can tell, way too much subjective interpretation goes on round here.  I think its best to stick to the text and leave the realm of "between the lines" or whatever on the sidelines.

Ciao

[mike_malone]

 I can't be drawn into arguments. I'm not saying Tom Paul's characterization is correct. I'm just saying it is a reasonable outcome from historical study that involves extensive reading of primary materials. I would find David's reading or Tom MacWood's reading equally interesting. In fact, that is how I view this discussion group working. The interplay of highly informed opinion is more interesting than sniping.

[TEPaul]

Again, that's a good post, Mike. This is an opinion forum and we all offer our opinions on the things we've read and studied---I think over the years I've read most all those old golf and architecture periodicals and the kind of article Emmet wrote in 1902 is pretty similar to the one offered on here recently by Travis in the London Golf Illustrated in Nov, 1901.

It's also very similiar to some others writers around the same time such as HJ Whigam as well as by the likes of Max Behr a little later and of course very much into the 1920s. The subject or theme seemed to be how to make American architecture less directed at only accommodating the sentiments of mediocre players by continuing to have courses be easier for them. The idea was to make architecture more interesting ("thinking") and strategic for all. Generally that involved more bunkering or rebunkering from an earlier style that had little of it or perhaps moving away from an evolving philosophy amongst clubs to make golf progressively easier by making architecture less thought provoking strategically and consequently more bland.

In my opinion, the word or term "difficulty" used by those men back then should not always be taken to mean some architectural arrangement that was directed at only penalizing the weaker or more mediocre player, and I don't think any of those writers intended the word difficulty in this context to mean that. What they did mean, in my opinion, is a way to improve golf and golfers by making golf architecture more of a thinking process for any golfer to find his own best way or strategy or options. To call on all golfers in this way to think more in how they played courses and holes could certainly be construed to mean added difficulty as the complaint seemed to be (from the likes of Emmet and Travis and Whigam) that the preceding architecture in America just wasn't really making anyone think sufficiently in how they strategized their way around most golf courses----eg the implication was that for some golfers and perhaps mostly mediocre ones thinking was not easy for them to do (ie it was difficult for them to do) but that asking them to think more would improve them and their level of play.

[JESII]

Tom,

How would anyone know that a 20 handicap doesn't think well?

Wouldn't some degree of predictability be required to judge the plan?

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

You mentioned "highly formed opinion."   I assume you mean opinion which has some basis in actual factual analysis.    Wouldn't it be better if we backed up our opinions with our facts and analysis, rather than just claiming to have a "highly formed opinion" and asking others to take our word for it.

Surely in your class they did not teach you that all opinions on history are equal regardless of whether or not they were back up by factual analysis?

_____________________________________________

Has anyone actually bothered to read the article that Tom M posted?    If not, it is worth a read.    It leaves little question about what Emmet meant when he talked about making golf courses "more difficult."  Narrower fairways, more and deeper hazards, and higher and thicker rough.  

It was not at all about strategy, it was about difficulty.

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

How would anyone know that a 20 handicap doesn't think well?

Wouldn't some degree of predictability be required to judge the plan?

Jim, in the article there is no indication that Emmet is trying to promote thinking golf.  No matter how much of a thinker the 20 handicap may be, if he could not hit it straight and accurate, then he would be doomed to deep bunkers, high rough, and a high score.  This applied to a 2 handicap as well.   "Tacking" your way up the fairway was not something that should be allowed.   

______________________________________________

TomM,

I agree with you that it is interesting that Emmet acknowledged that they were well ahead of the game in Chicago at this early date.  That is definitely the impression I get as well.     Interesting question about whether Emmet had anything to do with CBM relocating, and I don't have the answer, although I just assumed the decision was business related. 

[Tom MacWood]

Tom P

You gotta stop writing "sentences" like the one below.  Who do you think you are - Faulkner?  

"As for that post #46 you are definitely welcome to your own conclusion, but in my opinion, with his opinion on your statement about your interest in the philosophy of history I would submit that post has nothing much to do with that or with what you meant by your interest or opinon in the philosophy of history and pretty much everything to do with the way that poster thinks the discussion  of any historical subject on this website should be conducted which is something akin to a court of law and its procedures and protocols."

My head feels like it is caught in a vice.

A question, why can't we take what these old dudes wrote at face value?  So far as I can tell, way too much subjective interpretation goes on round here.  I think its best to stick to the text and leave the realm of "between the lines" or whatever on the sidelines.

Ciao

I agree. Lets face it, these were the formative years of golf architecture and these men had fairly basic ideas on the subject. There was no concept of strategic or penal at the time, that didn't come until later, much later. And even then those terms were used more to pigeon-hole or insult competing architects, because in reality there are no purely strategic or penal golf courses, only combinations leaning one direction or the other.  That being said Emmet was definitely promoting features that are often associated with penal designs. He obviously felt golf courses in America were far too easy and it was time to take off the training wheels.

[mike_malone]

 I haven't read the article because I can't . I ,therefore , have little to add to the substance of this discussion and can only suggest to David that this is not so much about facts as it is interpretation. Although the specific example you give to support the meaning of "difficult" makes sense to me. I just don't see the need to try to prove you or anyone else wrong.

[DMoriarty]

I've attempted to adjust the copies somewhat to try and make them more easily discernible.    N

DIDN'T WORK.  WILL TRY AGAIN BELOW.

[JESII]

Jim, your question really depends upon what you mean by "difficulty"  but I do generally disagree, at least in the sense that designing for difficulty was highly overrated then and remains so now.

Does it intrigue you when you play a course that fools you into making a mistake? Do you try to figure out that deception in hopes of saving a stroke? Do you prefer a course that has all the factors you look for but you score a few strokes higher than you think you played as opposed to the same course on which you shoot a few strokes lower than you thought you played?




I think to the point of the article/quote, what do you htink of the concept of increased difficulty?

[Mike McGuire]

TomM

Did you intend for this thread to discuss the article and the architecture around that time?  I have the same question "how difficult shall we make our golf course" relating to present day courses and restorations but can start a separate thread.

[DMoriarty]

Okay.  This ought to be a bit more legible.

[TEPaul]

"Lets face it, these were the formative years of golf architecture and these men had fairly basic ideas on the subject. There was no concept of strategic or penal at the time, that didn't come until later, much later. And even then those terms were used more to pigeon-hole or insult competing architects, because in reality there are no purely strategic or penal golf courses, only combinations leaning one direction or the other.  That being said Emmet was definitely promoting features that are often associated with penal designs. He obviously felt golf courses in America were far too easy and it was time to take off the training wheels."


Tom MacWood:

Like Mike Malone, I could not read that article you posted because it was too light but I could read the darker one posted, and I just did. I'd never seen that particular article by Emmet and having now read it I agree with you that Emmet was definitely not promoting strategic over penal golf or architecture or even talking about some comparison of any concept or philosophy of penal vs strategic golf or architecture (as Bob Crosby pointed out in his article on Joshua Crane that kind of comparison and philosophy (penal vs strategic) would not be developed for some years to come), he was basically talking about why the courses abroad were "real golf" and why they demanded greater straightness and accuracy from any golfer which obviously Emmet felt was a good thing compared to most American courses of that time that he described as too open and easy-----eg not enough rough and too few bunkers.  

He also made an interesting point about his disagreement with shorter players and duffers (mediocre players who he said formed a contingent at many clubs) who pushed to have shorter holes so they could get on say par 4s in two like longer players could get on longer holes in two. He said he thought that was unfair as it did not allow longer players to demonstrate their natural ability for greater distance.

[DMoriarty]

Portions of the article are contained in Garden City's terrific history book.

I haven't read the article because I can't . I ,therefore , have little to add to the substance of this discussion and can only suggest to David that this is not so much about facts as it is interpretation. Although the specific example you give to support the meaning of "difficult" makes sense to me. I just don't see the need to try to prove you or anyone else wrong.

Mike,  I disagree.  It is much more about facts than interpretation.  As you can see by the article (which I hope now it legible) Emmet was not suggesting courses requiring strategic thinking, he was suggesting making courses harder, penal, less forgiving of error.  His methodology?
- Demand accuracy and "straightness of play."
- Build more and deeper bunkers.
- Narrow fairways.
- Grow deeper and thicker rough.  

And these were recommendations on what was already considered to be a difficult course!

He scoffs at the notions as tacking back and forth and of going around bunkers!  

His suggestion for those who couldn't hit it straight and accurate?   Learn to hit it straight and accurate.  Play courses that require you to hit it straight and accurate, and they'd learn.  [But if he had his way, they'd lose plenty of balls in the process.]

_______________________________________

Jim,

I don't think that you are talking about difficulty in the same sense as Emmet is in this article, or that Travis did in the prior article.   By your examples, you seem to be equating difficulty with mentally challenging, like a riddle or a puzzle.    Emmet is talking about difficulty as a physical challenge.  On a good course the golfer must hit it accurate and straight.  Golfers who do not hit it accurate and straight will be punished.   Travis' approach in the previous article was very similar.  Make courses harder.

Does it intrigue you when you play a course that fools you into making a mistake? Do you try to figure out that deception in hopes of saving a stroke?

Now we are talking.   I like intrigue and a bit of deception on a golf course.   That interests me.   Trying to figure it out is fun.  I don't care if that makes my score higher or not.

 

Do you prefer a course that has all the factors you look for but you score a few strokes higher than you think you played as opposed to the same course on which you shoot a few strokes lower than you thought you played?

I don't think of courses in terms of my score.  I'd like whichever was more interesting and fun, and whichever left the most unanswered questions.

I think to the point of the article/quote, what do you htink of the concept of increased difficulty?

I think that when the rules of the game require me to use a skinny stick with a fat end to hit a small ball into a small hole over a quarter a mile away, and then do it 17 more times to various small holes at various distances, then the difficulty is pretty much built in.  So the golf architect ought to focus more on making the game interesting and fun.    As long as it is interesting and fun and I can find my ball and keep hitting it then difficulty makes no difference to me.

[Jason Topp]

It would be interesting to see what the norm was for a course at this time. 

I recently read a book about Vardon's tour of the US that contained diagrams (and perhaps photographs) of several courses and was surprised that they appeared to be largely wide open empty spaces with some cross bunkers thrown in.  Against that backdrop, this article makes a lot of sense.

[DMoriarty]

It would be interesting to see what the norm was for a course at this time. 

I recently read a book about Vardon's tour of the US that contained diagrams (and perhaps photographs) of several courses and was surprised that they appeared to be largely wide open empty spaces with some cross bunkers thrown in.  Against that backdrop, this article makes a lot of sense.

Jason,

I think that many courses were about how you describe, with some of them occasionally having traps (sometimes long and narrow) along the sides.  And so at the time this did make sense, and it seems like it may have been a prevailing view among some of those who were considered the American experts at the time.  Although his critique was more nuanced, even H.J. Whigham was advocating that courses be made much more difficult. 

Do you recall the name of the book you reference?

[Jason Topp]

It would be interesting to see what the norm was for a course at this time. 

I recently read a book about Vardon's tour of the US that contained diagrams (and perhaps photographs) of several courses and was surprised that they appeared to be largely wide open empty spaces with some cross bunkers thrown in.  Against that backdrop, this article makes a lot of sense.

Jason,

I think that many courses were about how you describe, with some of them occasionally having traps (sometimes long and narrow) along the sides.  And so at the time this did make sense, and it seems like it may have been a prevailing view among some of those who were considered the American experts at the time.  Although his critique was more nuanced, even H.J. Whigham was advocating that courses be made much more difficult. 

Do you recall the name of the book you reference?

I am guessing the Vardon Invasion but I am not certain.

[Kirk Gill]

A few things I found personally interesting about the article.

First of all, I liked the author's rhetorical technique of using a question as the sub-head of the article, when it is clear that in his mind there is one definitive answer to the question posed. I also enjoyed his digs at folks who are always pointing to someone else as the person who really wants or needs an easier course. It's also interesting at that point in time that the notion of multiple tees (or should I say, TWO tees) was still worthy of mention.

It's also clear that Emmet's notions of difficulty would, by my definition at least, constitute a fairly penal way of thinking. He advocates narrow fairways, very thick rough, strong bunkering and bushes of gorse to punish the wayward shot.

There's no mention of "working" the ball, just that hitting it straight and long are what everyone is seeking to do. I really love where he is speaking of the very long driver and saying "this man runs great risks in hitting as hard as he does, and he should be rewarded if he rises superior to them." I think that this notion is held to be true by most folks to this very day.

[Sean_A]

It would be interesting to see what the norm was for a course at this time. 

I recently read a book about Vardon's tour of the US that contained diagrams (and perhaps photographs) of several courses and was surprised that they appeared to be largely wide open empty spaces with some cross bunkers thrown in.  Against that backdrop, this article makes a lot of sense.

Jason

Yes, that was my impression of the courses Vardon played on that 1900 tour - though there were exceptions.  I always thought that those courses with immense numbers of bunkers were so because they were trying emulate links with no trees.  Once trees came into fashion huge numbers of bunkers were no longer "necessary".  Anyway, crowds are often well back of Vardon and there is hardly a a hazard or tree in sight.

Ciao

[mike_malone]

 I agree that the article is about punishing the long but wrong hitter. If Garden City did not have hazards at the green to punish the off track shot then it wasn't well designed. If adding these hazards was the idea of the article then it certainly makes sense. If there is no penalty/challenge at all for a wayward shot then indeed the golf is too easy and unfair to the short but straight hitter versus the long but wrong one. As for the hazards suggested for the landing area, do you feel the author properly accounts for the luck factor of landing in his proposed bunkers.

    But, I still think there is alot of interpretive room available here for understanding how different those 'easy" courses were then compared to what we call easy today.

[DMoriarty]

Jason

Yes, that was my impression of the courses Vardon played on that 1900 tour - though there were exceptions.  I always thought that those courses with immense numbers of bunkers were so because they were trying emulate links with no trees.  Once trees came into fashion huge numbers of bunkers were no longer "necessary".  Anyway, crowds are often well back of Vardon and there is hardly a a hazard or tree in sight.

Ciao

Sean,  What do you mean by exceptions?   Do you recall any?   

I am not sure I understand what you mean by  "I always thought that those courses with immense numbers of bunkers were so because they were trying emulate links with no trees."   When were the courses with immense number of bunkers? 

Does this Emmet article help you understand why I view CBM's plan for NGLA as a major departure in American golf course design?

[mike_malone]

  I think there is room for various interpretations here. Adding hazards like bunkers and rough to courses where none existed and distance was the only challenge can be seen as difficult but really the author's idea that this creates a real golf course is more worth pursuing. Once you add those hazards then you flesh out whether he sees it as penal difficulty or strategic challenge. The execution of the idea gives a real insight into his goal's. What was done at Garden City with his ideas?

   The author seems to be arguing against something that he doesn't even think of as golf.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, There is interpretation and then there is wishful thinking.  Are you reading the same article I am?   

Keep in mind that Garden City was already considered a very difficult course.  According to the article, it already had a reputation for narrow fairways and high rough.   And it had bunkers.   It was difficult, just not difficult enough for Emmet.

[Sean_A]

Jason

Yes, that was my impression of the courses Vardon played on that 1900 tour - though there were exceptions.  I always thought that those courses with immense numbers of bunkers were so because they were trying emulate links with no trees.  Once trees came into fashion huge numbers of bunkers were no longer "necessary".  Anyway, crowds are often well back of Vardon and there is hardly a a hazard or tree in sight.

Ciao

Sean,  What do you mean by exceptions?   Do you recall any?  

I am not sure I understand what you mean by  "I always thought that those courses with immense numbers of bunkers were so because they were trying emulate links with no trees."  When were the courses with immense number of bunkers?  

Does this Emmet article help you understand why I view CBM's plan for NGLA as a major departure in American golf course design?

David

Just looking at photos, Apawamis, Albany, Morris Co & Esssex Co all look to be interesting with the use of natural and man-made hazards.  Essex looks to be rare in having a lot of trees from its inception.  

I don't think there were many courses with loads of bunkers, but folks have mentioned a few American ones - Oakmont springs to mind.  I don't recall the others - maybe Garden City.  In the UK Sandy Lodge had a load of bunkers in a very deliberate attempt top play linksy.  

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()