News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
It is experimenting with the "Chaos Theory" in golf course architecture... Can't get more scientific than that

Gary Slatter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Does the 11th at Tain have a sister at Panmure?
Gary Slatter
gary.slatter@raffles.com

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
TEP
We've discussed this before. It is believed B. Hall Blythe created the first formal plan in the early 1890s at Muirfield. He was profiled in my essay on architects of the 1890s. If you are interested I believe a good version of that plan is in one of Muirfield history books (and other books if memory serves me).

Tommy Mac

I don't doubt that Hall Blythe did the first plan of Muirfield but I would bet that what he produced was an as built drawing of what we would call a routing plan which is quite different from a conceptual drawing for something that doesn't exist. It think it was quite common for courses to be designed on the ground and the plan produced afterwards. The early plan produced of Moray at Lossiemouth was an example and was done by the local surveyor after the event. 

From what I can see that was quite common but that is only what I have discerned from hunting down old plans where they are available, unfortunately nobody talked about methology in course design back then.

Niall

Melvyn Morrow


Muirfield drawing was signed by Hall Blyth in December 1891 7 months after the fomal opening of the club and 13 monts after Old Tom designed the course in 1890. It was an As Built drawing as a record of the course not the design.

Melvyn

TEPaul

"Muirfield drawing was signed by Hall Blyth in December 1891 7 months after the fomal opening of the club and 13 monts after Old Tom designed the course in 1890. It was an As Built drawing as a record of the course not the design."


Melvyn:

Thanks for that info. In that case that drawing by Hall Blythe would not qualify as the first or one of the first preconstuction architectural drawings.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
"TEP
We've discussed this before. It is believed B. Hall Blythe created the first formal plan in the early 1890s at Muirfield. He was profiled in my essay on architects of the 1890s. If you are interested I believe a good version of that plan is in one of Muirfield history books (and other books if memory serves me)."



That's just the kind of thing I'm interested in to determine the very beginnings of architectural drawings. It certainly makes some sense that a man like B. Hall Blythe might've done the first fairly sophisticated architectural drawing as he was a professional civil engineer.

However, it isn't particularly clear on the drawing of Muirfield if it was done in 1891 or even done by Blythe. It's hard to tell but I don't see a date on that drawing or a name. It's possible someone may've done it later from the golf course plan on the ground that Blythe was involved in. 

It's an interesting example too as it is essentially a glorified stick routing but with yardages on the holes and rather artistic drawing of bunkers and such. Was it done pre-construction to what Blythe did there or was it drawn after the fact?

What drawing are you referring to?

TEPaul

I'm referring to the drawing that Melvyn send me today of Muirfield with B. Hall Blythe's name on the bottom right and the date December, 1891.

The drawing of Muirfield in your article on here ("Beyond Old Tom Morris") says "Based on a plan by B. Hall Blythe" so I would assume the drawing in your article might've been done later.

I'm still trying to determine the first examples of fairly sophisticated and detailed PRE-construction architectural drawings from the 19th century, who did them and when and where. Today by separate communication Melvyn was helpful in some potential leads. This is not just my own question; there are a number of people who would like to know and the question goes back a ways.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2010, 08:52:56 PM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
There is a more detailed drawing produced by Hall Blythe than the one dated December 1891. I believe the drawing is dated but I don't know if it is prior to the course opening in May 1891 or not. I believe that plan is in one of the books produced by the historian of the R&A. He is the same fellow who discovered Hall Blythe designed the New course at St. Andrews - for many years it had been thought Old Tom had designed that course.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2010, 10:37:29 PM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Would it be too much to ask you to either edit the last post or rewrite it? The way it's written is not particularly understandable, in my opinion.

Nevertheless, to me the salient question is-----eg were any of the B. Hall Blythe drawings PRE-construction or were they after-the-fact of the work on the golf course?

I hope that isn't too complicated a question.  

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
That is a good question. What have you done to get to the bottom of it?

TEPaul

"That is a good question. What have you done to get to the bottom of it?"



Read the discussion above and you may come within a zip code or two of answering your own question, but knowing you I wouldn't bet on it.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
I was just curious. You've been talking about this subject for years, but I've seen no evidence you've done anything beyond asking others what they have found.

Melvyn Morrow

Tom (P)

The drawing that appears in MacWood’s essay ‘Beyond Old Tom’ relating to Muirfield is not the same one as I sent you. While in principal the layout is correct the tell is the marker for North.
My copy is dated December 1891 and signed by Hall Blyth with a decorative border line in all four corners.

As for the who is responsible for the actual design, by that I mean the routing and selection of the ground and location of the tees, bunkers and fairways, then that is down to a guy called Old Tom Morris. It has been recorded and there are newspaper articles confirming that he laid out the course in 1890.

I know that I keep coming back to the subject of understanding how the design build process worked back in the 19th Century, yet it is the key to unlocking the whole subject. It kill stone dead this AM design-PM play belief that many credit these guys with, not because it never happened but because they have totally distorted the information and have allowed it to become folk law.

There is nothing magical, nothing special, they operated as we more or less do today. Why those that followed seemed to dismiss the efforts of their predecessors is beyond me, apart perhaps from I suppose promoting themselves over the legends of the past, yet who knows why.

The 19th Century guys approach is actually worthy of praise and a credit to how they treated their clients. The information of how they went about their work is out there in print, one just has to undertake the research, remembering the era, technology and peoples understanding/awareness of any design build process. In other words they utilised what they had available for the good and understand of their clients.

As for Hall Blyth at Muirfield, yes he was there, yes he was there too at the New Course which was laid out by Old Tom Morris. The problem is the age old one of understand terminology of the day, which I can confirm that even the R&A do not seem to have been able to do. I spoke to them last year about some other details which I was shocked to be told that they had no details.
As for the New Course, well my search again confirms Old Tom’s involvement in the routing, selection of tee & greens sites which in my book confirms he laid out the course. As for Hall Blyth again I have no problem with his involvement and the work he undertook. But then why should I, Old Tom and Hall Blyth where friends with a record of working together for the good of the game and a solid working relationship that goes way back.  In fact Hall Blyth recommended Old Tom to Edinburgh Council as the lead designer for the new course in the Braid Hills Public Park project circa the late 1880’s. It is reported that he said “As to laying out of the Braids as a golf course, he laid stressing upon the desirableness of having this done by experts, and suggested as authorities, whose experience would be guarantee of the manner in which the work would be done, Old Tom Morris”. Old Tom was to be assisted by P McEwan of Musselburgh. As the records show, due to delays by the council Old Tom went to Northern Ireland to Portrush & Newcastle. While over there the council suddenly decided to move forward quickly and as Old Tom was unable to attend, McEwan took over and was ably assisted by Ferguson again from  Musselburgh.

I digress for a second or so and would like to mention that Braid Hills Public Park and golf course came into being by the involvement of Lady Cathcart of Cluny Estates with the full support of The Cluny Trustees which owned much on the land associated with the new venture. Lady Cathcart through Cluny Estates took over the land and estates of the Earl of Erroll shortly after he agreed to the new Cruden Bay site development in 1894. This was due to his massive debts, so I suppose Cruden Bay could be added to her interest in golf. For those of you not interested in the history of golf, Lady Cathcart was responsible for the course at Askernish and also Collieston (which is approx. 6 miles south of Cruden Bay). Her record is 1888/9 Braid Hills, 1891 Askernish, 1899 Cruden Bay, 1901 Collieston. At the time all was to be under Old Tom apart from the fist one at Braid Hills but he was there when it opened.   

We now jump a year or so forward and Old Tom is called in to design the Muirfield site and worked with his old friend Hall Blyth. Now would they both compete with each other or would they work together.  Having just the year before gone on record as saying Old Tom was the “expert” would a man like Hall Blyth then try and out do his own expert. Whatever, you can all make up your own mind, but use some common sense and do not forget to read the supporting  documentation.

The records show that there is a demarcation line, the problem in the interpretation of the 19th Century meaning of the wording. So let’s look to the records or reported article on or of the day. Old Tom routed the Muirfield course in November 1890, he selected the tees, and greens sites as well utilising or incorporating any natural hazards available. Later the course was drawn by an engineer/surveyor showing the full design, yet not producing that design, just superimposing it on to paper.

A few more years later the same team come together to undertake the New Course, then again according to articles, not I regret the R&A (whose information passed to me was some what wanting and did not match with local and regional newspaper articles at the time of the course opening). The New Course was routed by Old Tom with his selection of the tees/green sites and also taken account of the local natural hazards.  Hall Blyth as with Muirfield undertook the work (within the Club). Something to consider to you doubters out there, ignoring the newspaper articles) why would a club and town elect to ask Hall Blyth to undertake the routing, location of Tees/ Greens and to incorporate natural hazards. He did not have much information on the new site although played TOC many times, yet there is Old Tom one of the top experts (claimed by Hall Blyth himself) a man of St Andrews and I think we could say he would have known the links better than most, certainly a Gentleman form The R&A. Do not believe me just read the local and national paper of the day. Also we must not forget the design process of the Victorian age as I briefly mention in my opening lines.

Did Hall Blyth do the routing and green locations for Muirfield and the New Course, the answer is NO, that was by Old Tom, so in my book the design cannot be awarded to Hall Blyth. Yes he was actively involved in the process but from the sanctuary of the Club.

As for any drawings that Hall Blyth produced they where produced after the fact based upon the work of another designer. I am not saying he has claimed the work of others just that he was a cog (major perhaps) but just a cog in the whole wheel of the 19th Century Design process. Many here in Scotland are proud of our golfing heritage and the way many worked together, pity that attitude could not be reflected by the Members of this site as I feel we would have been a great asset to the true history of Golf.

Melvyn

PS In our rush to discredit others for the failure of past observers (to call them golfing historians maybe a step too far) are we not in ourselves mudding the water for future generations.   

PPS In remembering the design process of the 19th century designers, please do not forget that they did not have phones, faxes, cars. Only Steam trains and pony and trap to get them about. A simple trip from St Andrews to Dundee was a long journey in time required, not distance, so the design process also factored that in. Today if a site problem or discussions for a new project can be resolved on the phone or worst still jump in the car or short plane journey, well it was not like that in the 1880/90’s. We must always remember the time zones we are talking about and their not our methods. 

PPPS The Muirfield drawing that I have e-mailed to some is the same signed one that the club partly displays on its web site. Actually it should not be surprising as they sent me a CD with it on in the first place with some additional info.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2010, 10:31:33 AM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

TEPaul

"I was just curious. You've been talking about this subject for years, but I've seen no evidence you've done anything beyond asking others what they have found. "


Yes, I have been talking about this for years and the primary reason is because the extant stories about the same subjects are conflicting, or certainly in the apparent accuracies and inaccuracies in some of the details, to say the least. And that includes your own stories and essays and some of the details in them. You seem to think what you research and write should be considered gospel for some reason ;) but I think it has been shown numerous times on here that is just not the case. So, I think these kinds of investigations should continue.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Melvyn
With all due respect I think Peter Lewis, the R&A historian, would have a little better understanding of the history of the New Course. While I appreciate your passion for your great great uncles legacy I'll take the word from one of the best golf historians in the world (an unbiased historian I might add), especially since he has access to the R&A's official archives.

Melvyn Morrow

Tom

The R&A records are not accurate – or complete  - words from them not me, so once in your life Tom get your facts right. I base all my comments on reports and articles found or obtained. I unlike you have no agenda, its matters not if Old Tom did or did not do whatever as long as I know what he did, that’s all I am after.

Two years ago the R&A did not think that Old Tom worked on the New Course, showing just how much information they had on it back then. Did you know that the same team from Muirfield worked on the New Course, Old Tom, Duff and Hall Blyth. Also that George Coburn (later Green Keeper at Portmarnock) and his brother worked on the construction of the New Course. He reported working under Old Tom on the green designs and construction.

Please do some on site research and you may find even more reports on Old Tom’s involvement, yet I must admit not much mention of Hall Blyth, now you would think that the golfing magazines and papers would report Hall Blyth and not Old Tom. I suppose you also are not aware of the politics going on at the time within the R&A, with the Green Committee trying to stamp their authority yet the Members still supporting Old Tom’s approach.   

You are the one who believes Old Tom has been credited with work not undertaken by him – wonder what so called historian got that so wrong. But then you have also missed many courses he designed or modified.

You do not even understand how the designs were undertaken in the 19th Century so you will excuse me if I do not take your comments on board.

As for the New Course tell me when Hall Blyth undertook the routing and why he selected the green sites or did that all come about from the warmth of the R&A Club House perhaps while coping someone else’s work. No I do not believe that of him as he worked well with Old Tom over the years but he would have done the same as at Muirfield a few years earlier which was based upon Old Toms routing/design.

You should know by now that I do not have much time for the R&A because they have proven to me over and over again to be fairly useless and I seriously question if they are serious re historical records. There actions certainly confirm their disinterest.
 
Melvyn


TEPaul

"I know that I keep coming back to the subject of understanding how the design build process worked back in the 19th Century, yet it is the key to unlocking the whole subject. It kill stone dead this AM design-PM play belief that many credit these guys with, not because it never happened but because they have totally distorted the information and have allowed it to become folk law.

There is nothing magical, nothing special, they operated as we more or less do today. Why those that followed seemed to dismiss the efforts of their predecessors is beyond me, apart perhaps from I suppose promoting themselves over the legends of the past, yet who knows why.

The 19th Century guys approach is actually worthy of praise and a credit to how they treated their clients. The information of how they went about their work is out there in print, one just has to undertake the research, remembering the era, technology and peoples understanding/awareness of any design build process. In other words they utilised what they had available for the good and understand of their clients."



Melvyn:

I sure don't want to get into another argument with you but I just can't buy some of the things you said in the quote above. But I guarantee you I will buy it and I think others will as well if you just show us some things that can prove it.

You see, I am definitely not denigrating or minimizing what some of those 19th century guys did back then given the lack of time and opportunity afforded them back then and I'm certainly not questioning their inherent or innate talent for good or even sophisticated architecture back then. I just don't think they spent the necessary time with it that it requires to really oversee quality planning and construction etc for courses other than their own where most of them had day jobs. I think the drawbacks in those kinds of ways were pretty stark compared to what later architects had available to them.

But if you can point anyone to something like some good and comprehensive PRE-construction drawings for courses that they built that were good then I think anyone and everyone can and will reconsider. If they didn't even do that or have that then how in the world were the people who actually had to stay around and make and construct those courses, bunkers and man-made greens and such (if they even actually did that stuff back before the late 1890s INLAND) going to be able to figure out what to do and how to do it unless those early 19th century architect hung around those projects and oversaw them for like many weeks and months at a time?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
In 1976 Walter Woods discovered what is thought to be the first detailed pre-construction map (1894)....for the New Course At St. Andrews. "The New Course was laid out by Tom Morris to a design by W. Hall Blyth, an Edinburgh Civil Engineer."

TEPaul

"In 1976 Walter Woods discovered what is thought to be the first detailed pre-construction map (1894)....for the New Course At St. Andrews. "The New Course was laid out by Tom Morris to a design by W. Hall Blyth, an Edinburgh Civil Engineer."


Thought to be, MacWood? What does that mean? Don't bother to try to POST your opinion of the Pre-construction 1894 map on here because you've obviously never seen it; just tell some of us, any of us on here where to find it because God knows you sure aren't gonna do that.

Why don't you just tell Melvyn were to find it? ;) After-all, he's actually over there. He might even go there personally. Now isn't that a foreign concept, don't you think?  ;)
« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 01:10:23 AM by TEPaul »

Melvyn Morrow

Tom

I may not even want to dispute the following comment ‘for the New Course At St. Andrews. "The New Course was laid out by Tom Morris to a design by W. Hall Blyth, an Edinburgh Civil Engineer." ‘

I have said that we must understand the terminology of the 19th Century, also that there was a close working relationship between Hall Blyth and Old Tom. But remember that Old Tom was the ‘Expert’ reference Blyth Hall used himself to recommend Old Tom at Braid Hills. Also it represented the way they started to work at Muirfield. No I do not have a problem with the report "The New Course was laid out by Tom Morris to a design by W. Hall Blyth, an Edinburgh Civil Engineer."

I would also point out that in the 19th Century when describing who was responsible for what we call ‘The Design’, the normal words that were used to undertake the routing, selections of the Green was referred to as ‘laying out’. Do not believe me then take as many articles form newspapers and magazines of the day and check it out yourself.

So I ask why does MacWood want to dismiss Old Tom’s involvement in the routing and Green selection of the New Course when even the comment he produced confirms that Old Tom undertook the routing and selection of the Greens on the New Course i.e. The laying out  - or looking back ‘laid out’.

I suggest that the new word creeping in with the more technical drawing produced by surveyors/engineers such as Hall Blyth should be checked for their meaning back then. As we move into the 20th Century the word to describe designing a course was just that 'design.'

No I have no problem with the comment in fact it just adds more proof that Old Tom did indeed design (as we call it today) the new Course. Add this comment to the many articles and reports around completely proves his involvement.

Melvyn
« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 07:35:56 AM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

TEPaul

Melvyn:

Thanks.

Yes, I'm well aware of the frequent use of the term "laying out" back in those days. It seemed to mean a couple of things from routing or feature designing to actually doing the construction. It's hard for us to tell exactly what any of those early articles and reports did mean with the term on some projects unless there is other evidence that's more specific or indicative. The only term I'm sure they never did use back then is our term "routing."

I have no idea why MacWood says or claims some of the things he does. As you know I think he's a pretty productive researcher but a strange analyst. He seems to make some pretty shaky assumptions and then tries to turn them into conclusions and even to pass them off as fact.

I'd still like to figure out who did the first PRE-construction architectural drawings, whomever it may've been. There're some interesting early stick routings on Ed Oden's thread on routings, drawings etc but all the really early ones seem to be from newspapers and/or after the fact.

« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 09:43:47 AM by TEPaul »

Melvyn Morrow

Tom

I agree routing like design when referring to designing a golf course are more from the 20th Century.

My use of routing is my way of saying who designed the course, i.e. the guy who actually planned the layout of the holes and position of the greens, determining if the fairways be straight, dogleg or curved. No necessary the CAD designer who produced the final picture or should I say technical perhaps even the AS BUILT drawing.

Clear demarcation lines are required between the design element the CAD combination technical work and the construction/build process. I am only referring to the design/laying out of the initial course design, but even today we seem to get confused, hence my usage of the word routing.

The old question, cart before the horse and nothing to do with the chicken or egg - who was first question.

AS for Old Tom he did design (modern term) or lay out the New Course; Hall Blyth worked closely with OTM and produced the technical drawings as well as looking after the coordination with the R&A and Town ( remembering the R&A use the town owned links now being administered by the Links Trust not the R&A so their records will be patchy. The construction was undertaken by Duff and OTM was asked to also – due to his great knowledge of the area to keep a close eye on the construction so it would be in line with the design. Through this he came into contact with the Coburn brothers who worked on the construction of the New Course, where they have reported working under OTM guidance.

As I said I have no problem as the New Course was produced in a similar way the Muirfield using the same main team of OTM, Duff and Hall Blyth.

I was just confirming that routing means laying out or today designing the course.

Melvyn

« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 09:50:35 AM by Melvyn Hunter Morrow »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Thanks to Walter Woods, the long time superintendent at St. Andrews, and Peter Lewis, the long time historian at the R&A, B. Hall Blyth is now getting his due. Here are a couple of links, one to the St.A's site which reflects their official standing of the courses origin and also to Richardson's book on routing which touches on the BHB plan. If you are interested in seeing the plan there is beautiful color version of it Peter Lewis's series of books on the history of golf, and in particular St. andrews. Those books contain some of the best research and information I've seen in a golf book. One major advantage Lewis has is complete access to the R&A's internal documents. I've outlined the series of books below where the plan can be found.

http://www.standrews.org.uk/The-Courses/The-New-Course.aspx

http://books.google.com/books?id=xYU1eWI37xEC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=new+course+st.+andrews+and+hall+blyth+1894&source=bl&ots=oUuxRN2HRi&sig=VNMyhlncWIXm9pfVM-vs_hNXzcw&hl=en&ei=B-ucS6rlN4rcNuemreYN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CBwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=new%20course%20st.%20andrews%20and%20hall%20blyth%201894&f=false

Peter Lewis has been director of the British golf Musem since 1988 and the Royal and Ancient's golf heritage secretary since 2001, having previously been appointed the club historian in 1992. He is co-author of the three-volume History of the Royal and Ancient Golf Club - Challenges & Champions, Champions & Guardians and Traditions of Change as well as the co-author of The Professional Golfers' Association 1901-2001: 100 Years of Service and Art and Architecture of The Royal and Ancient Golf Club. In 1999 he was awarded the Murdoch Medal by the British Golf Collectors' Society for outstanding achievement in the field of golf history. Angela Howe was appointed curator of the R&A's Golf Heritage Department in 2001 having previously been curator at the British golf Museum. She has co-authored several publications, including A Grand Man and a Golfer: The Novelist George Whyte Melville and his Memorials and Good Men Remembered: A Tale of Golf, Empire and St Andrews.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 10:45:49 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Melvyn:

I'm well aware that routing can mean laying out or vice versa. The terms "constructing" or "planning" or "laying out" a course back then could also mean routing, designing the features and of course actually building them or overseeing the building of them. Depending who's writing articles or reports or reporting all those terms often tended to interchange back then.

But none of that is my point or question. I'm looking for the first architect(s) who produced PRE-construction drawings. I'm sure anyone can see why if they just think about it a while. Obviously if some architect such as OTM or Alan Robertson would not need PRE-construction drawings for a golf course routing and design and construction if they basically worked right there for other reasons like at TOC. It is the courses and projects that these men did not work at otherwise or were not that near and could not be there much during construction I'm interested in.

I'm not interested in who the first architects were----that's another subject, and I think most of us tend to assign the distinction of the first architect to actually design and make things at a golf course to Alan Robertson at TOC around 1848. But he worked at TOC otherwise and for other reasons and was right there anyway when he did what he did that early.

I still want to find out who did the first PRE-construction architectural drawings. This is not a matter of discussing what various terms meant back then or any other time. PRE-construction drawings and producing them is a pretty straightforward concept and reality and someone did it first. I just want to find out who that was.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2010, 10:37:08 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Here's a description of the New Course at St Andrews from one of the links above:


"A classic links course with undulating fairways and delightfully challenging greens, it was set out in 1895 by Old Tom Morris.

Named the New to differentiate it from the original course at the Links which became the Old Course, the course remains one of the finest examples of Morris' work to be found anywhere."


Melvyn:

Are you aware of any PRE-construction drawings done for that course or are they only after the fact of design and construction as far as you know?