Golf Course Architecture and it's History

[Anthony_Nysse]

Fellas,
  As some of you know, I'm a turf student at Michigan State. I'm doing research for a project on the history of golf course architecture. I know all about the Raynors, CB's, Mac's, Tillies. Ross', etc. Do any of you have any interesting facts, comments about it's history, your opinions of where it's going, things that I should include. Anything would be helpful. Thanks

[Brian Phillips]

Anthony,

You could find out about the first Architect ever which was Allan Robertson on TOC.  Followed by Old Tom taking over what Robertson had started to recommend.

You could also start describing how golf spread in Scotland with the growth of railway.  Also how golf started up in England down around London.

You could also argue why golf did so well on these first courses because of the perfect sand it was based on and how poor the areas were for farming.  You could even be cheeky enough to say that the USGA rec. particle sizing is based on the sand from these courses...which it is, but you won't get a USGA man to admit that....

Give me a buzz on the e-mail and I can copy some stuff from all my books that I have.  Would be glad to help.

It all depends on how far back you want to go.  If you want to get a basic background on GCA buy 'The Golf Course' or as it is now known 'The Architects of golf'.

I can give you some quotes from that if you want..

just buzz me..

Cheers Brian.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Anthony
It is such a broad subject hard to know where to start. Are you going to be concentrating on any specific area or are you going to do an all-incompassing history of the field. One area I don't think has been acurately portayed is the effect of technology had in regards to earth moving - heavy equipment was utilized much earlier than is commonly believed.

As far as the future is concerned there seems to be two distinct schools of design. One is modern movement that has embraced shaping the land in a very artistic way. They create idealistic features on nearly all their designs irrespective of the sites strength or weakness. Fazio, Engh and Ken Dye would be examples of this style. Pete Dye and LArch has had a great influence on this way of looking at golf design. This style is very popular among many golfers - you might call it Pop golf architecture.

The other school of design which seems to be gaining momentum is influnced by the past and seems to be more in tune with the use of natural features and old school strategies. Coore, Doak, Hanse and DeVries seem to reflect this Old school style. Not quite as popular but gaining exceptance. And there are quite a few architects that seem to be somewhere in between and can/will go in either direction.

[Jeff Mingay]

As Brian hints at above, the heathlands is where quality inland golf architecture really began. H.S. Colt, Willie Park, Jr., Herbert Fowler, John L. Low, et. al. are very important men to study in the history and development of golf course design.

[Anthony_Nysse]

I'm looking for something along this lines of how the actually architecture has evolved to where it is today and some of the roads that guys took, ie-Mackenzine meets Jones=Augusta. Jones meets RTJ, Sr=Peachtree and some of the other "design trees" (GFazio-TFazio-MStrantz/MDeVries(how did the last two turn our so good?)I did not know that the first ever designer was Allen Robertson...that will be used. I'm going to get a lot of my info from "The Golden Age of Architecture" I'm also going to comment, like Tom said, about how today's courses are gaining acceptance for looking like they're old. Any comments as to why most of the Top 50 courses are still pre-1960ish? I think that only Shadow Creek, Sand Hills and Bandon Dunes have cracked the top 50, according to GD. WHy have the old course stood the test of time and designers today have a very difficult time equalling the feats of yesterday's designers?

[Chris_Hunt]

Anthony:

I must concur with Tom about the influence of equipment in construction and maintenance in the history of architecture.  Older courses certainly have the advantages of natural growth and settling, constant tinkering over the years, etc.  Also, the fact that many poor old courses have been filtered out, filled in, or dozed under over the years allows the 'Old cream' to encounter fewer challenges as it rises to the top.  

Another issue of importance, in my opinion, is the migration of Scottish professionals, bringing golf and good architectural precedence to all ends of the earth.  Also, the tendency for aspiring architects, starting with MacDonald, and continuing through to RTJ, Dye, Doak, Hanse, et al. to actually visit the great courses and transport ideas and modified concepts from them to create better golf courses must be considered.

Other evolutionary subjects to touch upon could include the history of blindness and golf shots, the changes in safety and environmental standards, the availability of great golfing property, the economics of the game, club and ball changes, and the disappearance of the ground game to a large extent on newer developments (with obvious exceptions).

Good Luck...its only your graduation depending on it, I suppose

CWH

[Jeff_Brauer]

aNTHONY,

this brings back memories.....I did a similar term paper for the "History of Landscape Architecture" in 1977 at the University of Illinois.  When  I discovered the old architecture books back in the "stacks" of the library (supposedly the third largest in the world) I read them all - to the detriment of my other studies, of course.

When I look back at the paper now, its pretty primitive, but you have so much more to sift through and include in your work.

As to your specific question - the asgca (312.372.7090 - ask for Tony Hourston) has a "family tree" chart of how architects descended.  I don't think its "classified" and they would proabably give an aspiring student a copy, especially from MSU, since we help fund their web site of turf info.  Just a thought.

Of course, that is only the start of how one of us may visit another course and be inspired.  Geoff's book implies a few famous cases - like Seminole, where Ross Bunker style varied from his "typical" at least for the east coast may have been influenced by losing Augusta.  Pete Dye claims to be influenced greatly by RTJ, although he showed it by going the complete opposite in style, figuring he couldn't do Jones any better than Jones.  And the whole minimalist movement is similar in conception - trying to go away from the grain to stand out from the crowd.

As has been suggested, its a broad topic, and using a few examples might convey the history in a more lively fashion than a traditional time line approach.

[RJ_Daley]

Jeff Brauer and anyone else that has information on this:

I have always found one of the most valuable resources for begining a more indepth investigation of a particular course or architect is to start with Cornish and Whitten's book and read the architect's bio.  My question is; has anyone updated younger architects bio's and list of course credits in the last 15 years?  Is there a subsequent addition to C&Ws book that updates information in their format.  There are just too many new architects and designers that have entered the field since the late 80s.  It would be nice to know some of their backgrounds and experiences.  

I know that C&W isn't complete, since I know of one fellow that has 30+ courses to his name that wouldn't cooperate with the biography information gathering effort.  But, it would be great to chronical newer architects, associates, and designers who have been active in the last decade, regardless of their professional affiliations.  

[Jeff Mingay]

I agree, Dick. Cornish's and Whitten's book is (probably) the best "start" in reading about golf course architecture and its history. Followed, I think, by The Anatomy of a Golf Course. From there, it's into the classics.

Just a thought.

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

I know that every ASGCA member has sent updated bios to both Geoff Cornish and the home office.  I think most supported my notion of never, never updating the pictures

I want people to remember my career in its prime, and me in my prime!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Being at MSU you have no shortage of research material. I agree with Jeff that family tree thing can be a little mis-leading and not always accurate or fool proof. You look at Stanley Thompson's disciples - some good (RTJ), some not so good. And although Colt and MacKenzie were partners, I don't think they actually worked together (at least not often) and I'm not sure they had much influence on one another. But I do think those old guys had similar influences, and although they had unique/different styles they also had common beliefs - specifically about maximizing natural features and the importance of strategy (modeled after many of the old links courses they learned the game upon).

In some ways the old guys had it easier. They were not trained in any allied design disciplines which could have an effect. They were breaking new ground being among the first golf architects, so they didn't have a number of stylistic influences to weed through. Todays' architects have endless influences to muddle through from the ancient links to the golden age to RTJ to Dye to the numerous contemporary styles. And they have the advantage of moving heaven and earth - whcih means they aren't forced to work with the land - which may not be an advantage in the long run.

[Mike O'Neill]

Tom,

Would MacDonald be classified as belonging in the Pop golf architecture school?

Anthony,

When you think about the early golf hole designers, do not forget that industrial peoples have always pushed the design envelope. Remember how much work went into the Italian and French Renaissance gardens. As Tom alluded to, moving heaven and earth for the purposes of design didn't begin in 1983. Just think of the Pyramids. When I think of the early golf hole designers, I am fascinated by how determined they were. If you look at Geoff's Golden Age book, you will see how much work went into carving through the trees to produce St. George's Hill. They didn't always limit themselves to the "perfect" land for golf. They sometimes created that land. And as far as I can tell, golf course builders have taken significant advantage of whatever advances in technology and science they could get their hands on from the beginning. They did not all have the same advantages, but I suppose they must have taken what they could get when they could get it.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
No I wouldn't put Macdonald in the Pop school. I'm not sure there has been anyone better than Macdonald & Raynor in utilizing the natural advantages of site. Macdonald's St.Louis -not too far you - is one of the best use of natural features in a routing that I've ever run across.

[Mike O'Neill]

Tom,

I am more and more beginning to see MacDonald as someone who did not shy away from moving soil to get what he wanted. I need to look more into what he did in his career, but he moved 2,000,000.00 cubic yards of sand at Lido, if he himself is to believed. He may have taken full advantage of a great site when he found one, but he did always find what he wanted it seems. And I found NGLA to be very stylized when I played it(only once alas). But I played it long after he was dead, so maybe I don't know. I see him as someone who loved the tradition of the game, the honor of the game, but he was not tied to tradition the way I assumed he was. He would take the "modern" path if it suited him.

[Dan King]

Brian Phillips writes:
You could find out about the first Architect ever which was Allan Robertson on TOC.

Based on what?

It sounds good and all, but I'd have trouble with someone wrting an academic paper and calling Allan the first architect without some sort of qualifier.

There were courses laid out prior to his day. Before he was born in 1815 there were courses at: Edinburgh (1735), Leith (1744), St. Andrews (1754), Musselburgh (1774), Aberdeen (1780), Crail (1786), Glasgow (1787), Cruden Bay (1791), Dunbar (1794), Burntisland (1797), Montrose (1810). They were crude by our standards, but someone decided how the courses should have been laid out.

So what did Alan do to deserve the honor of first architect?

There is a new book out from Sleeping Bear Press that looks promising:
Keepers of the Green: A History of Golf Course Management by Bob Labbance and Gordon Witteveen
Click here to order Keepers of the Green from Sleeping Bear Press

"The cunningest bit body o' a player, I dae think, that iver haun'led cleek an' putter. An' a kindly body, tae, as it weel does fit me to say, an' wi' a wealth o' slee pawky fun aboot him."
 --Tom Morris (on Allan Robertson)

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
I agree he was definitely not a minimalist whatever that is - Lido was the Shadow Creek of its day. And many of the green complexes that he and Raynor created were definitely 'constructed' and that's an understatement. But on the other hand few were better at identifying the interesting natural features of a site and incorporating them into his designs.

I don't think any of the very best architects of that day were opposed to technology or taking the modern route. I'm pretty confident that MacKenzie armed with Bulldozers at Cypress Point moved a lot more dirt than Coore and Crenshaw did at Sand Hills. My point is that they all had a great appreciation for nature and they attempted maximize its use while staying true to their individual styles and principals.

[Mike O'Neill]

Dan,

Since one need only claim to be an "architect" to be one, maybe Allan was the first to make the claim...

[Brian Phillips]

Brian Phillips writes:
You could find out about the first Architect ever which was Allan Robertson on TOC.

Based on what?

It sounds good and all, but I'd have trouble with someone wrting an academic paper and calling Allan the first architect without some sort of qualifier.

There were courses laid out prior to his day. Before he was born in 1815 there were courses at: Edinburgh (1735), Leith (1744), St. Andrews (1754), Musselburgh (1774), Aberdeen (1780), Crail (1786), Glasgow (1787), Cruden Bay (1791), Dunbar (1794), Burntisland (1797), Montrose (1810). They were crude by our standards, but someone decided how the courses should have been laid out.

So what did Alan do to deserve the honor of first architect?

Dan,

You are totally correct that there are many courses that existed before Allan Robertson, however there are no names to them.  In the studying that I have done and the the Golf Course Design Workshop I did at Harrogate this year Robertson is named as the first recognosed person to do changes to a course.  Many historians believe the the 17th at TOC to be the first man designed hole in the world.  

I can't remember if it was Robertson or Morris who designed it but Robertson was the first to start to widen the fairways at TOC.

I should have said he is classified as the first real architect.  

If anyone out there thinks this is wrong and can name someone else then I would like to know as this is what I have been taught and that is what is on the British Open history videos that I have seen.  There are some that argue that Old Tom was the first, but from what I have read he carried on the work of Robertson after he died.

Cheers Brian