Simple Answer No, when referring to what I consider the real Golden Age of Golf Course Architecture the period between the mid 1800’s and 1900.
This was the Age when a total of 30 clubs - today I suppose many would call them elite golf clubs existed throughout the world. There were a few more public links were golf was permitted allowing the common man (if he could afford the cost of ball let alone clubs) would play the early game of golf.
There are plans and /or layouts of some of these courses however the exact state and construction of these 30 plus courses are relative unknown, but sufficient to say that the game was able to be played upon these courses selected out of the natural features and landscape that Nature had provided.
Golf was not new nor where all the courses, some dating back centuries. Golf had become a rather popular game pre 1600. In fact it was that popular that a King of Scotland had to ban it as it interfered with training to fight the English. Still an excuse our Rugby Team use to this day.
Then around the mid 1800’s Allan Robertson of St Andrews whose family had for over a century owned and worked in the Golf Ball industry, first making the wooden ball then the expensive feather ball. Allan was considered by many the best Golfer in Scotland, considered today as the First Professional as an individual who knew and understood golf. Through his knowledge he was asked to remodel some of the existing courses .e. Panmure, Carnoustie Cupar to name but three.
Allan in 1839 decided to take on a young apprentice, a distance relative (a Margaret Morris married into the Robertson Family in the mid 1700’s) Tom Morris. Morris after 6 years started to assist Allan re course designs with the Panmure in 1845 and Carnoustie in 1848.
So we see the start of establishing a design practice based at St Andrews for the purpose of designing/modifying golf courses. Allan Robertson business commitments with Tom Morris stop in 1850 but they continue to play together against any pair for large sums of money. The records states that when playing for money the pair were never beaten, which never hurt their reputation in those early days.
Due to the list of designs undertaken by Allan Robertson between 1840-55, he should I believe be considered the first modern designer with multi-designs under his name. No other name stands out in the records found to date for multi designs before these dates.
So having set the start of the timeline for the modern design, perhaps it’s now best to examine the 20th Century Men of Golf (as I find it hard to call one, maybe two, gentlemen) who seem to have clearly understood their predecessor from the 19th Century – well so they believe by their quotes..
We have some of their comments quoted on a recently posted thread which reads as follows
Tom Simpson
They failed to reproduce any of the features of the courses on which they were bread and born, or to realize the principles on which they had been made. Their imagination took them no further than the inception of flat gun-platform greens, invariably oblong, round or square, supported by railway embankment sides or batters . . . The bunkers that were constructed on the fairways may be described as rectangular ramparts of a peculiarly obnxious type, stretching at regular intervals across the course and having no architectural merit whatever.’
A Mackenzie
A leading man on the subject was introduced for the first time to 150 acres of good golfing ground, and we all gathered around to see the golf course created instantly. It was something like following a water-deviner with his twig of hazel. Without a moments hesitation he fixed the first tee, and then, going away at full speed, he brought us up abruptly in a deep hollow, and a stake was set up to show the exact position of the first hole. Ground was selected for the second tee, and then we all started off again, and arrived in a panting state at a hollow deeper than the first, where another stake was set up for the second hole. Then away again at full speed for the third hole, and so on. Towards the end we had to tack backwards and fowards half a dozen times to get in the required number of holes. The thing was done in a few hours, lunch was eaten, and the train caught, but the course, thank heavens, was never constructed!’
H Colt
‘In the Victorian Era . . . almost all new golf courses were planned by professionals, and were, incidentally, amazingly bad. They were built with mathematical precision, a cop bunker extending from the rough on the one side, to the rough on the other, and similar cop bunker placed on the second shot. There was entire absence of strategy, interest and excitement except where some natural irremovable object intervened to prevent the designer from carrying out his nefarious plans.’
B Darwin
‘The laying out of courses used once to be a rather a rule-of-thumb business done by rather simple-minded and unimaginative people who did not go far beyond hills to drive over, hollows for putting greens and, generally speaking, holes formed on the model of a steeplechase course.’
Let’s address Simpson comment first as in part he is the most outspoken certainly against Old Tom Morris, Allan’s apprentice and one of the most self-opinionated on the 19th and early 20th century course designers.
Examining the courses sketches and the remaining existing holes by Old Tom Morris and I see a designer that has used an array of hazards to test the golfer, from natural, existing manmade walls, fences, turf dykes and sand traps all utilised for the pleasure of the game not to mention interest. I am of course referring both inland and links courses. I do not see many flat gun platforms greens in Old Toms courses be they open or closed, but then Simpson has given all the options ‘oblong, round or square’ so take your choice. As for the ‘railway embankment side and batters’ I fear what he would say about Castle Stuart. Having said that I do not remember an abundance of these features throughout GB&I. Knowing St Andrews and other Old Tom Morris courses can anyone say that he used rectangular bunkers all across the course. Sorry but I do not see any correlation to the work of Old Tom Morris.
As for Mackenzie comments, understandable if I had to go through the experience he describes I would not be that amused. Yet reading the article on the GB&I course installations of the 19th Century, I do not identify with that either. I see progressive discussion with the design progress in the 19th century on the subject, even down to including the ordinary golfer within the club concerned. Once most were happy then the real construction would begin. The interesting point about Mackenzie quote is that he seem to echo his comments on the visit by James Braid to Brora in the 1920’s which is more or less the course in play today. For information see Malcolm Campbell’s book The Scottish Golf Book page 149 on Brora. Interesting
Now if we all swoon at the words of Colt then me thinks what hope do we have on GCA.com for an in depth and sensible debate. Yes its Colt but read his quote, who is he referring to, which site or country? I have seen many Victorian courses, bad, not a bit of it, what’s he talking about? Colt’s first sentence is half right IMHO as the holes and Greens that have survived are not amazingly bad but actually blood F#*king good i.e. The 17th Road Hole TOC and 15th The Redan at N. Berwick, just two examples, to prove that even the renown Mr Colt gets it well and truly F#@King wrong. As for absence of strategy, interest etc., etc. just look at all the old courses, yes, some maybe a little dull but it depends upon the golfer’s mood on that day. Sorry but I do not recognise his comments on every Victorian course or hole I have played or seen, what about you guys?
So the last quote comes from Darwin, for all his writing he is not well known as a course designer or as a golfer of renown. Reading his quote one, well this one wonders just who is he referring to or what group, because again I do not recognise any course that meets that criteria again do any of you?
Quite frankly I have never been well taken with some on the above guys, but clearly this site and many individuals seem to dribble at some of their words. I prefer to judge them, if indeed that is the right expression on their designs and whether I enjoyed the experience or not. Having said that I just do not see or relate to any course that meets their criticism so I must walk away with the opinion that they did not really know what or more importantly understand the old courses they played upon.
It’s the type of unsupported bullshit I sometimes read when others attack me, full of just words with no real substance or meaning. Actually when you come to think of it, they are trying to ruin not just one but many a reputations of the old Victoria guys, but have not put any real substance of any merit into their quotes, just plain drivel in their attacks.
In closing I wonder why some of the Victorian guys retained Trees, undulating fairways, built and kept bunkers, existing manmade hazards and natural hazards, incorporated blind shots grassy hollows, hedges, walls/roads, burns ponds ditches, whin, broom, rough grass, quarries pits and not forgetting turf dykes – could it be anything to do with strategy, surely not that’s just to obvious but not to our boy wonders Simpson, Mackenzie, Colt or Darwin.
I have not mentions courses like Prestwick, Dornoch, Royal North Devon (Westward Ho), Royal County Down, Machrihanish, Muirfield, Wallasey, North Inch, Dunbar all well established in the Victorian Age. Just what was it that Colt said “There was entire absence of strategy, interest and excitement except where some natural irremovable object intervened to prevent the designer from carrying out his nefarious plans.’
I again put it to you that the real Golden Age was based between the mid 1800’s to 1900 and those that followed just picked up the baton. Their words on their predecessors were certainly not charitable or golden yet they learnt their trade on the back of the ideas and designs of Allan Robertson, Old Tom Morris and others.
Remember histories are generally written by the victors who carry their message or their deeds and may well be unfriendly to those they fear even though dead.
Melvyn