[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

With all due respect my comments as I have said are based upon the information I have uncovered.  The First and real Golden Age was started by Allan Robertson and went on until the end of the 1890's IMHO.  They addressed many of the problems that the later Golden Age guys continued to run with. They started nothing  but continued the process going a blood good job as well, but they did not have a blank canvas as the basics had already been addressed, but yes they improved upon them, but they did not start the process.

A simple question, I wonder how many would have played golf without the likes of Robertson, Morris etc. Would Ross have even consider golf, would the other professionals have consider playing and what about Colt would he have heard about the game. They picked up and moved the design stage further on but the Golden Age was the first dawning of the design and all its problems faced by the 19th century guys pre 1899, IMHO.

Melvyn

[Sean_A]

Melvyn Morrow
As for Simpson and the others, my concern is that they seem to remember very little about how the 19th century guys laid out a course

They were there at the coalface at the very time these courses were intact in their original state. I'm struggling to see why I should accept your blanket disregard for their comments.

As Sean states, this probably applies more to inland design, but I would still be interested to see some facts or evidence to back up your argument.

Scott

TOC was completed as we know it today circa 1880ish.  You think archies ignored TOC and many other classic holes from near the seaside and then went on to reinvent the wheel 30 years later?  There can be no doubt that Park Jr, Fowler, Colt, CBM etc learned from what was in the ground.  If this isn't a given in this conversation then it will go nowhere.

Ciao

Sean - I think that's almost the key. The architects you mention were the first to learn from what went before, whether it be good or bad, and that is what made them the pioneers in architecture... That's not to say OTM didn't plough some of the first furrows: The concept of what a golf course represents...

Ally

I think we are saying the same thing - agreeing that many of the archies from both eras were important even if the concept of a professional golf course architect wasn't truly born in the modern sense until Colt came along.  

Scott

Yes, Melvyn indulges in hyperbole, but his basic tenet (I think anyway) that 20th century archies stood on the shoulders of 19th century archies is correct - notwithstanding the hyperbole of the archies you quoted - tee hee.  Remember, these guys had a financial hand in the pie and could benefit from reworking the "crappy" courses of yesteryear.  I would also mention that a huge part of this "heathland movement" (for lack of a better phrase) was the aesthetics of the designs - mimicing links as much as was possible.  Many of Colt's generation just couldn't get their head round some of the stark contrast to nature work they saw.  I think today many would be much more lenient with their criticisms.  That said, what is REALLY, REALLY important in all of this is the recognition of how important the turf and terrain were to golf.  I can't emphasize enough how ground breaking this "discovery" was.  This discovery made possible all the design ideas on inland courses to come to life.  For this alone, Park Jr should be seen as golfing hero.  What I want to know is if New Zealand was originally built in 1895 over cleared heathland (we know Woking took many years to develop on what was originally unpromising land), why did it take another five years for Park Jr to get on the band wagon wigth Huntercombe and Sunningdale?    

Ciao  

[Scott Warren]

Melvyn:

With all due respect my comments as I have said are based upon the information I have uncovered.

All I am saying is that I, and I am sure others, would be interested to see it.

Suffice to say if you have discovered a previous Golden Age of architecture, enough people would be interested that would probably be worthy of a thread of its own!

[Mike_Young]

Sometimes I really get flustered with all this stuff....
I mean:
Would Bobby Jones have even won the Ga State Am if he came along today?  No
Would some of the signatures today even be architects if their fathers were not?  No

Are todays doctors better than yesterday's or do they just have more advances to work with?  yes to both...
Is Henry Ford a better car designer than many today..is the car better today than in 1935?  don't know but he started it....
And ODG's
Come on....these guys weren't any better or any worse....they did lay a foundation from which to advance.....and RE was not a huge factor in their designs....
The one interesting point I see in all discussions on this site regarding great golf courses both new and old is:  99% of them have cool season grasses...

[Sean_A]

Sometimes I really get flustered with all this stuff....
I mean:
Would Bobby Jones have even won the Ga State Am if he came along today?  No
Would some of the signatures today even be architects if their fathers were not?  No

Are todays doctors better than yesterday's or do they just have more advances to work with?  yes to both...
Is Henry Ford a better car designer than many today..is the car better today than in 1935?  don't know but he started it....
And ODG's
Come on....these guys weren't any better or any worse....they did lay a foundation from which to advance.....and RE was not a huge factor in their designs....
The one interesting point I see in all discussions on this site regarding great golf courses both new and old is:  99% of them have cool season grasses...

Mike

The thing is I don't necessarily agree with you that Bobby Jones wouldn't have won today, that doctors are better ...You are focusing on people rather than industries or disciplines etc.  Which means you aren't giving the ODGs any credit as to being able to take advantage of current tech and other aspects which make the fields they were involved better as a whole. 

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

The one interesting point I see in all discussions on this site regarding great golf courses both new and old is:  99% of them have cool season grasses...

I don't say it much around here but that's my dirty little secret when it comes to traveling to play golf. If a course is built on sand and has cool-weather grasses I am almost certain to like it. And if it also has interesting greens I am dead certain to love it.

Which of course totally invalidates my GCA enthusiast's card. Strategy? Angles? Half-par holes? Pfffft. Just give me some fescue growing in sand and nobody in front of me to make me wait. The rest is window dressing.

[Mike_Young]

Sometimes I really get flustered with all this stuff....
I mean:
Would Bobby Jones have even won the Ga State Am if he came along today?  No
Would some of the signatures today even be architects if their fathers were not?  No

Are todays doctors better than yesterday's or do they just have more advances to work with?  yes to both...
Is Henry Ford a better car designer than many today..is the car better today than in 1935?  don't know but he started it....
And ODG's
Come on....these guys weren't any better or any worse....they did lay a foundation from which to advance.....and RE was not a huge factor in their designs....
The one interesting point I see in all discussions on this site regarding great golf courses both new and old is:  99% of them have cool season grasses...

Mike

The thing is I don't necessarily agree with you that Bobby Jones wouldn't have won today, that doctors are better ...You are focusing on people rather than industries or disciplines etc.  Which means you aren't giving the ODGs any credit as to being able to take advantage of current tech and other aspects which make the fields they were involved better as a whole. 

Ciao

Sean,
No problem...we can disagree on BJ...and I am willing to give the benefit of technology and other things to the ODG'd if they were around today....just as I would the captain of the Jamaican Bobsled team    BUT the one thing I never have heard an answer for on here is ...if you gave the ODG's all the modern marvels etc....and all was equal footing  WHY?  WHY? would they be better?  Did they possess some secret?   

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I don't know if those old guys  would be better than us or not.  Their one advantage (many but not all of them) would be that many would refuse jobs where the housing took priority over the golf.   

[Mike_Young]

Mike:

I don't know if those old guys  would be better than us or not.  Their one advantage (many but not all of them) would be that many would refuse jobs where the housing took priority over the golf.   

Agree....I think that is the main issue here more so than ODG designs vs. modern....the majority of the modern stuff the average guy hears about is not because it is a great design but because it has a huge budget to sell housing or hotel rooms...not all but most....and the other thing is...the ODG's had more of a passion than many of the "big boys" of today( solely my opinion..nothing to back it up)

[Jud_T]

The ODG had the advantage of being forced to work with the land they were given and create a challenge around the greens and bunkering as they couldn't move dirt to their heart's content.  There's no telling what kind of schemes they might have got up to in the 80's and 90's with the full advantage of modern tech....

[Melvyn Morrow]

Well Guys, that's nice, so I indulge in hyperbole. I feel that you will not be seeking any more information or copies of articles that I have in my possession. Nor will you want to ask me for any further information whatsoever. I now fully understand why James Braids great, great granddaughter dislikes passing on information; it seems never to be appreciated.

So if hyperbole, then the info bank has closed due to the information being exaggerated, therefore next to worthless.  

Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it or am I indulging in hyperbole again.

Melvyn

[George Pazin]

Pat,

YES, this site does try to force it's preferences on all others.....but to no avail....in most cases....I think there are many fine new courses and architects that so many on here would not give a chance....UNLESS...you placed the name of a favorite on the course and did not tel l them until they had finished praising it...   We get some major dorkfest stuff going on on this site and it's sort of like guys playing TIGER WOODS GOLF video and someone thinking they can play golf.....not true for everyone but my firends that watch this site get that impression....

How is this forcing anything?

How does anyone on here force anything on anyone?

I'm as set in my ways when it comes to preferences as anyone, in fact probably more than just about anyone, but how does that qualify in any way whatsoever as forcing my views on anyone?

I decide in advance many times where I want to play because I have limited resources, as do most in life (though perhaps not most on here ). Sure I may miss a special course occasionally, but I still manage to sleep okay in spite of this.

As I said earlier, golf is fun, I can have fun playing just about anywhere, even courses I may not choose to play if given a reasonable alternative. But there are certain things I look for when choosing a place to play - the architect's name only comes into play to the extent that I am familiar with what he MAY GENERALLY offer, or has offered in the past, so I may make the decision based on his name, but it's not really his name, it's his product.

Golf is no different from many many other businesses in that sense, whether it's writing books, cooking meals, or even printing t shirts!

So, in conclusion, no, I don't think "we" are missing the boat. Not in any meaningful sense of the word.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The ODG had the advantage of being forced to work with the land they were given and create a challenge around the greens and bunkering as they couldn't move dirt to their heart's content.  There's no telling what kind of schemes they might have got up to in the 80's and 90's with the full advantage of modern tech....

Jud,

That's not true.

The ODG's moved plenty of dirt.

NGLA, Lido and Yale being good examples.

While there was a penchant to reduce costs by minimalizing earthwork, those old dozers and steamshovels moved plenty of dirt when it was deemed desirable

There's not that much difference, tech wise, between heavy earth moving equipment in the 1920's and 1930's versus today

[Scott Warren]

Jud:

The ODG had the advantage of being forced to work with the land they were given and create a challenge around the greens and bunkering as they couldn't move dirt to their heart's content.

The thing is, most if not all of them are on record saying that moving the earth should be avoided unless absolutely necessary, and at courses like Colt's Canterbury GC in Kent, we see in holes like the 15th that large amounts of ground could be moved to built up greens.

The 4th and 8th greens at Huntercombe, the alpinisation at Royal Mid-Surrey... all examples of ODGs being able to move what is a significant amount of dirt.

I don't believe they were as limited in their ability to move earth as we think, I believe they showed restraint because a) they wanted to honour the natural shape of the land and b) it wasn't easy to move earth, but when they needed to, they could go and move good amounts.

They couldn't move it hundreds of yards with ease, but cutting and filling nearby appears to me to have been reasonably common, and may well have been responsible for the grass bunkers we see at a lot of Colt and Park Jr courses - a grass bunker is a good hazard and digging it gives you soil to build up other areas.

4th green at Huntercombe (1901) - big cut short right to fill the two-tier green, which is also built up at the back.


Canterbury #15 with a well-built-up LHS.
.

[Mike_Young]

Pat,

YES, this site does try to force it's preferences on all others.....but to no avail....in most cases....I think there are many fine new courses and architects that so many on here would not give a chance....UNLESS...you placed the name of a favorite on the course and did not tel l them until they had finished praising it...   We get some major dorkfest stuff going on on this site and it's sort of like guys playing TIGER WOODS GOLF video and someone thinking they can play golf.....not true for everyone but my firends that watch this site get that impression....

How is this forcing anything?

How does anyone on here force anything on anyone?

I'm as set in my ways when it comes to preferences as anyone, in fact probably more than just about anyone, but how does that qualify in any way whatsoever as forcing my views on anyone?

I decide in advance many times where I want to play because I have limited resources, as do most in life (though perhaps not most on here ). Sure I may miss a special course occasionally, but I still manage to sleep okay in spite of this.

As I said earlier, golf is fun, I can have fun playing just about anywhere, even courses I may not choose to play if given a reasonable alternative. But there are certain things I look for when choosing a place to play - the architect's name only comes into play to the extent that I am familiar with what he MAY GENERALLY offer, or has offered in the past, so I may make the decision based on his name, but it's not really his name, it's his product.

Golf is no different from many many other businesses in that sense, whether it's writing books, cooking meals, or even printing t shirts!

So, in conclusion, no, I don't think "we" are missing the boat. Not in any meaningful sense of the word.

George,
You're right..."forcing" is not the right word...

[Scott Warren]

Well Guys, that's nice, so I indulge in hyperbole. I feel that you will not be seeking any more information or copies of articles that I have in my possession. Nor will you want to ask me for any further information whatsoever. I now fully understand why James Braids great, great granddaughter dislikes passing on information; it seems never to be appreciated.

So if hyperbole, then the info bank has closed due to the information being exaggerated, therefore next to worthless.  

Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it or am I indulging in hyperbole again.

Melvyn

That is absolute champagne Melvyn Morrow.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally,

I don't have Macdonald's book,  "Scotland's Gift" with me at the moment, but in it he clearly describes the site as hostile and unfit.

I only paraphrased Macdonald's own words in describing the site.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

I don't have Macdonald's book,  "Scotland's Gift" with me at the moment, but in it he clearly describes the site as hostile and unfit.

I only paraphrased Macdonald's own words in describing the site.

My memory could indeed be failing me Patrick... I was sure he said the opposite but it's been a while... Apologies

Could he perhaps have meant hostile and unfit from a vegetation clearing point of view? Surely the topography and features were interesting. From the limited knowledge I have of the course, it seems highly unlikely that he created all of that...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ally,

He mentioned the undergrowth, but, he also mentioned that it was hostile and unfit because it was filled with bogs and swamps as well

[Adrian_Stiff]

Talking about ODGs v New ones and making comparisons is rather pointless, who know what todays architects would have done if we were in 1880, who knows what Old Tom would do hiding cart paths if he were today. They did what they had to work with then with the better land, today we usually have to make it.

[Bill_McBride]

The ODG had the advantage of being forced to work with the land they were given and create a challenge around the greens and bunkering as they couldn't move dirt to their heart's content.  There's no telling what kind of schemes they might have got up to in the 80's and 90's with the full advantage of modern tech....

Jud,

That's not true.

The ODG's moved plenty of dirt.

NGLA, Lido and Yale being good examples.

While there was a penchant to reduce costs by minimalizing earthwork, those old dozers and steamshovels moved plenty of dirt when it was deemed desirable

There's not that much difference, tech wise, between heavy earth moving equipment in the 1920's and 1930's versus today

There's not that much difference, tech wise, between heavy earth moving equipment in the 1920's and 1930's versus today


.....except that many courses in the '20s were built with horses or mules with scrapers and pans, and men, lots of men.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The ODG had the advantage of being forced to work with the land they were given and create a challenge around the greens and bunkering as they couldn't move dirt to their heart's content.  There's no telling what kind of schemes they might have got up to in the 80's and 90's with the full advantage of modern tech....

Jud,

That's not true.

The ODG's moved plenty of dirt.

NGLA, Lido and Yale being good examples.

While there was a penchant to reduce costs by minimalizing earthwork, those old dozers and steamshovels moved plenty of dirt when it was deemed desirable

There's not that much difference, tech wise, between heavy earth moving equipment in the 1920's and 1930's versus today

There's not that much difference, tech wise, between heavy earth moving equipment in the 1920's and 1930's versus today


.....except that many courses in the '20s were built with horses or mules with scrapers and pans, and men, lots of men.


Which courses didn't utilize mechanized equipment during construction ?

[JC Jones]

Pat,

Belvedere Golf Club in Charlevoix, Michigan (built 1925-1927) used 115 men and 5 teams of horses to build the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Belvedere Golf Club in Charlevoix, Michigan (built 1925-1927) used 115 men and 5 teams of horses to build the course.

How do you know that NO mechanized equipment was used ?

No trucks, tractors or dozers ?

[JC Jones]

Pat,

Belvedere Golf Club in Charlevoix, Michigan (built 1925-1927) used 115 men and 5 teams of horses to build the course.

How do you know that NO mechanized equipment was used ?

Logic and reading comprehension. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()