[Richard Phinney]

JH Taylor lamenting the coming of the golden age of golf architecture.

Let me get back on to the trackof my original theme and try andhelp the reader to realize that theheavy ball may possibly be an un-justifiable appendage to the game.We in Britain have seen ruthlesslyeliminated from our links the crossbunker.It is a very rare thingindeed to see on any course thismost effective trap. True, we docome across occasionally a deep,wide abyss that has to be crossedin the progress to the hole, but theold rampart-like structure thatreared its head, proudly bidding de-fiance to one and all is gone. Thepurely artificial links will not tol-erate it. I have often wonderedwhy. We are told that the originof the word "links" are those wasteplaces by the sea where the gamewas first played. Such a place isSandwich and Westward Ho! inEngland, Monifirth and Montrose in Scotland, but even there, whichshould be sacred, the blightinghand of the modern improver (?)is seen. Hills have been removed,passages cut through miniaturemountains in order that the playershould not lose distance by havingto hit a moderately high ball tocarry them. I am thoroughly con-vinced that golf was meant to beplayed in the air. The ball wasnever meant to be trundled towardthe hole. Obstructions should becarried boldly. The usual flat de-pression that goes by the name ofbunker is as often as not jumpedand taken in the stride as the ballgoes scuttling along. There is nota prettier strike in the game thanthe high dropping shot up to thehole guarded by a high bunker.This requires great incubus ofjudgment in elevation and strengthand betrays the hand of the mas-ter when successful. This sentinelthat guarded the approach to thehole so effectively was condemnedfor no convincing reason and wasswept away with impunity withoutscarcely a plea being heard in itsdefense.The high cross bunkerwas the last remaining link thatbound the golfer of the early nine-ties to those old stalwarts of a gen-eration before and it was hard to see its passing. It was the swansong of the lighter ball, as, by itspassing, the heavier ball came intoits illicit own. By its greater den-sity and momentum it could not be nulled up when the high obstaclewas close up to the green andtherefore it was decreed that itmust go, and with its going wasrung the death knell of the longhigh-dropping stroke.We nowsee that the ground is clear fora long way directly in front ofthe green so that the lumberingheavy ball may be propelled witha low trajectory and undignifiedgait. Gone forever I fear is theboldly pitched up mashie shot,pitched to within a few yards ofthe pin. At a distance of 130 yardsor so we tremblingly drop it wellshort, hoping that with good luckin its run it may eventually cometo rest on the green somewhere,

[Sean_A]

Richard

It is an interesting article and perhaps partly why JH was considered a penal architect compared to the great archies of his time.  Ironically, I don't have many memories of forced carry bunkers on JH courses - especially those done with Hawtree.  In fact, these courses are the epitome of strategy and perhaps this strict reliance to the code is what is essentially lacking in those courses - which is a double irony since JH wanted more trouble that must be dealt with.

Ciao 

[TEPaul]

Richard:

As with most things J.H. Taylor said and wrote, and particularly on the subject of bunkering or man-made hazards, this one both confuses me and raises more questions than it answers.

It has always seemed to me that somehow Taylor was caught in something of a two-way stretch between two distinct eras-----eg old golf and architecture and equipment and new golf and architecture and equipment (basically the old era of so-called "penal" architecture and the new philosophical era of "strategic" or modern architecture) and he never quite made up his mind which way to go on any or all of it.

[TEPaul]

Richard:

To show you some of what I mean on #2 you should read and carefully consider an IMO piece on here that was posted some years ago entitled "In Praise of the Ralph Miller Library" by Tommy Naccarato. Most of the piece is a bunker or hazard treatise by Taylor about the progressive excellence of what is often referred to as "Mid Surrey mounding" which Taylor claims to have invented with Mid Surrey's Peter Leas.

Basically, it is one of the first architectural expressions and applications of what might be referred to as the philosophy of "progressive penalty."

[Tom MacWood]

Richard
What is the date of that excerpt?

[TEPaul]

I'm betting that excerpt pre-dates Taylor's Mid-Surrey Mounding architectural brainstorm which as I recall was somewhere around 1906-1909!! 

Just another good example of the benefits of timelining.

[Richard Phinney]

Richard
What is the date of that excerpt?

I was afraid you were going to ask that...its from Golf Illustrated, and I think TE Paul is correct  that it is probably right around the turn of the century. I pulled it from somwhere on when researching the book on Montrose but didn't record the date....

[Tom MacWood]

Taylor had such a long design career (three decades plus) I think it is difficult to pigeon hole him based on something written early on.

[TEPaul]

Richard:

If Taylor wrote that right around the turn of the century you can very definitely expect that his ideas on bunkers and hazard features evolved and changed substantially in the next few years to come and the primary way it did was with what he felt was his revolutionary idea often called "Mid Surrey Mounding."


Again, just another good example of the benefits of "timelining."

[Niall C]

Its maybe not surprising that Taylor lamented the passing of the cross bunker as one of the strong points of his game was his pitching. Looking at photos of courses he did later with Hawtree, they mostly appear to be quite heavily bunkered, very artfully done admittedly, but heavily done nonetheless. Hard to see what startegy was intended in a sea of bunkers but then I'm judging him on a few snapshots.

I suspect as time went by a lot of those bunkers got taken out.

Niall

[Dave McCollum]

Typical touring pro liking features that suit his game while making the course more difficult for the less skilled?

[PThomas]

cross bunkers rock....wish they hadnt gone out of style/glad to see at least some

[TEPaul]

What really surprised me about that quote from Taylor is what he said about the flight and stopping characteristics of the old ball (guttie?) compared to the new ball (apparently the wound Haskell).

[RSLivingston_III]

The first chapter of Vardons 1912 book (How to play Golf) is very comparable to Taylors statements.
He was calling for a return of cross bunkers to force players to learn to hit properly struck shots. He was complaining about the flat hooky swing that was coming into vogue.

On the rare chance you have a chance to play gutty era golf with a REAL Gutta ball and authentic era clubs, you would find out exactly what Taylor was talking about regarding the flight of the gutty ball.For example, an approach shot will get up there and seeming just run out of gas and fall straight down to earth. On a firm green it will only take 2-3 little bounces before settling dead where it hit. Gutty golf was an airborne game from the explosion of the Irons (1870's) up through the beginning of the twentieth century. The feather ball was the first iteration of the ball being played on the ground and then the rubber ball brought it back for the lesser player.

[Tom MacWood]

Hutchinson and Darwin lamented the elimination of the cross-bunker. There point being no feature is entirely bad or good, just the overuse of one or the other, variety is what you seek

[Melvyn Morrow]

[TEPaul]

"Hutchinson and Darwin lamented the elimination of the cross-bunker. There (sic) point being no feature is entirely bad or good, just the overuse of one or the other, variety is what you seek."



I think that is a most valid point (by Hutchinson and Darwin). The trick with architecture is never to look at something and assume that it should be either all black OR all white----eg always either ALL one way OR ALL the other way!!

It is instructional to know that perhaps the golf course that has held the #1 position in the country or even perhaps the world more than any other over the last many decades---Pine Valley---has a number of cross-bunkers or hazards, and always has had.

And to make things even more interesting, their strategic implications to the crack player today versus when the golf course was built to the crack player has done a virtual strategic flip-flop.

Perhaps just another example of how really excellent architecture has a way of both strategically transmogrifing and enduring as it was designed and built!

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

That is a totally fascinating article on your Post #15.

So much for the everlasting glory of the so-called "ground game" strategic philosophy!

It seems like the more we learn about the past the more we need to know about it.

Obviously, one of the real problems in golf back in that era was there was virtually no form of standardization in golf's implements and balls, at least with the regulatory organizations----the R&A and USGA.

[Phil_the_Author]

Richard,

It's from the May 1920 issue of Golf Illustrated.

[TEPaul]

Philip:

Thank you for posting that article and also for identifying the date and place of it. It is most interesting in the context of this particular thread. God is it frightening how much is on my computer I've never really looked at and/or seriously considered.

Thanks again, Phil.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Put me down as someone who, when the land allows for it, loves to find a cross buner on a course.

[Sean_A]

I thought it was understood by all (most?) that the ground game's he day started when the BOUNDING BILLY was introduced.  This is also the time when many clubs revamped their courses and added yards.  I have not heard much about playing the ground game with the Gutty.  In fact, if folks picked up on absolutely tons of hints in the old literature, good players complained a bit about the condition of some courses allowing for the Haskell to be more easily struck in the air (but still more difficult to control once it landed) compared to more down and dirty older style conditions - presumably less lush times.  This too was a time for improved agronomy and much more aggressive seed companies vying for business.  

By the by, there are few hazards iin golf which bring a smile to my face in quite the same manner as after seeing a Fowler cross bunker - I mean a proper cross bunker that one can't sneak around.  My, what a sight they are.

Ciao  

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom P

Have I not said that I have little faith in the R&A and all our golfing authorities. They have consistently been unable or unwilling to control technology - this is why we are having problems today.

The article I posted was from July 1937 referring back some 17 years to the 1920's, clearly very little had changed.

Yet I suppose that The R&A by their inaction gave us a consistency but the idiots forgot the bloody courses (golfs great assets) which took the brunt of the improving technology - not much changed then over the years.

To be quite honest the quality and the performance coming from the R&A over the last 100years has been well below Par, perhaps we need to ask them for some documentation before allowing them to interfere with our course.

WE need to face facts and standardise throughout, uniformity of equipment is a must and any new designs that adds yards to a shot needs to be banned as one’s score should only reflect one’s ability and performance on the day. The equipment should not be an aid to the golfer, to make it so diminishes the natural pleasure of the game as well as the credibility of the golfer IMHO.

It is time to stop making longer courses and cut back on the hi-tech equipment (ball and Clubs) where the problem lies.

The blatant stupidity of constantly trying to increase a golf course compared to the little expense of ball and club roll back is just beyond belief. It seem to display a total contempt for the game, so why are they still in power?

Tom, how long do we give our governing authorities before expecting them to perform, another 100 years, Hell, left to them golf will be fully computerised and all the courses sold off to the highest bidder with very little regret.

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

I'll tell you, I definitely learned a whole lot with this thread about the flight and playing characteristics of the old time balls from the gutty to the Haskell I never knew or imagined.

The "floater" got a ton of press and support through those years of the 20s and 30s and from some very important people in golf and architecture and I believe the USGA actually legislated it or something very close to it but the problem was the golfing public apparently hated it and so they gave it up as a conformance requirement within a year or perhaps two in the 1930s.

I hear you on your disappointment with the two I&B regulatory associations, but if they were taken out of the equation who do you suppose would replace them at this point?

Do you think you could start another entity that can take control of golf, at this point, the way you think it should be, Melvyn?

By the way, do you even know who the R&A is, at this point? I think I asked you that or I posted who they are as of 2004 but you never responded.

[RSLivingston_III]

I thought it was understood by all (most?) that the ground game's he day started when the BOUNDING BILLY was introduced.  This is also the time when many clubs revamped their courses and added yards.  I have not heard much about playing the ground game with the Gutty.  In fact, if folks picked up on absolutely tons of hints in the old literature, good players complained a bit about the condition of some courses allowing for the Haskell to be more easily struck in the air (but still more difficult to control once it landed) compared to more down and dirty older style conditions - presumably less lush times.  This too was a time for improved agronomy and much more aggressive seed companies vying for business.  

By the by, there are few hazards iin golf which bring a smile to my face in quite the same manner as after seeing a Fowler cross bunker - I mean a proper cross bunker that one can't sneak around.  My, what a sight they are.

Ciao  

Sean,

I think you have a few misunderstandings about the balls.
The first true ground game was played with feather balls. The first couple of decades of the gutty were still played in this way until the development and use of Irons came about.
With the Irons coming into widespread use, the gutty became an airborne game except when the lesser players bladed/topped shots.
The Bounding Billy is not a model of ball. It is actually a derogatory term used to describe the (performance of the) Haskell when it was introduced. By comparison, gutta drops dead, or nearly so, and has little run out. The gutty needed to be thrown all the way to the hole and with the rubber ball they needed to learn to play for some run out.
Vardon complained that he couldn't watch someone playing the new ball when he was playing the gutty as it would influence his making a full enough stroke to get the ball to the hole.
The rubber balls did like to run out and it needed to be played for.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()