Something is wrong, it does not make sense…..

[Melvyn Morrow]

I know the others and for simplicity I just use Simpson otherwise the page would have been fill up quotes.

Like today we have many quality designers and some who for some unknown reason regard themselves as designers producing what is, shall we say substandard courses. The definition of that depends  upon the individual and his/her tastes and commitment to the game of golf.

 Yet we must remember that inland golf course were regarded as Links courses for many years with the intention to mirror the Links courses. After all this is how they started. What interest me is that we have many good inland course during this time that went from strength to strength the likes of Crawford, Killearn, Bradford & Baildon, Dornoch,  Hellenbourgh, Huntely, Kirby Muxloe  to name but just a few both above and below the boarder, majority still in business and catering for the average golfer.

I am one who clearly places my opinion on the line but I mention specifics, I aim my comments at the clubs or individuals that are causing what I perceive to be the problem, whereas most of the inland criticism is far more generalised.

I see inland courses being regarded as poor back in the Victorian days when clearly they were not.

Melvyn

[David_Tepper]

"Have you played any old 9 Holes courses that well pre date the 1900's and are relatively unchanged."

MHM -

Can you tell us the names of some of these courses?

DT

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Melvyn,

Do you mean Prestwich (Manchester)? And do you mean Glasgow Rosemount (Blairgowrie)?

[Ulrich Mayring]

Another remark: there were no 19th century golf course architects or designers of golf holes at all, simply because these terms didn't exist then. There was no noun to describe the man, who laid out a golf course. In fact, there were no golf courses either - just links and greens. Does anyone know the semantic difference between these terms?

This may sound a bit sophistic, but I believe in order to understand the past we must first understand its language. A term like "golf course" suggests a constructed area that is clearly separated from its surroundings. It is a clearly defined property dedicated to the sole purpose of playing golf. Whereas terms like "links" or "green" suggest a rather less formalised playing field, they refer more to a general location than a dedicated property.

Therefore, in their own thinking it wasn't architecture or design that the 19th century pioneers engaged in. They themselves weren't speaking of creating great courses, but most of the time simply equating the quality of the site with the quality of the expected layout.

Ulrich

PS: the earliest criticism of Victorian golf architecture that I found is from Horace Hutchinson 1898 in his article "Artificial Bunkers".

[Melvyn Morrow]

Is or was South Inch; North Inch, come to that Blackheath Golf Course a  link, NO  - YES.
Well they seem to predate many if not the majority of the 30 or so early courses in the UK.

So when did golf move inland, was it in fact the 17th Century under the Stuarts Kings, in Scotland it was some years earlier and a different century. When was the design of these renowned courses criticised, well over a century or two and only by players who had been taught their game on the courses by the new designer from the 19th Century. Braid learnt his skill and love for the game at Earlsferry, a design from 1858 by Old Tom & G Roland. The point being is that each generation thinks of the past but in their current time frame, so we do not understand history and tend to forget it

To try and bring the post back to the original Topic that even GCA.com has condemned the 19th Century Designers by placing an untrue statement on their First page.

1.   Pre-1899: The architectural skill employed in these courses is minimal and yet the lesson learned is invaluable: nature provides the most enduring challenge. The architects of this day spent only one or two days on site to stake out the tees and greens. They had few decisions to make: they didn’t have the ability to move much land. These courses have been largely modified over the past century to adjust to equipment changes.
2.   1900-1937: For the first time, architects started to move and shape land to create hazards and add strategic interest. Such work started with the heathland courses outside of London and men like Charles Blair Macdonald brought it to America, where he coined the term ‘golf architect’ around 1910. Tom Simpson called the Roaring Twenties the ‘Golden Age’ of course design, and he was right.

To recap – TOC required much architectural skill to produce a course that nearly double in size with 30-40years yet still interesting enough to many designers who keep coming back to try to further understand it. That doubling was undertaken by Man from the mid 1800, to the latter years of the 19th Century. Nature did not do that, she did not create new holes, bunkers, reclaim land from the sea to achieve these new holes.
What about one or two days to stake out a course, so why does the record show that courses took on average 3 months to design and build, some much longer.
Few decisions to be made, Christ this was in the middle of the Golfing explosion, when the design of a course was developing, standardising all its basic fundamentals sizes and systems – time was taken to study holes collapsing leading to the tin cup being invented, then what about understand of the quality that sand brings to grass, exploring hazards while allowing for alternative ways to navigate the course for the lesser skill or less adventurous golfer. This was the time of massive architectural and design thinking only governed by the land, budgets and money. 
So they did not have the ability to move much land, yet as I said the Suez Canal was built in the 1850/60’s, proving that statement inaccurate, but yes they were still governed by budget constraints which limited their efforts .
The course had been largely modified  over the past century – wow that’s news, what about the Castle Course that’s being modernised or is it being corrected, what about the other newish St Andrews courses, not a century old but have had major facelifts, but we are informed by the R&A that it’s not because the ball travelling further. Also what about the modern courses by the second Golden Age designers, are we saying they have not been modernised.

The problem is my point from the start, those that followed the 19th Century designers seemed to have forgotten much of their predecessor’s endeavours deciding to criticise in general presumably thanks to their lack of interest in their industry or come to that general history.

What I do not understand is why do we give these followers the accolade of being alive in the Golden Age of Golf, that IMHO is only worthy of the original pioneers and the 20th century guys where certainly not that, just part of the continued development of the game and courses.  Not the ground breaking development of their predecessors. 

I give all credit to the work and designs of Colt, Simpson and the likes but they just continued the work, they did not start it. 

The only reason these guys were able to criticise was down to these early designers they were actually criticizing. Yet their achievement they made allowed others to take the batten and further continue their original good work. If the criticism was only aimed at the bad apples within the 19th Century Group, then they may have a point but it does not seem to have been.

In closing, I was told by a very wise friend and boss that we should not condemn, criticise or laugh at a designs by another unless we are aware of the full facts that generated that specific design i.e. clients brief, budget and the site conditions. For 30 years I followed his advice, even when I noted some shocking designs. I have for my sins sat through a client’s briefs, noting that the budget and site rendered the project a potential ‘non-starter’ unless fundamental changed by the client. If no changes then one should walk away, as ones reputation takes years to build but can be destroyed overnight on one project. No matter how tight the market became in the early 1990’s we walked away from projects that we believe were doomed or would turn out to be a money pit. Unless we know the design brief we should not attack another colleague’s design. 

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mark R

In answer to your question and any confusion I may have caused

The Blairgowrie Golf Club  Wee Course
http://www.theblairgowriegolfclub.co.uk/

Glasgow Golf Club Killermont
http://www.glasgowgailes-golf.com/killermont.asp

Prestwick Golf Club
http://www.prestwickgc.co.uk/

Melvyn

[Niall C]

Killermont, home of Glasgow Golf Club was I believe Old Tom's second last design and his last 18 hole design. The existing routing is all his and the main changes since were a 1923 (?) overhaul of the bunkering scheme by Braid which from memory may have involved moving the 3rd green back a bit and moving some tees back a bit, but otherwise its pretty well all Old Tom. The course is a very fine and enjoyable parkland layout, made more interesting by the number of half par holes which in fairness and somewhat ironically you would have to credit to advances in technology rather than course design. Too short and congested for tournament golf but for the likes of this DG its well worth a play if you get the opportunity.

Niall

[Niall C]

Another remark: there were no 19th century golf course architects or designers of golf holes at all, simply because these terms didn't exist then. There was no noun to describe the man, who laid out a golf course. In fact, there were no golf courses either - just links and greens. Does anyone know the semantic difference between these terms?

This may sound a bit sophistic, but I believe in order to understand the past we must first understand its language. A term like "golf course" suggests a constructed area that is clearly separated from its surroundings. It is a clearly defined property dedicated to the sole purpose of playing golf. Whereas terms like "links" or "green" suggest a rather less formalised playing field, they refer more to a general location than a dedicated property.

Therefore, in their own thinking it wasn't architecture or design that the 19th century pioneers engaged in. They themselves weren't speaking of creating great courses, but most of the time simply equating the quality of the site with the quality of the expected layout.

Ulrich

PS: the earliest criticism of Victorian golf architecture that I found is from Horace Hutchinson 1898 in his article "Artificial Bunkers".

Ulrich

You raise some interesting points. Its clear the language for golf evolved however just because that in the 1890's the phrase golf course architect had not been coined doesn't mean that someone wasn't doing that very job. Clearly they were or no courses would have been built. I suspect the term came into use to differentiate between those that built the course and those that designed it back when those two roles became seperated.

Niall

[Ulrich Mayring]

Niall, exactly. Charles Blair Macdonald coined the term at the beginning of the 20th century.

What the absence of such a term tells you is that in their own thinking the professionals were not doing architecture or design, they were either laying out (staking) or constructing a course. Do we currently have a term for someone, who designs a football pitch?

Ulrich

[Niall C]

Ulrich

Interestingly I have a good friend who both designs golf courses (when he gets the chance) and designs/builds football and rugby pitches as well. The design factor in the football pitches is all about the amount of cut and fill required as the size of the pitch is a given, the build spec ie. rootzone etc is a given and so on. The basic difference between the golf course and the football pitch is there is no artistic licence given in building a football pitch. Having said that I'm sure your average landscape architect would tell you that they could do the job.

In one of your other posts you refer to Willard Moss and the standardising of golf courses. I think the golden age guys were just as "guilty" of formulaic design as the Victorian guys after all it was the golden age guys who killed off anything other than 18 hole golf courses and while they might not have been precise in yardage terms as to what made a good 1 shotter, 2 shotter and 3 shotter they pretty well stuck to within certain parameters. Where they undoubtedly scored over the earlier guys is that they evolved some more interesting strategies where nature was deficient and in doing so dressed up their work better than the earlier guys. Like you ( I think) the Victorian guys were the building block that later generations built on.

Niall

[Ulrich Mayring]

Niall, what you call "artistic license" is exactly what I think is the difference between Victorian and Golden Age architects. The notion of the job involving creativity and artistic sensibilities is what differentiates designing a football pitch from a golf course from a painting. Meaning that there are certain formalisms in anything you do, but the painter can let his artistic passion flow more freely than the golf course architect than the football pitch guy.

All are doing respectable work, it is largely their clients, who define the relation of artistry vs. formalism. In that sense I can understand Melvin's point that Simpson shouldn't have criticised the Victorian architects, he should have held the clients responsible for wanting the wrong thing. But there are always two sides to a story, one who tells it and one who listens.

Ulrich

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ulrich

Who is to say it's wrong, Simpson, who knew zero about the brief and his comments were half a century later.

Also let’s look at design and do we need to say any more when it comes to the  Redan Hole design? It’s the most talked about hole on this site, it pre dated 1877 by some years and was right in the middle of the period I am talking about. If no design or architectural intent/input why is it so highly regarded?

The problem is very few understand the early designers, let alone their MO. That’s because their methods, thanks to comments we see at the front of this site and comments from past designers did not warrant investigation, after all they were the stake and play boys who worked for 1 or 2 days.

MY point is for the most part this is total bullshit and ignorance due to lack of understand of their in depth methods. Ask yourself, why were models made at times instead of detailed plans, well you will have to wait for an answer on that one from me as I am writing a details article on the 19th Century design procedure, explaining the stake or peg method and what it really entailed.

Simpson and others did not seem to know or want to understand, that is what I find shocking and can't understand myself because if I was in that industry, right up at the front end,  would you not want to know let alone understand your predecessors approach and methods, certainly at that wonderful time when the designs were also leading the game into to the world at large.

Why did they criticise and not try to understand, you can’t judge a man or design that’s half a century old without knowing all the facts.

Melvyn

[Ulrich Mayring]

You certainly can if you think you have all the facts. I wouldn't put it past Mr. Simpson to have thought so. And I tend to go along with his sentiments, because even though I am more than half a century removed from his designs, I am rather convinced by the results he achieved. So apparently he knew a thing or two about golf architecture.

Ulrich

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ulrich

So we have no basis for a honest discussion> Then I see no need to pass on any more info as it will be rather pointless as you have already said you go along with Simpsons sentiments.

No point in wasting my time further as its seems Simpson had all the answers.

Melvyn

[Ulrich Mayring]

What is dishonest about me saying that I tend to go along with Simpson? That is, I can assure you, a perfectly honest opinion.

But I am open to any evidence pointing out that he was wrong. For starters I would like to see this great Victorian age, inland golf architecture. That would easily convince me. I'm generally a results-oriented guy, which is why Simpson carries some caché with me - he showed me the golf to back up his admittedly rather arrogant demeanor.

Ulrich

[Scott Warren]

Ulrich

So we have no basis for a honest discussion> Then I see no need to pass on any more info as it will be rather pointless as you have already said you go along with Simpsons sentiments.

No point in wasting my time further as its seems Simpson had all the answers.

Melvyn

What a typically childish reply.

Several people have made the point in this thread that as regard's 19th Century inland golf courses, Simpson's claims seem to be on the mark.

Despite being asked several times, you've not produced anything to back up your claim that he is wrong in that respect.

If you think people are wrong, prove them wrong. Show them proof of the fantastic inland courses built before the Golden Age. Produce some literature speaking about how great they were to counter the literature that proclaims them to be poor at best.

You kep coming back to TOC and Redan, which of course says a lot.

Also,

Who is to say it's wrong, Simpson, who knew zero about the brief and his comments were half a century later.

Could you please detail your knowledge of Tom Simpson that allows you to make this claim?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ulrich

It is a turn of phrase, there is nothing dishonest in having a different point of view.

You want evidence, actually so do I as every Course or Hole that pre dates 1899 seems to confirm that architecture was involved and good design was incorporated – for that one just has to look at TOC from 1821 to 1879. Then we have North Inch in Perth which again was regarded as a great course. Remember in the early days there was no distinction between inland and coast based courses, they were both known as Links

Of course Links course by the sea outnumbered inland courses around the mid 1800’s but, they did exist and not just one.

I feel that there is very little evidence that actually supports your case apart from the criticism of a handful of guys. The very existence of these older inland courses also go a long way to prove the existence of architectural and design input.

Clearly you do not agree and want more evidence which is your right, happy hunting.

Melvyn

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn, an interesting perspective and worth considering and fleshing out, but like others I am not entirely certain you are accurately understanding what Simpson was trying to say. It would help a great deal if you could identify from where your Simpson citations came, so we could look at the context.

Because the "Golden Age" literature with which I am most familiar was definitely not condemning or selling short the great links from from the era when golf was more a Scottish tradition than a British fad.  Nor did these writers "shamelessly refuse[] to give full credit" to the era to which you refer.  Rather, it was quite the opposite.  The writers praised this era as ideal, and condemned the inland courses for not remaining true to this ideal.   

And in this regard I think perhaps you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you call "the second golden age."  It was not the condemnation of what had come before, but rather the attempt to return golf to its roots.  In other words, at least in its beginning the "second golden age" was largely about emulating the very era you think these later figures condemned.

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

The point that I tried to get across but apparently failed is that the Modern Designers of the 19th Century were far more skilled and in touch with all aspect of the game. However, you would not believe it when even a site like GCA.com effectively dismisses them as second class course designers. It implies that they had no real skill or ability. This is what I believe is the meaning of the following

1.   Pre-1899: The architectural skill employed in these courses is minimal and yet the lesson learned is invaluable: nature provides the most enduring challenge. The architects of this day spent only one or two days on site to stake out the tees and greens. They had few decisions to make: they didn’t have the ability to move much land. These courses have been largely modified over the past century to adjust to equipment changes.

To be consider so, must have been the result of  accumulative criticism of later designers be it from Simpson & Co, no matter if they were referring to inland course or not. Noting that inland course did exist before the world to the game to their heart.

From the design, the stake/peg layout, through to earth moving, we must not forget that when the game started to increase from the 30 or so original old clubs/courses, money was the constraining element not their skill or enthusiasm.

There is a real method to the staking out the course that has not been fully specified, yet many reports on the clubs preparation of their course actually explain the process which including the building work that took on average up to 3 months plus.  The main problem is that we will not tune our mind to think in terms of their era.

I believe the statements which GCA.com have attached to their main page does not as yet convey that we understand the methods of the 19th Century Designers. I also believe that the criticism no matter how intended has also played a major part in questioning the skill of the original Golden Age men of the 19th Century.

Melvyn

[Scott Warren]

So your entire research and basis for the thread is a paragraph or two from the GCA.com homepage and a couple of quotes from Simpson taken without wider context from Tom McWood's Arts and Crafts series in the IMO section?

You're also sticking to your assumption that the terms "architectural skill" and "design skill" are interchangable in the excerpt from the homepage, when all pointers are that that isn't the case.

If I arrive on a links site and lay out a golf course by taking best advantage of the land and perhaps having some local lads knock the top off a few dunes for tees and in the process create a great course, I have shown design skill, but have I demonstrated architectural skill?

[Melvyn Morrow]

The 19th Century designers also got to build courses, yet the term architect is not one that is right for Golf, but it may keep the 20th Century guys feeling at home when they do a course with in a complex.   

Design is design be it done over 10 weeks or a few hours, the quality comes from understand the clients brief and achieving the completed project within budget.

Just because you think you understand golf does not make you a designer.

As for my research, stop trying to be a newspaper man and print what you think I have said or in your case, thought.

GCA.com have made an untrue statement, for a site that believes in GCA its important that its show it understands the subject, yet if the introduction page is flawed what of the other contents, but the truth does not matter to the press as long as newspapers are sold. A pot kettle sort of thing.             

[Ulrich Mayring]

The phrase that minimal architectural skill was employed doing these courses does not mean that the guys doing it had no skills or were second-rate craftsmen. I am pretty sure that a guy like Old Tom Morris knew a lot more about what makes a golf course great than some of the later architects, wo nevertheless produced better courses. And that is all the introduction says, these early inland courses did not convince, because the principles of great golf architecture weren't applied. And not that they weren't known - not even Simpson said that. He just said that these guys failed to reproduce the greatness they were familiar with.

I think you are right in assuming that the reason for this was lack of resources and not lack of skill. We are all on the same page here. Where we perhaps differ is that you think a number of great inland courses were built in the 19th century and we haven't seen them. This may be our loss, so any enlightenment in that regard is certainly welcome.

Ulrich

[Sean_A]

To be fair to Melvyn, I believe the concept of what great architecture or design (so far as golf courses are concerned I believe these to be interchangeable terms) was changed during Golden Age.  The more sporty elements such as blindness survived (only just) because there were iconic holes held up as great architecture despite many later famous architects decrying blindness as far from ideal and essentially anti-strategic.  While their opinions of blindness for the most part carried the day and blindness was slowly eliminated from the game, these fellows (at least the British designers such as Colt, Fowler, Park Jr and Dr Mac) still incorporated that element into many of their courses.  Their reasons for doing so may in some small part have been an ode to days past, but it is probable they used blindness for the same reasons as those who originally designed holes, it was expedient to do so and made the big picture of the overall design make more sense.  On the American side of the Golden Age was nothing short of an all-out assult on sporty design.  There are many examples of pre 1920s inland design in the US which more or less followed the essential principles which Colt, Fowler and Dr Mac expoused with a touch of common sense that helped keep sporty golf alive.  By the 1920s that sense of adventure was all but eliminated by this new, scientific/strategic/proper championship calibre modus operandi.  Perhaps guys like Raynor and Langford were the last tenuous connection to this lost era, but I would argue this was only in style of shaping/building, not in design principles . 

The idea of what was great architecture had been totally transformed in what amounts to just a few decades and this could help explain what happened to these wonderful inland courses in the UK, if they ever existed.  I am of the opinion that they did and some still do exist.  Painswick convinced me of this, but how many look to Painswick as an example of great architecture and the origins of this course are firmly Victorian?  Sure, we have many examples of unimaginative design trying on the cheap to nick the essence of what made some of the still enduring great elements of links architecture reproduced endlessly until "The Big Four" came along.  After the Big Four and adding in CBM once the States got involved in the act, what chance did Victorian architeture have to survive regardless of its quality?  Its amazing we have a Painswick to look at today and if anyone course should have a preservation slapped on it it surely must be Painswick.  We focus an awful lot on the man-made stuff and often the ignore that it takes (now fully recognized) an extremely talented archie to recognize that naturally existing features which aren't water or sandy wastes can be used in the creation of brilliant architecture.  Because the clumsy shaping which can often accompany these sorts of designs don't measure up to modern ideals of trying to copy nature and spend loads of dosh, often with grotesque results I might add, my guess is these courses were killed off leaving little behind to actually study or leaving the one or two holes standout holes which are greatly admired among the many competent, but uninspiring newer additions.   

Simpson may have been right that many Victorian Age archies didn't have a clue and that their work was poor at best, but I don't believe Simpson gave credit where credit was due.  That may have been because he was of the even newer breed that took the artististic and strategic side of the business to what were arguably the highest level of all the archies of his general period, but by manufacturing those designs.  He may have placed a higher significance on the hand of man over nature then even his immediate predecessors, the Big Four, but his brilliance should in no way shadow the great pre-1900 architecture that existed seaside and inland.  In large part, the issue of applying links architecture (in all its facets) to inland sites was as much a matter of resolving turf/soil issues likely more than anything else.  It is in this area where guys like Colt really showed their knowledge of the game and how it is meant to be played as superior to the Victorian designers.  Recognizing the importance of turf and soil is the backbone of what made the Golden Age possible.

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

David

The point that I tried to get across but apparently failed is that the Modern Designers of the 19th Century were far more skilled and in touch with all aspect of the game. However, you would not believe it when even a site like GCA.com effectively dismisses them as second class course designers. It implies that they had no real skill or ability. This is what I believe is the meaning of the following

1.   Pre-1899: The architectural skill employed in these courses is minimal and yet the lesson learned is invaluable: nature provides the most enduring challenge. The architects of this day spent only one or two days on site to stake out the tees and greens. They had few decisions to make: they didn’t have the ability to move much land. These courses have been largely modified over the past century to adjust to equipment changes.

To be consider so, must have been the result of  accumulative criticism of later designers be it from Simpson & Co, no matter if they were referring to inland course or not. Noting that inland course did exist before the world to the game to their heart. . . . .

Melvyn,   If your point is that the first page on gca.com is a bit of an oversimplification of the pre-1900 era, then I agree.  But it is also a bit of an oversimplification of every other era it briefly summarizes as well.   Like it or not, that is the nature of brief summaries.   I myself have no qualms with it because I take it for what it is, and know that much more meaningful and detailed content exists beyond the first page.  Tom MacWood's essays on many aspects of this early period for example.   

Also, it seems to me that you are cobbling together many different and not necessarily related aspect of an era to try to make some general statement that those early guys have not received the credit due.   But your generalizations are far too broad, you take in way to large a time period, and way to many different aspects of early design.   In other words, your critique suffers from the same shortcomings you attribute to the summary at the beginning, only moreso.

As does Ran on the first page, you try to lump all pre-1900 courses into one basket when they didn't all fit into one basket.    The difference is that Ran was just trying to provide a summary, where you are apparently trying to make a point that goes much further beyond the summary level.   

A more interesting discussion might be based on Simpson's comments, but you seem to have no familiarity with those other than what you quoted (apparently from one of Tom's essays) so it is a bit hard to take your commentary seriously in this regard.     

I do agree that oftentimes major construction took place before 1900, and that this issue is worthy of further discussion and study, but this is one aspect of the history of golf courses that few now seem to realize, and I appreciate your photos and description at changes at the Old Course, but I wouldn't say major construction was in any way the norm, so even here I am not sure I get your point. 

But as for the rest, perhaps instead of broad brushing it, perhaps you could address some specifics and focus.

For example, would it be too much to ask you to focus for the moment on the core traditional Scottish courses, from when golf was a Scottish tradition and part of life, and before it became an British and American fad, let's say from the 1870's.     
--  How specifically did the Golden Age golf designers condemn these particular courses and/or those who created them?   I can think if a few possible lines of arguable criticism, but they are rather esoteric, and you seem to have something more particular in mind, so I will await your answer.   

Thanks.
___________________________________________________________

Sean,

I don't doubt you when you claim some or a few of the early inland courses were quality courses, but was this the exception or the norm?   It seems many early commentators viewed this as the exception, but maybe they had it wrong or at least maybe some of the early inland stuff wasn't is bad as they indicated.   Trouble is, in America at least, so little of this early work survived unscathed that it very difficult to say for sure whether it was any good or not.    Is it really any different in England and Scotland?

[Jason Topp]

The writings of golden age architects often strike me as serving somewhat as advertising brochures.  Such authors would have had ample reason to downplay the quality of work of their predecessors and I think the point that such viewpoints should not be taken as gospel is a valid one.