[David Kelly]

Tillinghast was really bugged by the bunkers and "pits" at TOC.  From "Reminiscences of the Links" which is a reprint of an article from Golf Illustrated, May, 1930 (or Golf, Jan-June, 1901 the editors were a little unclear):

^{"The one criticism of the course that I have to offer concerns the placements of certain bunkers and pits.  Many may take exception to my remarks, but I do not think it proper to penalize a well executed, accurate shot.  Very often after a most satisfactory stroke, I would find my ball snugly nestling away in a hidden sand-pit. To be sure, those who are perfectly familiar with the course know every hazard, and play short when they deem a long ball dangerous, but I can testify that many a well-hit ball found an early grave; possibly my own misfortunes may have much to do with my prejudice."}

The quote above is from the February 1901 issue of Golf.  In May 1930, ATW authored a piece in Golf Illustrated called "Recollections of St. Andrews" in which he fondly described Old Tom and other characters and features from Saint Andrews circa 1900, but he does not discuss the merits of the golf course at all in the 1930 article.

Thanks.  In "Reminiscences of the Links" I guess the editors just mash the two articles together in the first chapter called, "Recollections of St. Andrews" because in the bibliography they give both citations. 

[Melvyn Morrow]

I have to ask a question - Is this a description of a most satisfactory stroke?

but I do not think it proper to penalize a well executed, accurate shot. Very often after a most satisfactory stroke, I would find my ball snugly nestling away in a hidden sand-pit.

It seems that the stroke in question may not quite qualify as a well-executed accurate shot as the writer claims. But then perhaps we need to examine the type of game he is playing. All golf shots are subject to all sorts of challenges (the whole point of the game, but please don’t tell too many as it might scare some away from playing) and anyway it’s the actual mental control the player has over his game that makes him a golfer. Alas I see just someone seeking rewards for not thinking through his game, which IMHO does not rate the shot as anywhere near what I might call ‘a most satisfactory stroke’ whatsoever.

While the player may judge a course is it not right to examine his game in the hope of resolving his potential issues that are more attributed to his own quality of play.

Melvyn

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn,  

While I doubt many here would argue with you, AWT apparently saw it different.  Anyway, I think the quote was offered because it perhaps helps explains AWT's objection to JL Low's comments regarding proper bunker placement.

[Melvyn Morrow]

DM

I sometime wonder if we read just too much into the written word of many of the second Golden Age guys.

From the early 20th Century we see reports of the game changing after it hits America, Comments that the American courses are harder, utilising more of the aerial game and their concentration on winning rather than just playing the Game. For many of us we have been taught that its best to take part, to play the game and if on a good day we are on top form we many win, but that’s just an outside bonus.

The focus in the early 20th Century re the American game was to try to eliminate stress or the use of what some called unnecessary energy to concentrate on promoting skill. Perhaps why the caddies became so popular, as well as bag stands/trolleys and ultimately why 30 years later we see the cart making great inroads into your game. Nevertheless eliminating carrying/walking (which does require the use of a fair amount of body energy) also alienates the player from actually playing the game of golf that was originally exported to America.  I feel that energy deployed for walking/carrying is so much part of the game that by trying to side line it to milk a skill level is missing the whole point of play the great game of golf. Fatigue has a part in the games makeup; to eliminate it is admitting that you can’t be bothered to play the game correctly. It’s a major part and parcel of play the game of golf

The point I suppose I am making is that the comment is based upon a slightly different game or approach to the game which many in GB at the time did not like and it was defined as the American game. Hence we see different attitudes from both side of the pond.

So we need to actually look into what is being said or written because it is at times so easy to misunderstand what it was originally based upon.

Melvyn

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn,

Speaking of reading too much into the written word of these guys . . . I cannot make the jump from what AWT wrote in 1901 to the cart issue, and I think it is an overgeneralization to make the jump to anything about "American golf" per se, especially since much of what was ongoing in golf in the US was also happening at the inland courses overseas, especially in England.

[Melvyn Morrow]

DM

Sorry Mate, can't agree, the reports are clear that GB could see a difference in the game way by around the turn of the 20th Century. It all seems to rest on hoe the game is played - as I mentioned in my last post. The belief that the aerial game was the way forward, the saving of energy as it would leave more for developing skills. The underline issue seems to me this thing called skill and what some are willing to sacrifice to gain an edge. I have published on this site past reports on the American game.

Melvyn

[JESII]

Melvyn,

How on earth does playing "the aerial game" reduce the amount of energy one uses in a round of golf?

I always assumed the idea of hitting the ball in the air all the way to the green was the result of an architectural challenge brought about by putting a hazard in front of the green...like maybe the Swilican Burn...

I thought it was a form of shot-testing.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

If it takes you two shots to hit the Green or just one - would you say that has anything to do with saving energy? Can understand how you missed that one or sorry the extra stroke .

Melvyn

[David Kelly]

If it takes you two shots to hit the Green or just one - would you say that has anything to do with saving energy? Can understand how you missed that one or sorry the extra stroke .

Unless you are on life support the difference in energy used to hit 72 shots or 110 shots spread over 3 hours is minimal to negligible.

[JESII]

Melvyn,

Are you saying it takes two strokes to reach the green when it's on the ground versus one if it's in the air? What am I missing? You connected the aerial game with wanting to reduce energy output and now seem to be saying it also let's you hit the ball fewer times?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

You said ‘How on earth does playing "the aerial game" reduce the amount of energy one uses in a round of golf?’

My answer ‘If it takes you two shots to hit the Green or just one - would you say that has anything to do with saving energy? Can understand how you missed that one or sorry the extra stroke’.

With the Haskell the aerial game was easier that with the gutty, meaning more distance, I believe a report from the 1920/30 said the 18 yards was the distance between the Haskell vs the Gutty, although that is from memory.

MY point or what I am saying is that the American game from the early 20th Century was looking to reduce the input of energy in the hope that would allow the developing skill.

Melvyn

[JESII]

Got it, thank you. I hadn't made the connection.

How long were the courses played with the guttie?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jim

Around 6,000yards although most more around the 5-6000 mark or are you looking at the years the gutty ball was used, if so in that case around 50years  in its various forms

Melvyn

[JESII]

I was looking for the yardage of the courses...thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Jim

You said ‘How on earth does playing "the aerial game" reduce the amount of energy one uses in a round of golf?’

My answer ‘If it takes you two shots to hit the Green or just one - would you say that has anything to do with saving energy? Can understand how you missed that one or sorry the extra stroke’.

With the Haskell the aerial game was easier that with the gutty, meaning more distance, I believe a report from the 1920/30 said the 18 yards was the distance between the Haskell vs the Gutty, although that is from memory.

MY point or what I am saying is that the American game from the early 20th Century was looking to reduce the input of energy in the hope that would allow the developing skill.

Melvyn

So you think that the advent Haskell was an attempt to "reduce the input of energy?"  Don't you think it might have had something to do with the competitive advantage it gave those who used it?   The Haskell was used on both sides of the pond, was it not?  

How about the gutta?  Was the gutta an attempt to "reduce input of energy?"   I imagine it'll be hard to pin that one on American golf, though.  AWT recounts that Old Tom told him that the gutta broke up his long friendship with Allan Robertson and when Robertson found out that Old Tom played a round with the new ball.

Seriously, I think the problem with your approach here is that you are painting early American golf with too broad a brush.  Moreover, you are painting British golf with too broad a brush as well.  Many of the same things ongoing in America with the courses were also ongoing in England on the inland courses.

AWT was expressing a view of hazards that was fairly common of professionals who were laying out inland courses on both sides of the pond.  I don't think it had a thing to do with saving energy.  

[Melvyn Morrow]

David

Old Tom was related to the Robertsons of St Andrews, as for your comments, about what the American game was looking for, you may find that you might be wrong.

As for gutty/Haskell I have no problem with either, my problem is the destruction of old courses because the governing body will not control technology allowing the aerial game to go too far.

Melvyn

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()