Early Golf Pros who designed courses and supervised construction - Part Deux

[MCirba]

I started a recent thread asking which/how many of the early pros from abroad who came to this country supervised construction of their golf courses before 1910, asking from the standpoint of someone who believed (still do, actually) that most of those early courses built in the United States were one/two day onsite affairs with the individual clubs then doing the construction work.

However, I also learned quite a bit, not only from the various responses on that thread but also from private emails, such as what I’ll synopsize below from my friend Melvyn Morrow who sadly no longer participates on this site.

Melvyn was kind enough to explain to me where the whole idea of first “staking out” the course in a day or so came from, and like most things golf-related, it was based on practices in Scotland by the earliest architects such as Old Tom.   However, as you’ll see in this wonderful example, the process was much more interesting, involved, and collaborative than I’d ever known before, (I suspect others may feel the same way), and it may lead to a much deeper and richer understanding and appreciation of the methods of the earliest golf architects.   I’m not sure all of this exactly translated to the way it was done in the United States but the thinking and process is fascinating and certainly explains quite a bit.   Much obliged to Melvyn as well for his agreement to let me post the following for our mutual enjoyment and edification.


Hi Mike
Keep the good work up,  its not all a waste of time although at times I wonder. I thought I would give you some newspaper reports from 1887 of how a golf course came into being – how the designers worked with the club, well the sub committees and produced a design which was not necessary the layout that was actually played when the course opened.

The following has been taken from a study that I did re Kinghorn GC (http://kinghorngolfclub.co.uk/ ). First you will note, it’s a stake out then play report, which I suppose is where many have come to dismiss the early designs as just that, but as you read on you will note that the club took some 3 months to prepare the course for its opening day.

I would like to try and tie up the reports and give a detailed description of what actually happening to the course, its construction and development to the day it opened using the reports as a confirmation.

 The Scotsman article from the   8th February 1887 – Course Survey  & Pinning off the course layout.



The Scotsman article from the 14th February 1887 – Pinning off the course naming Holes & Club Members trying course.


The Scotsman article from the 28th February 1887 – Preparing Holes & ongoing work to the Fairways.


The Scotsman article from the  31st March 1887 – near completion & modifications undertaken on a few Holes.


The Scotsman article from the   2nd May 1887 – Course more or less ready.

 My description of the works reads as follows – Designer requested to attend and survey the site as fit for the purpose of a golf course. On completion of that the Sub Committee of the club agreed to proceed and instructed the designer to pin out the course – on this occasion it was a 9 Hole Course (not extended to 18 until 1904). After pinning out the course the sub-committee accompanied the designer around the pinned (staked) out course – through this process the Designer explained his design and the pending position of the traps/hazards/bunkers and Greens. Through this process the Members of the Sub Committee were requested to try the unprepared course and to convey an understanding of the design intent for their own needs and more importantly the need of the remainder of the committee and other club members.  

I pause here to explain my last statement – At this time plan drawings or any form of drawing/sketch was rather difficult for many to understand as not common place in the 19th Century, only architects/surveyors/navigators really understood plan drawing, leaving the average man rather puzzled so it was deemed that a few from the committee attend the survey to give the OK and then proceed around the new course being pinned out with explanations as to the design purpose – then in turn play to try out the planned course then report back to the club to explain to other committee & Club Members the design principle based on the pinned out course, allowing others to play around the pinned out course to get a taste of what was in store. Sometimes suggestions were made and Holes modified during the construction process. The lack of drawings and the understanding of how to read early drawing made the design process rather intimate with the club members. You may have read that the Foulis Brothers made up models of Greens to show some clubs what they could expect, not Plasticine but real models to give their clients a real picture of what to expect as they could not understand plan drawing.

By the late 1880’s early 1890’s the bigger clubs with healthy budgets used contractors, some used gardeners to layout the course but still under the guidance of the designer. The Edinburgh builder Duff built Muirfield (1891), The New Course (1894) and later Panmures course (1897) at Barry Links. Old Tom on the smaller clubs and the less well-off would seek (to have) the club prepare the land except for the Greens and he would generally turn up with a team of workmen to undertake the work, but the further away from St Andrews the less likely to bring workmen with him, then it was generally the clubs under their own Green Keeper who would make notes of OTM requirements and do the work with their on-site team.

Re Drawings – if you enquire with many of the clubs who display their early course plans on their walls and show the date say 1888, it’s not the date of the drawing but what the course looked like on that date, as the drawing most probably was gifted to the club years after the event by some retiring Member. So the date relates to the course layout on the date the drawing was made – classic example was some misunderstanding that Hall Blyth drawing was produced 6-7 months after Muirfield opened and that the construction drawing used by the contractor was dated 4 months before the course opened.

 The general rule of thumb was for the club to arrange its people to cut the fairways ready for traps/hazards/bunkers to be built by the designers as well as the final location of the Greens and their first Hole. On average anything from 10-14 day was the gap between each return of the designer to the club, thus keeping costs down and manual work in-house. There are those courses that have consumed way more time and required constant attendance of the designer who actually supervised the actual work, i.e. Westward Ho!, Newtonmore, in part Cruden Bay – early years 1894-97, yet courses like Lahinch, Guernsey just required the designer for 4-7 days leaving it to the Green Keeper to undertake the work on the basis of the designer’s plans.

 Design in the 19th Century is  a little more detailed and complex than above but that gives you the brief of the design format in the mid 1800’s – this was the time that the likes of Ross, Foulis Brothers, Campbell, Fernie. Mackie, and many more names beside trained under the big name of design in the 19th Century – like Old Tom, Dunn etc. etc. before themselves going over the pond to the USA in the 1890’s.

Sorry, it’s a little confusing but as you can see the pinning out the course was far more complicated that many think, mainly due to ignorance of how to read drawings – but one can see how the idea of staking out the course AM and playing it PM took hold, but its not even a quarter of the story.  Not certain if I have helped or not but the Scots that went to the USA in the 1890s were trained this way, including Ross, be it by Old Tom or Sutherland from Dornoch.

 There are other examples of other designers coming and going to sites but the key is drawings/sketches or the lack of them due to not understanding how to read plan drawings. Hence this memory of Design in the morning Play in the afternoon. You could not have a real game on ground still untouched or required scything let alone the Greens not properly prepared let alone located, but it gave the few guys following the Designer the idea of what the course would be like – so they could then walk around the staked course explaining to the rest of their Members the concept behind the layout. At times some Members were not happy not certain they feel it was right so you find that on the Designers return one or two Holes underwent changes changed, usually in defining length.  

Also remember that only natural hazards appeared at this stage of the design, bunkers not generally being installed or even located until the club members played the course many times – also some courses did not get their bunkers for some 3-6 months after the course was opened to allow the divots to expose the common landing/fairway shot sites. As I mentioned to see a designer return 3 or 4 times was not surprising at all. If the club was established and the course required mods or redesign then attendance was much shorter with just a day or two to familiarise the designer with the existing course/land. By the second day the designer would be accompanied by some of the members of the committees as well as the Green Keeper. The Designer would explain his changes in detail for the Green Keeper and his staff to undertake the work – Lahinch describes this well.

I feel that Design in the 19th Century was kept honest by the ability of the club to understand much about their pending course. It eased anticipations and rendered the Members with a real understanding of what golf and design was all about as living with the build so were able to experience the development of the new course or the redesign of the existing. Something missing today, more through apathy of the club members (perhaps through ignorance of this procedure) and/or the numbers involved in the design process from the Design House.

I do believe and seeing comments and reports from Designers and Green Keepers who experienced both from the 19th and early 20th Century that they too thought that the 19th Century methods were far better for the game and design – I just can’t understand why those that followed who we today call the Golden Age Designers get first that title and second how they have totally forgotten the 19th Century Design procedure calling it the Dark Ages?

 This is why I wish modern designers would look to their industry’s history, its really rich in understanding of the concept of golf , design and converting that into the natural using Nature but always through the eyes, mind and hands of Man.  

Warm regards
Melvyn  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sounds remarkably like the info posted on EGPWDASC-Part 1. 

[MCirba]

Jim,

If someone previously described an iterative process on that other thread where a pro staked out a course in a day or so, then had club members play it "raw" and suggest revisions, with more to follow, all prior to any clearing or construction I'm sorry but I missed it.    I think this methodology is elegant in its simplicity and economy.

[Jim_Kennedy]

What do you think the building committees were doing when they received a stake job, sitting on their duffs?

[MCirba]

Here's the final May 1887 article Melvyn referred to earlier.




Jim,

No, I thought the Building Committee was "building". 

Seriously, the process described herein started with Old Tom surveying and then staking (pining) the course and then playing a rough round over the unprepared "course" with the 4 members of the Executive Committee.

Six days later a team of experienced golfers travelled to Kinghorn to also play over the suggested course, presumably to gather their informed opinions and pronounced themselves highly satisfied.

Two weeks later more of the same rough ground playing is reported on and its reported Old Tom is coming back the next day to begin the process of preparing the holes with a staff of workmen.

A month later it's reported that the work is nearing completion and that Old Tom has revised a couple of holes on his last visit.   

What is novel to me, Jim, is the idea of having experienced members play the rough course before any construction activity, but instead as an iterative process designed to garner feedback prior to construction work.   Perhaps everyone else here assumes that happened but I know I never did, nor have I ever seen it spelled out in articles.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mike,

a very interesting look back at how some courses were constructed in the early days. I had always thought that the old adage of 18 stakes in the ground in one day was a little simplistic to be the case but did not think that the likes of OTM worked in the way they apparently did. I have said it before that this site is all the poorer since Melvyn was hounded of it.

Jon

[Jim_Kennedy]

I don't see it as any more of a "novel" approach than the many heads that gave Dunn advice when he was at Ekwanok. 

[MCirba]

Jim,

You really don't see this as a more planned, systematic approach of how to work with a new club?  I always had the feeling that the Ekwanok advice was more organic, and perhaps even unsolicited by Dunn.

[Sven Nilsen]

Jim,

You really don't see this as a more planned, systematic approach of how to work with a new club?  I always had the feeling that the Ekwanok advice was more organic, and perhaps even unsolicited by Dunn.

If we assigned danger levels for the veracity of research, I think a "feeling" would sit well below having "a little knowledge."

[Peter Pallotta]

Sven, Jim - maybe I'm misreading you, but I'm not getting what seems like the disrespectful/dismissive tone you're directing at Mr C here. Goodness knows he's been toiling away in golf's historical mines for at least a decade now, and with an almost unquenchable thirst for primary research, discussion and debate. Now, there's no reason in the world that anyone would/should engage someone like *me* on such threads (as I am, at best, an interested dabbler), but I have to think that Mike (and Joe B) have earned more regard in this area than your one sentence responses suggest -- even if for nothing more than the interest/quality of the co-temporary reports they've presented on *this*  thread. But again, maybe I'm misreading you guys

Peter  

[DMoriarty]

Peter, have you been paying close attention to the progression of Mike's "analysis" over the past few weeks which ultimately lead us to this thread?  Here it is captured on video . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU7CREC8q90

If anything I think Jim and Sven deserve commendation for the restraint they've shown in dealing with Mike's "Yakety Saks" approach.  They are obviously better men than me in this regard.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sven, Jim - maybe I'm misreading you, but I'm not getting what seems like the disrespectful/dismissive tone you're directing at Mr C here. Goodness knows he's been toiling away in golf's historical mines for at least a decade now, and with an almost unquenchable thirst for primary research, discussion and debate. Now, there's no reason in the world that anyone would/should engage someone like *me* on such threads (as I am, at best, an interested dabbler), but I have to think that Mike (and Joe B) have earned more regard in this area than your one sentence responses suggest -- even if for nothing more than the interest/quality of the co-temporary reports they've presented on *this*  thread. But again, maybe I'm misreading you guys

Peter  

Pete,
You are - ask Mike.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
It's just a one-off article from MM, there's no reason to believe that it describes a widespread practice. 

...and Peter, I'm not lisping when I'm being pithy.  

[Sven Nilsen]

Peter:

Everything Mike is writing is rooted in "debates" from years ago.

I have no interest in furthering that saga.

Turn the page.

Sven

[MCirba]

Rough neighborhood. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,

What would be a novelty in 1887 America would be having the likes of Messrs. McPherson, Kirkcaldy, Robertson, and Burntisland come and inspect your initial layout.   

[MCirba]

Peter:

Everything Mike is writing is rooted in "debates" from years ago.

I have no interest in furthering that saga.

Turn the page.

Sven

Sven,

I'm really not sure what to make of that comment but since returning I've written about our efforts to research the architectural history of Phoenixville Country Club, provided early articles to supplement Joe's on the beginnings of Oakmont, asked where Henry Clay Fownes may have learned about golf courses to build such an impressive first effort out of the box in 1904, contributed articles and evidence to your "History's Mysteries" thread on courses like Rock Creek Park...hell, I even bought a book to find out more about that one, updated the old West Chester Country Club thread as we try to uncover more about that course's origins, started threads asking about how much early pros were paid, (partly because I didn't know and partly because I was trying to see if paying someone $17.80 in 1915 was reasonable payment for laying out a golf course based on a payment for "professional services" I had seen in the Phoenixville Minutes), started a thread on the dangers of a "little information" having been burned similarly in the past, and have tried to avoid responding in kind to unkind comments.

On this thread I was very surprised to learn the way Old Tom Morris interactively worked with clubs over a period of time in an iterative process and to me it was very different than what's often described as "18 stakes on a Saturday afternoon" that seems to be an over-simplification of the work involved.   I was guilty of that same misunderstanding and thought others might benefit from a more detailed understanding.

One of the major reasons I came back to GCA is that I was intrigued by the research work you were doing and also Jim Kennedy's.   If either of you find my threads or posts or questions annoying I'm disappointed but I'm comfortable that my motives in returning are good ones looking to help the research work and continue to learn from others digging.   I welcome your knowledge but you don't really need to participate in my threads if you're just looking to shut them down and discourage discussion based on some predisposition of why I'm here.  

I knew when I came back here that I'd have a target on my back for some who see me as a proxy for others long gone from this group, and that's ok, frankly.   That's not my problem, is it?    I speak for myself, not others.  

When I returned to this site Ran told me to "Have fun!", which is what I'll continue to do.  To me, this is a hobby that gives me a lot of pleasure and I would appreciate simply a collegial, civil approach from others who have a similar passion.

Thanks.