The interesting point about Simpson and his generation is how they seem to forget to understand the qualities or should I say the actual procedures of their predecessors.
Simpson and Co certainly moved GCA further along its path of development, however in doing so appeared to dismiss the 19th Century Designers fundamental contributions to the design process.
Over the last few months, it has been made clear that the whole project from design to opening of the course generally took around 3 months. The Design AM, Course ready PM is not correct being a total misunderstanding of the procedure of the Early Designers. That is not to say that designers did not peg a course AM then try and play a round PM on the rough ground, but there was a reason for this and which can be found in articles dating back to the late 19th Century (more on that at a later time perhaps).
Nevertheless, its seems Simpson and many of his counterparts seemed happy to criticise their predecessors, yet being so close in the timeline of the 19th Century, one has to wonder why.
Please let’s not forget that when golf exploded on to the Scottish scene, it was through popular support with the rich, landed gentry and the general population at large, no longer restricted to the super rich. Money was tight, as the clubs attracted more Members, more money was accumulated allowing better purchase or lease of land for courses and to build clubhouses. Also let’s not forget that courses, the railways and steamers (boats) were closely linked with golf allowing easy access for the day-trippers and more revenue for the small clubs. The Nation seemed to come together and support the introduction of courses for the good of the game and golfers. However, south across the boarder, when the club scene started (predominately inland) it was slightly more elevated with finance not being a major factor as it had been at the start of the Scottish explosion. Technology and the popularity of the game was already well known by the real expanse into England, plus the type of golfers being attracted to the game allowing more access to the finances.
I feel very disappointed when I read the comments of Simpson and the likes when they refer to Old Tom etc,. They come across (IMHO) as seeming to be totally unconnected to their own industry and actually scathing, however they clearly did not bother to find out the original brief, financial constraints, quality and state of the available land. They certainly should have remembered the tools (labour and assisted labour/mechanical means) at the disposal of the original designers.
Simpson & Co make statements on their predecessors, but not well informed nor totally that accurate. They would appear to have forgotten that Allen Robertson, Old Tom and the other 19th Century Designers did not just continue a process (as Simpson was doing), but actually started the modern design concept. It was a slow development of learning, of evolving, GCA did not just appear overnight, nor was the money ready available and the courses consisted of the odd bit of useless land (to the farmer/land owner) which was not being used. GCA as we know it started in the mid 19th Century, it was developed and processes improved, as did the location of the late courses.
How did Simpson forget what had just occurred and what had brought him to golf in the first place? As in nearly all things there is a learning curve to follow, golf course design did not just suddenly appear on the horizon when Simpson decided it should.
Simpson was part of the learning curve, he contributed to the progress of design in golf but he had a head start, there were many established courses in his day. I do not dispute that Simpson & Co produce some great designs and golf courses, but they did not have to go through the detailed learning curves of their predecessors, it was all there at hand, they just took it to the next level. However, to call their period ‘The Golden Age’ just goes to show IMHO how the industry has forgotten its real Golden Age, it roots when the real concept of GCA was born (1840-1890’s).
Tom Simpson comments show the truth behind the individual. You make up your own minds about Simpson and Co, but please I only ask you to look to the facts before coming to a conclusion.
Simpson on the whole disappoints me, as I try to look at the full picture, so his comments in my opinion overshadow his achievements, as its shows a complete misunderstand of the history of Golf Course Design. I wonder what he may have achieved if he had embraced the full history of his industry.
Melvyn