[Tim Gallant]

 It is finally here! Welcome to the first topic related to our GCA Winter Book Club selection: The Links by Robert Hunter

Before we get into the topic, I have to say that I really enjoyed reading the book, and on a second read, I felt there was a lot of thought-provoking ideas, theories and statements. It seems to me that Mr. Hunter was not a shy guy, and was quite sure in his convictions.

In terms of his prose, I found the book to be easy reading, and the language that he used to explain complex subjects to be quite simple. I’d be interested to know how you found the book purely from an enjoyment perspective - was it a fun read, or did it feel like a struggle?

Right! Now onto the good part. The discussion!

The Edition I have is from 1926, and a lot of what Hunter wrote about felt applicable today, but some things have certainly moved on, and we now live in a completely different world than the one that the author lived in when he penned The Links. Not just in terms of golf course architecture, but what we expect from golf and how we interact with the sport has changed.

Therefore, I thought we could intro our discussions with the following question:

What relevancy do the writings of Mr. Hunter in The Links have on golf and golf course architecture in 2020?

To kick off discussions, I have just a couple (edited way down), of interesting points that relate to my question of relevancy.

• On page 37, Hunter states ‘I have watched architects struggling desperately to get yardage and in order to get it, sacrificing without compunction holes of real quality. In today’s race to extend classic courses, I believe this is still a relevant observation
• I’ve been a broken record on this point for a while, but here is the quote from Hunter on page 43: To arouse this zest, each hole should have a character of its own. Its physiognomy should be quite distinct from that of its neighbours, and it should be one not easy to forget. Its personality should awaken your interest and cause you to question how best to approach it. Preach Robert!
• Hunter’s words on the UK’s links courses is still relevant and true: We should, however, not forget that some higher Power presides over links-land, and to those inclined to be critical that Power hands down an ultimatum much like this: There is the green which generation after generation has played. There are its pronounced slopes, its sharp ridges, its blind approach, and its other violations of your so-called sound principles. However lamentable all this may be, there it lies, and shall lie. Play it or leave it as you like.
• Hunter describes some bunkers as being there to help players avoid a worse fate. Do we give this enough attention?

With the above being true, I also believe there are a number of statements that are made that I don’t feel should be taken literally, but maybe more just as a guideline.

• Hunter objects to hidden bunkers. I think hidden bunkers need to be more relevant today as it creates doubt.
• Hunter states on page 41 that the last holes should be the most demanding and difficult. I’m not sure I agree. I believe you should take what the land gives instead of trying to fit difficult holes into a certain part of the round. Overall flow is more important that demanding placement of holes.
• Page 67, Hunter states ‘three-fourths of the area (on greens) should be made available for cutting the hole.’ Hogwash! Give me #4 at Sandwich, or give me death! Also, I’m ok with aiming outside the hole on 3 footers (See Oakmont & Myopia)

Now over to you! I’m excited to hear what others thought as it relates to the above, and more general observations. What feels particularly relevant today? What feels dated? What did you like that he wrote? What jarred with you? Calling to all those who responded in the initial thread, it would be fantastic to hear from lots of people. Especially if you didn’t like the book or some disagree with some particular statement, it would be worth debating!

Blake and Kye will follow with two additional topics in the coming weeks, so if you are disappointed by the first topic, fear not! Wiser words are on the horizon!

Now away we go!!

[Colin Macqueen]

Tim,
You quote Hunter  " ....some higher power presides over linksland ..... However lamentable all this may be, there it lies and shall lie..."


I was intrigued by this passage as it smacks of Behr's philosophy of Nature being very much a part of good golf architecture and the way Hunter writes this is very "Behr-esque".


Hunter also seems to be channeling Behr when he writes we need to " ......mould all over this golf course landscapes to refresh the soul as well as suitable playgrounds for the devotees of this noble game."


And again when Hunter talks about sea-side versus inland golf "...the sportsman when battling with Nature makes no complaint. But immediately he is faced with problems of a human origin, he feels justified, if he finds them too difficult, in turning upon their creator with murder in his heart."  Pure Behr in my opinion!


There are others and I wonder if Hunter and Behr did have communications and resorted to "beard-pulling" over a whisky or two! They were certainly in exactly the same era so not impossible. Does anyone on the forum know of any interaction between the two?


Cheers Colin

[Tom_Doak]

Forst, I had forgotten what a wonderful writer Hunter was.  Like Darwin, he makes everything so much more personal and vivid!


As for a particularly relevant quote, you chose one that also struck me:




There is the green over which generation after generation has played . . .


So we had better soften it using our new green mapping technology as we install SubAir so it will be playable at 14 on the Stimpmeter!


I realize that Hunter was writing about the links, not classic US designs which were just being built as he wrote.  But many of those hallowed links greens he wanted to preserve (even Prestwick!) were no older in 1926 than Prairie Dunes is now.


I wish that modern designers and golfers had the same respect for their elders as Hunter did.  But they don't.

[Peter Pallotta]

From the edition I have, I might conclude that 'The Links' is more relevant today than it's been since the day Hunter wrote it.
My edition (from around 1990) has an introduction by John Strawn (now director of global golf advisors, then writing on behalf of the USGA, i.e. its own edition of 'The Links').
Interestingly, he hardly mentions or explores the 'architectural importance' of The Links at all -- not once save for in his very last paragraph does he evaluate or reference its value to the art&craft of golf course architecture. (Indeed, he claims that in Hunter's obituaries and even his own later work, his writing on golf -- i.e. The Links -- gets barely a mention.)
Instead, in giving a recap of Hunter's life, he seems focused on a particular kind of social-political commentary: I lost count of how many times he pegged Hunter a 'millionaire socialist' or a 'silly parlour socialist', or included little asides like "Hunter liked to think of himself as brave". 
As I say, the only mention of the book's architectural significance/worth comes right near the end, when Strawn notes that then ASGCA President Art Hills deems 'The Links' "the bible of design".   
I found it fascinating, how much the 'lens' through which such a book was looked at has changed over the years, from then and now. Then, even under the USGA's 'watch', nary a recognition/celebration of the seminal nature of the work. Rather, in perhaps its 'faux populist' sort of way, Strawn-the USGA appeared more interested in noting the 'contradictions' of a very wealthy man.
Compare that (just for one comparison) to the approach/assessment of a 'post 1990 architect' like Tom D, above.
   
 
 

[Blake Conant]

If building a case for relevancy, I'd start with the fact that we're still having many of the same discussions almost 100 years later!  Frustration with technology/bodies of power/golfer's attitudes/poor golf design... all are still discussed and debated today.


On the flip side, I had forgotten how sound Hunter's construction and design advice was.  Same as MacKenzie, some of his guidelines have proven not to be hard and fast rules, but what a great foundation to lay for the design of courses.  Many golf architects throughout time would've been better off just blindly following all of Hunter's rules. 

[Lou_Duran]

If building a case for relevancy, I'd start with the fact that we're still having many of the same discussions almost 100 years later!  Frustration with technology/bodies of power/golfer's attitudes/poor golf design... all are still discussed and debated today.


On the flip side, I had forgotten how sound Hunter's construction and design advice was.  Same as MacKenzie, some of his guidelines have proven not to be hard and fast rules, but what a great foundation to lay for the design of courses.  Many golf architects throughout time would've been better off just blindly following all of Hunter's rules.

Relevant in the sense that for couple hundred years, golfers have wanted to play better and the game along with its courses evolved.  There have always been those who welcomed change and a smaller number who wanted to freeze it at an undefined point in time.


Perspective, IMO, is probably more important.  Hunter and to a lesser extent MacKenzie were idealists at heart.  I agree that the latter's "guidelines" are good foundations or principles, though what was put on the ground tended to stray, sometimes considerably, from what he wrote.


Perspective: other than on this site, I think that most people believe that the game of golf seems to be doing relatively well.  We have an obsession with course closings- perhaps a separate Obituary section is a good idea- when the history of the game has always had casualties, particularly during difficult economic times (I know, some of you don't believe that the amount of discretionary income in the hands of those classes which play golf has anything to do with the slowdown in the game).  Compared to restaurants and other retail businesses, I would bet that golf has relatively fewer failures proportionally.


Do you own survey some time.  Ask two questions in this order: 1) do you think you hit the ball too far?, and 2) should the Tour players and national amateurs be forced to play a reduced distance ball?  As a follow up on 1), ask: do you know anyone who has quit the game because the courses he played were too short?, and for 2) have you stopped watching tournament golf because the golfers hit the ball too far?

[Blake Conant]

Perspective, IMO, is probably more important.  Hunter and to a lesser extent MacKenzie were idealists at heart.  I agree that the latter's "guidelines" are good foundations or principles, though what was put on the ground tended to stray, sometimes considerably, from what he wrote.

Although you can name a number of great courses that contradict Hunter's guidelines, they're still relevant for this reason: if you told someone to build a course according to the principles found in this book, it would be a sound golf course that's interesting to play.

[Mark Smolens]

First of all, I enjoyed the book very much. Thanks for starting this BC.


A few thoughts on the topic of "relevancy" of Hunter's writings today, but first (if you'll indulge me) a couple of questions for those far more educated on gca than myself:

• were there really "millions" of people playing golf in 1926?
• were there 25 municipal courses in and around Chicago at that time?
• which course was the one built in a crowded section in the middle of Chicago, reclaimed from ash heaps and tin cans? (a precursor to Harborside or Chicago Highlands?)
• was the "furor" Hunter describes being created by Hunter stopped by the Great Depression?
• Hunter describes golf's nature as being "truly democratic" -- when did that change?

[Mark Smolens]

On to relevancy:


Does Hunter's willingness to criticize the work of then-working gcas ("so indescribably bad than any one knowing better things must have thought it the work of some maniac, with an extremely malicious spirit. . .") constitute a precursor to the modern-day descriptors applied to gca by some of the denizens on this DG. . .
      what courses was he referring to, and what maniacs?


When Hunter talks about being able with ploughs and scrapers creating the ability to "mould the surface at will, and create effects and problems which can but rarely be found provided by nature," it would seem he's working out the conflicts between the minimalist school of letting the land chart the course, and the dirt movers who take the ground as a blank palette to be created by the gca


In discussing the role of the gca, he indicates the archi must be given a "free hand," but goes on to indicate that there must be discussions with the archi about "his reasons for placing  his bunkers in certain situations, and for moulding his greens in certain manner."
       is that conflict something our modern-day gcas must deal with all the time?
       who's having these discussions with the gcas, and are they qualified to understand the reasons given? (I know I wouldn't be)


In his list of "American courses of the first class" on p. 41 Hunter doesn't list Pinehurst #2 or Chicago Golf -- is their omission intentional?

[Mark Smolens]

When Hunter talks about laying out the course to, inter alia, enable lesser players to play the course with pleasure," isn't that kind of the way Mr. Dye designed courses such as TPC Sawgrass or Crooked Stick -- brutal tracks that can test the best players, but if you move up to the correct tee box, even lesser players can enjoy the experience. . .


p. 64 Hunter asserts that "a shot to the green which the eye cannot follow is one of the least satisfactory in golf." While I do think that school of thought is accepted and followed by many, I find it patently incorrect. Hitting your ball at the flag on the 11th hole at Lost Dunes, and then climbing that hill to find out where your ball ended up is one of the coolest parts of a round in Bridgman.


p. 26, Hunter talks about the necessity of planting putting greens every year? When did that stop being the general practice, if it ever was?


p. 68, "horse drawn mowers?" How did that work? Wouldn't the hooves damage the surface of the greens?


Pp. 73-79, the discussion about considering size of greens by the gca, does that remain a conscious part of the design process?




Sorry for the long-windedness. Enjoyed the read

[David Harshbarger]

The last paragraph sums up Hunter's broadest thesis, the inadequacy of man to equal the interest of nature, or for other men to allow him to so dare:

"The essential difference between the best seaside golf and that of the inland variety is that, in the first case, one is battling with nature -- as one does in climbing a mountain or in sailing a boat -- while in the other one is faced with problems of human origin.

No matter with what heights he is faced or with what winds assailed, the sportsman in battling with nature makes no complaint. But immediately he is faced with problems of human origin, he feels justified, if he finds them too difficult, in turning upon their creator with murder in his heart.

Golf course architects have built many holes that are deserving of censure, but what would we think if they were to offer us some of the problems frequently met with on the links? As instances -- not three yards square of level land, blind tee shots and blind seconds (there are twelve blind approaches on one seaside course), bunkers "just where a good tee shot should be placed," ridges in front of a green forcing certain shots into a hazard, and so on.

It is not advisable to start with a one-shot hole, and that yet was done until recently at Muirfield. It would be accounted absurd to ask a golfer, starting from any tee and especially the first, to knock a ball along the ground with a putter for fifty yards in order to have a chance to play his second to the green, yet that is usually our introduction to the exquisite North Berwick.

What architect would not struggle hard to avoid having an out-of-bounds paralleling the first hole? Yet both at Prestwick and Hoylake we are faced with that. Blind one-shot holes are most undesirable, and yet the Maiden at Sandwich was scarified under protest, and who would dare lay his hands on the Sandy Parlour at Deal?

So goes golf on the links -- those sacred bits of God's earth -- where men have battled for generations, like the sailor or mountaineer, with what nature has placed before them."

[SL_Solow]

Mark,  More later but I have seen pictures with horses wearing boots while pulling mowers.

[David Harshbarger]

Over on the thread on the Biarritz, Tom D made a comment that someday he'd like to build the 85 foot up-hill par 3 as shown in the accompanying photos:


http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,21926.msg1626505.html#msg1626505




In "The Links" Hunter argues that while golfers will accept such a hole if nature puts it there, they will react angrily if it's seen as man-made.  One way to interpret that as long as nature is responsible for piling the land up in whatever way, players will accept all kinds of crazy holes that follow that land. 


I find this a fascinating point. One one hand, golf courses are obviously the work of man.  Golf is contrived. Man chooses to put flags in the ground, make sure certain ground is maintained, etc.  But that's not seen as problematic, as though the existence of golf over some problematic ground is axiomatic even if the resulting holes are extreme to the point of absurdity.


What's seen as problematic is if man over-reaches in creating problematic ground. Ground that would be accepted for golf sans the hand of man is problematic if it seems contrived.  In that sense, two identical holes, one situated such that it seems natural, and the other that it seems man-made would evoke diametrical responses from players.


Is this in fact true?  If so I would think it very relevant to the modern architect in defining the boundaries of the possible on any given property.

[Colin Macqueen]

David,
You write,
"......even if the resulting holes are extreme to the point of absurdity."


I think that these holes provided by Nature in times of yore have provided inspiration to architects and golfers alike. Obviously I wouldn't want to play 18 "absurd" holes on the outing but the occasional one lends, intrigue, adventure, excitement and even humour to the day's golf. No?


Cheers Col

[David Harshbarger]

David,
You write,
"......even if the resulting holes are extreme to the point of absurdity."


I think that these holes provided by Nature in times of yore have provided inspiration to architects and golfers alike. Obviously I wouldn't want to play 18 "absurd" holes on the outing but the occasional one lends, intrigue, adventure, excitement and even humour to the day's golf. No?


Cheers Col

Colin, I 100% agree with you that to my taste the occasional bonkers hole is fine and for all of the reasons you cite.  In fact, I think you've captured many of the experiential qualities of golf that Hunter extols. 


Hunter's point I'm interested in your thoughts on is if you think the absurd hole was created by an architect vs. found from what nature provided, do you think differently of it? 


While I haven't played any Stranz courses, Jim Engh has some goofy holes.  Are they more suspect because it seems he crafted them that way?

[Jonathan Mallard]

I noted how many times he articulated many of the same topics we've been discussing since I joined this board:

• The renovations to add length to courses.
• The renovations to add interest or re-work holes on a course that were found objectionable by members. I believe MacKenzie wrote about this as well in The Spirit of Saint Andrews.
• His emphasis on the importance of bold green contouring to enhance interest in the game.

I thought his observations on foot traffic patterns and how greenside bunker placement affects those patterns was pretty insightful. When paired with his thoughts on the maintenance issues dictated by ease of access into the bunker from the surrounds, I wondered how much weight those concepts are given in today's designs.


Where I think the book is a little dated is the relative values of the land used for courses today vs then, and how that drives both site selection and construction practices to achieve the end result.


I really enjoyed reading the book.

[Peter Pallotta]

David,
I think it is true - at least it's true to my experience.
Avoiding at least some of the inflated language Hunter (and, as Colin notes, Behr) sometimes used, I'd put it this way:
When we arrive at a dramatic golf hole characterized by natural (or natural-seeming) terrain, with all its inherent challenge/quirk, we accept it as an inevitable -- and with some gratitude for the architect's skill in finding a golf hole here for us to play.
But when we arrive at a dramatic looking golf hole, and -- in taking in the broader topography -- our eyes tells us that there is nothing natural in the terrain and thus nothing inherent in the challenge/quirk, but only a man-made construct, we can't accept it as inevitable nor can we necessarily appreciate the architect's skill, since we don't know what other (or many other) kinds of golf holes could've been built there instead.
So: should we then fail at the former, we feel that we can only blame ourselves: the golf hole was as Nature intended it, and we simply didn't have the skill to play it properly.
But should we then fail at the latter, we know darn well who we can blame, i.e. the architect -- the golf hole was the way not Nature but the architect intended it, and we feel he/she should've known better and not designed a golf hole that our skill couldn't successfully tackle.   

But all this is one of the reasons that in my earlier post I suggested that Hunter-The Links might not ever have been as relevant as it is today: it couldn't be of much relevance in the down days of the Depression and WWII, and it wasn't relevant in the huge populist post-war boom in golf and golf course construction (or the Dark Ages, as Ran used to call the period), and I don't think it was all that relevant during the Pete Dye-Jack Nicklaus era, or into the early 90s when (as I say) the John Strawn edition seemed barely to acknowledge its significance. 

It is only right now, in these last couple of decades, when naturalism (either in concert with minimalism or not) has become such a cherished value and architectural goal, that Hunter's The Links has (a renewed) relevance. IMO. 

[John Mayhugh]

Some good observations and discussion so far.

I remember the first time I read this book, I was initially concerned that Hunter seemed to be too prescriptive. This book really shows the importance of taking in the entire message rather than just finding quotes that suit your need. If that isn't relevant to 2020, what is? 

Near the end of the book, he offers thoughts that match up with some of today's more revolutionary thinking.
Do not let certain standards become an obsession. Quality, not length; interest, not the number of holes; distinction, not size in the greens - these things are worth striving for.

For me, though, this is maybe the most important thing in the book:
The charm of the seaside courses of Great Britain lies in their multiformity, their unconventionality, their infinite variety.

Wonder what Hunter would make of the homogenization movement?

[Garland Bayley]

Last paragraph of Chapter IV, "Is it not a fact that the more difficult our golf courses become the more numerous and intense are the devotees?"

NO, it is not. Hunter is irrelevant.

[Niall C]

Apologies to Headmaster Gallant but I must confess I haven’t done my recent homework. I have read the book but that was last year and I haven’t looked at it since this thread started so general comments only.

Firstly, Hunter was a very good writer and the book is easy and enjoyable to read. While I don’t think his ideas were ground breaking for the time (1926) the book is well laid out, his writing is articulate and it is fairly comprehensive. In short it deserves to be termed a classic.

Is it still relevant ? I’d say so. It deals with fundamentals which are absolutely still valid. It is also one of those books that provides a link with the past (no pun intended) and a reminder of those values.

John

“Wonder what Hunter would make of the homogenization movement?” – is the “homogenization movement” not just the prevailing trend of the day ? 

Niall

[John Mayhugh]

Niall,

That's a fair point, and there have been flavors of the day in past yeas. As you may have noticed, I find it particularly troubling to see this in the UK, where so many courses break the rules of today (or of Hunter's) and are the better/more memorable for it. 

[Garland Bayley]

Wonder what Hunter would make of the homogenization movement?

What/which homogenization movement?

[Lou_Duran]

Last paragraph of Chapter IV, "Is it not a fact that the more difficult our golf courses become the more numerous and intense are the devotees?"

NO, it is not. Hunter is irrelevant.

My experience, for the most part, supports Hunter.  As a starter at Ohio State's Scarlet and Grey Club, there could be a two hour walk-up list on Scarlet  while the Grey would be wide open, and the putting greens would be packed with pestering golfers of all skill levels waiting for their names to be called.  The Grey was a pleasant course right around 6000 yards and far more suitable for many of the golfers who would instead spend 5+ hours and 100+ strokes on the Scarlet.


One of the most popular member's course in north Texas is hard as nails.  When officiating high level qualifiers, I spend a lot of time between #1 and #10 trying to spot tee shots headed into the knee and waist high fescue.  The members love the place, and don't suggest making the course more playable unless you want a heated argument.


John and Niall,


Can you flesh out the "homogenization movement" for me?  Are you talking about McK & Ebert doing much of the renovation work on Open courses?  My travels in the UK are much more limited than yours, but what you (John) note and quote below, I find it aplenty throughout.  Specially on the links, these are the things that compel me to visit with some regularity.


 
Do not let certain standards become an obsession. Quality, not length; interest, not the number of holes; distinction, not size in the greens - these things are worth striving for.For me, though, this is maybe the most important thing in the book:The charm of the seaside courses of Great Britain lies in their multiformity, their unconventionality, their infinite variety.



   

[John Mayhugh]

Lou,

I think homogenization is more my concern than Niall's. At least I'm bringing it up more.

Problem isn't with Open courses. I am not surprised to see them getting changed. Don't like it, but sort of a price of being the host. The issue is that non-Open courses want to copy what is being done elsewhere and clubs end up making changes that reduce some of the distinctiveness of what they have.

[Bernie Bell]

This bit seemed to me of continuing relevance in the Instagram age:  Hunter discussed power of wind-driven sand, and necessity of railway-ties, native marram grasses and the like to constrain sand and protect and preserve greens and fairways, “not because they are thought to be picturesque or desirable hazards, but solely to bind and hold fast the sand.  It is rather amusing sometimes to see on inland courses heavy timbers used to support the obdurate clay banks of a bunker, or lyme grass planted to hold together the most retentive soil.  Where these protective features serve a real need they are impressive and sometimes beautiful; but where there is no need for them, they appear as a silly affectation.”  (124-25 in my version).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()