Let's be thankful for the Haskell........

[Niall C]

Without the Haskell and the rubber cored ball we possibly wouldn't have had the golden age of golf architecture. After all it was the need to change and adapt courses that lead to the opportunity for the golden age architects.

Discuss.

Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting.

The theory suggests that fundamental architectural principles (as expressed in the golden age and strategic architecture) are not in fact principles at all but merely 'reactions' -- necessary requirements/adaptations which can & will change when circumstances do.

In other words: that great architects don't discover/come to understand such principles through study and thought but instead have these same 'foist upon them' by outside agencies.

And, by extension, it suggests we should be grateful as well for the 460 cc titanium driver, which provided the opportunity/impetus for some of today's architect to unleash their skills and creativity in bringing us the latest phase of this 2nd golden age, i.e. the constant and wide-spread renovation of classic courses and the design of 8000 yard long new ones.

But other than that, the theory/premise seems sound 

[Adam Lawrence]

Certainly Darwin felt that Sunningdale was improved by the Haskell, because it was just too long to be enjoyable with a gutty.

[Niall C]

Peter,

Yes, a lot of the golden age ideas came about as a reaction to some of the Victorian courses that were being laid out, that doesn't mean there weren't any principles at play. However the basic point of my OP was that the need to cope with the new ball lead to not only the ideas but the opportunity. The lengthening of courses gave the ODG's to put the ideas into practice.

Niall

[Sean_A]

I shudder to think what golf was like before the Haskell.  Even with the Haskell golf must have been far more difficult than now.  All this talk of f&f wouldn't have mattered nearly as much without that wee rock.

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Niall -


The first statement of what we would call today "strategic" architecture appeared in Britain early in 1901. Those discussions/arguments predated the arrival of the Haskell, which did not arrive in the UK until late 1901. The ball was not widely available in the UK until the next year, 1902, and thereafter became wildly popular.


Strategic gca is best understood as response to unhappiness over what we call today "Victorian" golf architecture. The sides taken pro or con over the new design ideas did not align very clearly with sides taken over the Haskell. Some opposed the Haskell while defending older Victorian design ideas (Taylor, Hilton). Some opposed the Haskell while advocating the new design ideas (Low, Croome).


(Adam will know better than I about Colt's views of the Haskell, though I think Colt was anti-Haskell, yes?)


The Haskell did require the lengthening almost all golf courses from about 1903 into the 1920s. The course revisions, in turn, forced many clubs to pick a side in the larger architectural debates. Which then spawned further debates. Sandwich is a good example where course changes were needed to keep up with the more powerful Haskell (think: the depressing changes to the Maiden) while at the same time the club wanted to stay true to Laidlaw Purves' Victorian design ideas. Among the issues clubs like Sandwich faced was whether to move cross bunkers or other cross hazards farther down the fw or build 'side' bunkers based on a very different approach to golf course design.


The above egregiously simplifies a couple of fascinating decades. The Haskell had a role in all that, but the longer ball was not why basic architectural ideas were rethought by Low, Colt and others. That rethinking was undertaken because of the dissatisfaction with older design ideas. The American ball accelerated the implementation of their new architectural ideas on many existing courses.   


Bob       

[Thomas Dai]

I shudder to think what golf was like before the Haskell.  Even with the Haskell golf must have been far more difficult than now.  All this talk of f&f wouldn't have mattered nearly as much without that wee rock.
Ciao

Having tried playing with long-nosed woods and early period irons I'm amazed the game ever 'took off' especially given the terrain often played over and the clothing worn. Hardy folks back then though.
atb

[Mark Mammel]

Without the Haskell and the rubber cored ball we possibly wouldn't have had the golden age of golf architecture. After all it was the need to change and adapt courses that lead to the opportunity for the golden age architects.

Discuss.

Niall

The last great event won with the gutty was the 1900 US Open won by Harry Vardon at Chicago Golf Club, playing his recently-debuted "Vardon Flyer" gutty ball, made by Spalding. Vardon is said to have played the ball for 10 more years, and it was still listed in the Spalding catalogue in 1909, albeit as a "good ball for practice." Though long since replaced by the Haskell, a "test match" for Haskell vs gutty was played at Sandy Lodge Golf Club outside of London in April 1914, with teams Vardon and George Duncan versus Braid and Taylor. Each team was to play the gutty ball for 18 holes and the Haskell ball for another 18, at match play. The Haskell won, though the gutty was still thought to better around the greens. The Haskell was about 35 yards longer, and the controversy about equipment making classic layout unfir for championship competition was underway.

[Niall C]

Bob

There's no doubt that many of the great and the good (and the not so good) had disparaging views on the Haskell including Fowler who not only was one of the first to play with the ball in the UK (in 1901) but he also was a director of the UK subsidiary producing the ball.

However my point wasn't that the Haskell hastened new ideas, as many of the strategic ideas advocated by Low and others weren't fully appreciated by many until after WWI anyway, but instead the advent of the Haskell started the arms race of course lengthening/changes which really didn't really abate until perhaps WWII.

Without the opportunity that gave, it occurs to me that many of the ideas put forward by Low and others, might not have got off the drawing board due to lack of opportunity. Also as an aside, in a very simple way it's amazing how many old courses have dog-leg holes created because the original hole couldn't be lengthened by taking the tee straight back because of the proceeding green. Consequently the new tee was off-set and what you were left with was a risk reward tee shot.

Niall

[Niall C]

Without the Haskell and the rubber cored ball we possibly wouldn't have had the golden age of golf architecture. After all it was the need to change and adapt courses that lead to the opportunity for the golden age architects.

Discuss.

Niall

The last great event won with the gutty was the 1900 US Open won by Harry Vardon at Chicago Golf Club, playing his recently-debuted "Vardon Flyer" gutty ball, made by Spalding. Vardon is said to have played the ball for 10 more years, and it was still listed in the Spalding catalogue in 1909, albeit as a "good ball for practice." Though long since replaced by the Haskell, a "test match" for Haskell vs gutty was played at Sandy Lodge Golf Club outside of London in April 1914, with teams Vardon and George Duncan versus Braid and Taylor. Each team was to play the gutty ball for 18 holes and the Haskell ball for another 18, at match play. The Haskell won, though the gutty was still thought to better around the greens. The Haskell was about 35 yards longer, and the controversy about equipment making classic layout unfir for championship competition was underway.

Mark,

Firstly, I'm not sure it is even debateable that the US Open was a "great event" at that time. The best golfers were still in the UK at that point although it wouldn't be long before the US was making it's mark. Secondly, I think you forget the 1901 Open which was won by Braid using a gutty. Herd was the first to win the Open using a Haskell type ball as he did in 1902.

To take Bob's point about resistance to the Haskell, Herd was also widely quoted a few months before his 1902 victory voicing his opposition to the new ball, but he soon played with it once he saw the benefits. Bear in mind also, Haskell didn't have a monopoly in the UK the way they did in the US and other manufacturers were producing their own versions. Not sure whether Vardons ball was built as a rubber core ball in due course but I'm pretty sure he wasn't playing with a gutty from 1902 onwards.

The 1914 event wasn't the only time they had a guttie v rubber core type event but for all the interest it created, the genie was out the bag and courses were having to adapt accordingly.

Niall   

[Mark Mammel]

Thanks-I stand corrected! If the US Open wasn't a great event, it had already begun attracting the likes of Vardon. Every Open from 1895 through 1019 was won by someone from the UK. Had it become a great event by 1913?

[Peter Pallotta]

"....it's amazing how many old courses have dog-leg holes created...and what you were left with was a risk reward tee shot."

yes, a fascinating aspect of the question: to imagine the dawning realization (of members & architects) that they could now try to 'cut the corner' to leave themselves a shorter approach, and that this was a *choice*, of a risk-reward variety.

also reminds me of something Tom D long ago noted (paraphrasing): that the success of the best new/modern courses is partly explained by the fact that they 'play' like many of the best classic courses do -- but only as those classic courses play for us *today*, with modern equipment, and not as they played for our golf-loving ancestors in the 1920s.       

[Sean_A]

"....it's amazing how many old courses have dog-leg holes created...and what you were left with was a risk reward tee shot."

yes, a fascinating aspect of the question: to imagine the dawning realization (of members & architects) that they could now try to 'cut the corner' to leave themselves a shorter approach, and that this was a *choice*, of a risk-reward variety.

also reminds me of something Tom D long ago noted (paraphrasing): that the success of the best new/modern courses is partly explained by the fact that they 'play' like many of the best classic courses do -- but only as those classic courses play for us *today*, with modern equipment, and not as they played for our golf-loving ancestors in the 1920s.       

Pietro

This is how I feel for the good short 4s. In a way these holes are democracy of golf. It's not just the elite players who can have a go these days and that is what makes short 4s intriguing.

Flipping the coin, this is also what makes extremely long par 3s so cool. It you ask me the yardage range of 230ish to 275ish is vastly under represented.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Thanks-I stand corrected! If the US Open wasn't a great event, it had already begun attracting the likes of Vardon. Every Open from 1895 through 1019 was won by someone from the UK. Had it become a great event by 1913?

Mark

Maybe I'm doing US golf an dis-service and I certainly don't want to raise anyones hackles but I think it's fair to say the US only became THE super power in golf post WWII. The visits by Vardon etc were more promotional tours rather than a visit to play in the US Open although obviously that was the best chance to shine on the tour. The bulk of the better UK pro's didn't play in it because they didn't travel.

The question then becomes, when exactly did the US become the dominant power such that the field for the US Open was stronger or at least equal to the Open ? I'm not sure I know the definitive answer to that.

Niall