News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Michael Felton

Re: USA vs British Clubs and Reliance on Golf Architects?
« Reply #25 on: Yesterday at 12:33:11 PM »

...The photo is from 1947. I am not sure why it has 1982 in the link, but the source shows the flight was April 1947...

Michael you may have already found this but posting as it also fits the recent post on here re. Real Estate and Golf Courses.

https://elhg.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/golfclubcreation.pdf

There is even a photo of the 9th Green and another showing four bunkers we are discussing c. 1928 on the tree-less site looking across the 10th, 9th & 1st Fairways towards Beech Avenue.

So they are Colt originals for sure, just the original tee to be found/confirmed (which may be on the current line, or not?)

Perhaps the Club History: "Effingham: A History of Our Golf Club" by Frank Harding OBE c1998 might have some earlier routing plans?

Also notable to me is that both James Braid & Henry Cotton took part in the official Opening



That is fascinating - great find and thank you for sharing. I knew Frank reasonably well, but to my shame I did not even know that this history existed!

Brett Hochstein

Re: USA vs British Clubs and Reliance on Golf Architects?
« Reply #26 on: Yesterday at 12:51:20 PM »
Having just spent a few stints over in England and seeing a bunch of different courses along the way, the big thing I find striking (and, highly valuable to someone like me looking to see exactly how the old stuff looked, as a means of inspiration for future work elsewhere) is just how much old original stuff remains, even if abandoned. 


There are so many remnant bunkers and mounds, even on courses that have done renovations over the years and moved bunkers around. The old ones often have either been left entirely on their own or minimally filled in, the landforms still just sitting there waiting for an edge to be cut and sand to be filled in.  A lot of bunkers themselves have only been meddled with on the floors and edges, the key landforms supporting them remaining as is from 100-125 years ago.  With more money and care over the years, all these cool, funky, pre-machine shapes would be wiped clean, never to be seen again.  That's sad to me for a number of reasons, and it's sad to know some of this is going on and likely increasing in frequency.


A lot of places could certainly be significantly helped out by a little bit of money, but it's only when that money is very carefully spent and allocated to the right kinds of improvements. Otherwise, it's likely just to wipe out history, which is the hallmark of most of these places (and certainly a big element of what makes me want to make the effort to see them). 
"From now on, ask yourself, after every round, if you have more energy than before you began.  'Tis much more important than the score, Michael, much more important than the score."     --John Stark - 'To the Linksland'

http://www.hochsteindesign.com

Simon Barrington

Re: USA vs British Clubs and Reliance on Golf Architects?
« Reply #27 on: Today at 06:20:28 AM »
Having just spent a few stints over in England and seeing a bunch of different courses along the way, the big thing I find striking (and, highly valuable to someone like me looking to see exactly how the old stuff looked, as a means of inspiration for future work elsewhere) is just how much old original stuff remains, even if abandoned. 

There are so many remnant bunkers and mounds, even on courses that have done renovations over the years and moved bunkers around. The old ones often have either been left entirely on their own or minimally filled in, the landforms still just sitting there waiting for an edge to be cut and sand to be filled in.  A lot of bunkers themselves have only been meddled with on the floors and edges, the key landforms supporting them remaining as is from 100-125 years ago.  With more money and care over the years, all these cool, funky, pre-machine shapes would be wiped clean, never to be seen again.  That's sad to me for a number of reasons, and it's sad to know some of this is going on and likely increasing in frequency.

A lot of places could certainly be significantly helped out by a little bit of money, but it's only when that money is very carefully spent and allocated to the right kinds of improvements. Otherwise, it's likely just to wipe out history, which is the hallmark of most of these places (and certainly a big element of what makes me want to make the effort to see them).
It always amazes me that informed observers from a far celebrate the quirk and uniqueness of features in the UK more than the local memberships who play across these challenges every day. Complacency leading into contempt perhaps?

Been watching and enjoying your traveling posts elsewhere Brett, and always wonderful to see such passion for lost/mothballed features, but no surprise given your bio and the infectious enthusiasm for such from Clyde (no-one seeks out this retro/micro stuff better than he)!

A club I know far too well has recently obliterated several quirky and historic features entirely, didn't even leave a nod or hint of topography behind. Erasing instead of simply leaving and grassing, it's the height of "modernising" arrogance to do so.  ::)

What is fascinating is that many of these previously mothballed features that were originally 2nd line defences back in the day, are now relevant as potential 1st line defences for the very longest players, so the circle returns and they might be re-used again...but only if they were not expunged from all record by flattening.

Money in the hands of the "invincibly ignorant" (to quote Tom Simpson) is a very dangerous thing...so important to record what went before, so one day it might be recovered by the informed...

Keep coming back, keep seeking the unique/historic, and an open invitation to see some James Braid quirk together when you do.
(BTW - I'm far better on-course company than my grumpy posts may infer! Hopefully Dai (David) Thomas can concur!  ;D )
« Last Edit: Today at 10:06:54 AM by Simon Barrington »

Brett Hochstein

Re: USA vs British Clubs and Reliance on Golf Architects?
« Reply #28 on: Today at 04:31:43 PM »

It always amazes me that informed observers from a far celebrate the quirk and uniqueness of features in the UK more than the local memberships who play across these challenges every day. Complacency leading into contempt perhaps?


I think it's just a natural inclination of humans to lose appreciation for what is so familiar.  I'm always amazed at the interest and fascination from those overseas towards our country (USA), particularly the golf end. While I love it here and appreciate what we have, I find a lot of everything in this country (buildings, city layouts, public golf, etc) to be a bit boring or lacking personality.  Europe and its deep history, however, are endlessly fascinating to me. I can, however, ever-so-slightly start to see myself getting a bit "used-to" the cool old stuff and details of the shapes with every passing visit over there. This isn't to say that I no longer appreciate it and think it is really cool, but I could maybe start to see how, if it is all you ever knew, you might begin to disregard the importance or unique place in the golf course world of such features.  It's a valuable thing in life, if you have the means, to constantly be experiencing different perspectives, golf included.

Been watching and enjoying your traveling posts elsewhere Brett, and always wonderful to see such passion for lost/mothballed features, but no surprise given your bio and the infectious enthusiasm for such from Clyde (no-one seeks out this retro/micro stuff better than he)!

I certainly try to give him a run for his money in that department! He's often the resource though that I rely on for judging what to go see or not see. Hasn't missed yet.

A club I know far too well has recently obliterated several quirky and historic features entirely, didn't even leave a nod or hint of topography behind. Erasing instead of simply leaving and grassing, it's the height of "modernising" arrogance to do so.  ::)

Awful, and you will never fully get that back. A "best guess," perhaps, but never the full real original thing.

What is fascinating is that many of these previously mothballed features that were originally 2nd line defences back in the day, are now relevant as potential 1st line defences for the very longest players, so the circle returns and they might be re-used again...but only if they were not expunged from all record by flattening.


I first started thinking about this idea of leap-frogging during the US Open at Chambers Bay, where the one short par 4 in a bowl was effectively a par 3 and the par 5s were effectively long par 4s. Fun holes, just wrong "par."  Same sort of goes with hazard/feature placement.  The second line is coming into play on the first shot for these big hitters, but it's also still second line for a good number. I've noticed this on some plan work I've done lately, where I thought adding a "bomber" feature was actually a good idea for the number of people who I thought would have to tackle it on a second shot.

Money in the hands of the "invincibly ignorant" (to quote Tom Simpson) is a very dangerous thing...so important to record what went before, so one day it might be recovered by the informed...

The problem with golf courses and their amorphous shapes carved in soil is that it is nearly impossible to purely recover something. You can get the positioning pretty close with maps, but the aesthetics and exact shapes may never be fully recovered.

Keep coming back, keep seeking the unique/historic, and an open invitation to see some James Braid quirk together when you do.
(BTW - I'm far better on-course company than my grumpy posts may infer! Hopefully Dai (David) Thomas can concur!  ;D )



Love Braid stuff, and hopefully we can make that happen! Will look forward to listening to your Braid talk on The Cookie Jar at some point.
"From now on, ask yourself, after every round, if you have more energy than before you began.  'Tis much more important than the score, Michael, much more important than the score."     --John Stark - 'To the Linksland'

http://www.hochsteindesign.com

Tags: