USA vs British Clubs and Reliance on Golf Architects?

[Michael Felton]

...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]

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). 

[Simon Barrington]

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!  )

[Brett Hochstein]

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!  )



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.

[Thomas Dai]

Concur!

Atb

[Richard Fisher]

This is becoming the sort of GCA thread that makes me just a bit uneasy, with its implied criticisms of the 95% of British golfers who seem to enjoy knocking the ball round their club's course and chatting with their friends, and who may not be over-fussed about specific architectural features. Without them there would be no golf at all.


To follow up Simon's thought, how many of us could actually tell (say) a Braid bunker from a Colt one? I certainly couldn't. We have our interests, and our historic expertise (in my case the distinctly niche area of amateur golf 1918-1970) but we have to be just a bit careful lest an occasional sense of superiority and 'we know best' pervades the discussions, howsoever well-intentioned they may be. Proper professional architectural engagement is another matter altogether.


It's all meant to be fun, after all. And different golfers extract fun in different ways.

[Simon Barrington]

This is becoming the sort of GCA thread that makes me just a bit uneasy, with its implied criticisms of the 95% of British golfers who seem to enjoy knocking the ball round their club's course and chatting with their friends, and who may not be over-fussed about specific architectural features. Without them there would be no golf at all.

To follow up Simon's thought, how many of us could actually tell (say) a Braid bunker from a Colt one? I certainly couldn't. We have our interests, and our historic expertise (in my case the distinctly niche area of amateur golf 1918-1970) but we have to be just a bit careful lest an occasional sense of superiority and 'we know best' pervades the discussions, howsoever well-intentioned they may be. Proper professional architectural engagement is another matter altogether.

It's all meant to be fun, after all. And different golfers extract fun in different ways.

It may surprise some that I agree.

My own criticisms on here are not towards the 95% but to some of those in decision-making positions who (despite lack of knowledge or worse care) impose personal preferences onto those 95% and their golf course.

This "group-think echo-chamber" is a (friendly) place to express these concerns, to find a discussion, and/or discover that others might actually agree. Even better if others on here can educate, inform, and possibly change that opinion, no-one has all the right answers (least alone yours truly).

Being interested and passionate to learn (or seeking to protect what is precious) can be an extremely lonely place in some clubs, so this great site provides that opportunity to share thoughts with like-minded (not the same as having to agree) and engaged people.

This (Committee) issue has ever been thus (Dr. Mackenzie, Tom Simpson, and others wrote pointedly about this)...but it is more acute when the games' economics are in good health and money burns a hole in club pockets.

Keeping up with the Jones's (i.e. local or national competition) means clubs end up doing what might be considered to be homogenous, mediocre, or worse damaging work. Social media and TV golf only increases the pressure for highly visible changes, that become generic over time if ubiquitous.

I get the commercial imperative for both architects and constructors, but nothing wrong in asking/expecting them (as highly informed professionals) to do throughly researched work and to hold the line if there are unique or important features, strategy, character under threat. Respecting the work of those upon whose shoulders they now sit. Currently, such respect seems more obvious in the US, than it seems in the UK on some projects (regardless of ODG involved) so raising this may help the UK participants to raise their game?

We and a non-GCA interested golfer might both enjoy a particular course equally, and we might understand more clearly why, but that is not essential as we both can still enjoy it.

But it is encumbent upon us all to realise that, what we both enjoy was put in the ground by someone talented with thought and care, and that should be respected and protected for future golfers' enjoyment.
That does not mean no change, just that it should be far more carefully considered.

Then the 95% might enjoy it even more, even though they may not understand or care why...but I suspect they know far more than we might think but just want a quite life and to simply enjoy their golf, long may that be the case.

Finally, as Bobby Jones said:
"Every golfer worthy of the name should have some acquaintance with the principles of golf course design, not only for the betterment off the game, but for their own selfish enjoyment."

[Thomas Dai]

Hopefully, fingers etc crossed, the expansion in golf course photography and the like particularly over the last few years via social media and various websites including this one will mean that there are better course related records in existence than in past times. Thus perhaps, again fingers etc crossed, when Mr Uninformed finds himself on a committee or in a position of influence and wants to change some courses features others at the club will have easily accessible information available to highlight why he shouldn’t be permitted to implement his desired change or at least have a more informed debate prior to it occurring. History can be helpful.
Atb

[Tony Ristola]

Of the two clubs I belong to in the UK, one has a consulting architect and the other used one for a course update. The first one hasn't done anything particularly big (yet). The second "updated" the bunkering and I and I think quite a lot of other members hated it. The one I specifically dislike is shown here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2632685,-0.4023185,298m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDIyNi4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D


First thought on looking at this is all the bunkers are the same size and virtually the same shape, like some giant cookie cutter was used to make them. But the thing I found egregious was that string of four bunkers in the middle there. From the tee, those are basically in a straight line. They used to start on the left and move to the right as you went further from the tee. That meant if you couldn't clear them, you had to play to the right side and the further up you played, the narrower it got. Then if you could clear the first one you had a narrow slot to put the ball in and as you hit it further you got more space. All of that worked pretty well and so far as I can tell is how Colt put them in the ground originally and what he intended. Now there is no strategy at all. It's narrow on the left and it's narrow on the right, so you either lay up to the really short spot, thread the needle or bomb it a mile. I don't know what would possess an architect to make that change. Maybe I'm missing something. Here is a picture of the hole from the tee:





The other course, they put together a 30-odd page plan for the course. It did at least seem to be well thought out and some of the remit was not exactly trivial so I think they did a good job. I'm so soured on the process though that I'm basically against them changing anything.

Had a longer post written, and then lost it. I post photos over the years.




1928



1945





The strategy of going up the left of the hole is lost. It's now a Red Light, Green Light choice of laying up or going over.



2024
It seems they have angled the bunkers more, and somewhat restored the line of attack down the left of the hole... especially if that area left of the bunkers was cut at fairway height. Remove more trees and the fairway can be widened and that line and design intent can be restored fully. The fairway right could be broadened to make it a more attractive line of attack.

[Chris Hughes]

Hopefully, fingers etc crossed, the expansion in golf course photography and the like particularly over the last few years via social media and various websites including this one will mean that there are better course related records in existence than in past times. Thus perhaps, again fingers etc crossed, when Mr Uninformed finds himself on a committee or in a position of influence and wants to change some courses features others at the club will have easily accessible information available to highlight why he shouldn’t be permitted to implement his desired change or at least have a more informed debate prior to it occurring. History can be helpful.
Atb

Hopefully...


...but some folks, no matter how much info you present or how close they might be to this website, just aren't willing to listen/learn -- they "know better".   

[Richard Fisher]

Many thanks to Simon and David - the latter's point that we simply 'know more' nowadays is very well taken. I certainly know far more (with access to web sources) about the Royal St David's GC than I did when I wrote its centenary history over 30 years ago! As with all communications, it's a question of tone, as much as anything, and how knowledge (and enthusiasm) is conveyed to club memberships whose priorities won't necessarily be those of everyone on this site.

[Niall C]

I can't help thinking that the "we know better" argument just smacks of arrogance. Likewise the idea that the course layout/design should be a slave to the past. The ODG's weren't squeamish when it came to changing and in some cases trashing predecessors and even contemporaries work. Why should we ? Particularly when the course has already been tweaked and changed dozens of times in the interim.


Niall

[Richard Fisher]

That's a more trenchant version of what I was trying to say. Thanks Niall!

[Simon Barrington]

I can't help thinking that the "we know better" argument just smacks of arrogance. Likewise the idea that the course layout/design should be a slave to the past. The ODG's weren't squeamish when it came to changing and in some cases trashing predecessors and even contemporaries work. Why should we ? Particularly when the course has already been tweaked and changed dozens of times in the interim.
Niall

It is all about respect of went before, not "slavery" (a very odd & loaded term to use).

As per Dai (and as acknowledged by Richard) it is about "knowing more" and ensuring that this knowledge and information is included in a thorough decision making process by Clubs and Architects.

What is really arrogant is knowing that such historic information and knowledge exists, and yet simply ignoring it, or even worse attacking or blocking it, to make a decision based on less knowledge and/or personal bias/interest.

It is, of course, for Clubs to make their own decisions, but both Architects and knowledgable GCA nerds can and should be included to get to a fully informed solution, that is best for all. If it is change, then at least ensure the club and membership understand and agree why, in full knowledge.


A question to you;
Would you have no interest in any project to bring back to use The Good Doctor's Sitwell greens, for example?

[Sean_A]

For me the bottom line is that some courses are worth conserving and some not. It’s up to each club to decide if their club is worth preserving. That said, if history is going to be discarded, at least hire an architect who will deliver a product which is distinguished.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

I can't help thinking that the "we know better" argument just smacks of arrogance. Likewise the idea that the course layout/design should be a slave to the past. The ODG's weren't squeamish when it came to changing and in some cases trashing predecessors and even contemporaries work. Why should we ? Particularly when the course has already been tweaked and changed dozens of times in the interim.
Niall

It is all about respect of went before, not "slavery" (a very odd & loaded term to use).

As per Dai (and as acknowledged by Richard) it is about "knowing more" and ensuring that this knowledge and information is included in a thorough decision making process by Clubs and Architects.

What is really arrogant is knowing that such historic information and knowledge exists, and yet simply ignoring it, or even worse attacking or blocking it, to make a decision based on less knowledge and/or personal bias/interest.

It is, of course, for Clubs to make their own decisions, but both Architects and knowledgable GCA nerds can and should be included to get to a fully informed solution, that is best for all. If it is change, then at least ensure the club and membership understand and agree why, in full knowledge.


A question to you;
Would you have no interest in any project to bring back to use The Good Doctor's Sitwell greens, for example?

A “very odd” and aggressive response, and one that has more than a hint of the arrogance Niall very correctly identifies as the problem with the “we know best” argument.

[David Kelly]

I can't help thinking that the "we know better" argument just smacks of arrogance. Likewise the idea that the course layout/design should be a slave to the past. The ODG's weren't squeamish when it came to changing and in some cases trashing predecessors and even contemporaries work. Why should we ? Particularly when the course has already been tweaked and changed dozens of times in the interim.

The difference is that in the USA back then, the ODGs weren't working on courses with an established history of 100+ years.  Some of the UK courses did have a long history even then but the previous architect contributions were far less documented and acknowledged.

[Tags:]

Tags: