Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: DMoriarty on March 30, 2006, 01:51:03 PM
-
Like Sean, I too have been going through the old magazines, looking at the photos and reading some of the articles. I am a long ways from all the way through the material, but a few preliminary Hypotheses are inescapable.
1) There was indeed a “dark ages” of golf course architecture which was well under way in America by the turn of the 20th century.
2) This “dark ages” approach to golf courses was by far the dominant approach to golf architecture at this time, even many of our most famous courses.
3) Most of the evidence of the dark ages no longer exists—this was a chapter of golf course architecture that has been erased from history, likely by drastic revisions in later years, such as a dark ages.
4) This dark ages approach was quite formulaic and industrial looking, not just in the shape of the features, but even moreso in the placement of the features.
5) Perhaps the main guiding principle of this era of design was to punish poor play and reward good play.
6) I have seen no evidence that this era of design evolved from some other activity like steeplechase, nor have I seen any evidence that this era was a product of the rudimentary efforts of those who did not know any better. To the contrary, this era seems to be a conscious rejection of those course principles found in the great seaside links courses. The reason being was that the Scottish courses were too random and arbitrary to consistently punish the week shot and reward the good shot.
From a 1901 article on called “Bunker Architecture,” by Joseph E.G. Ryan, from Golf, the official bulletin of the USGA.
. . . the paramount purpose of a bunker is to discourage and penalize indifferent play.
In Scotland, the generally accepted home of golf, the majority of the bunkers are natural. Occasionally, on account of a hazard which existed when the hole was laid out, it is necessary to play short from the tee, as, owing to its being a natural bunker, the conformation of the hole could not be changed very well. Tradition clings so closely to some of the Scotch links, particularly the older ones, that it would savor of a sacrilege to " deface " the courses by changing the hazards, and so prevent an institution of comparison between the way Harold Hilton plays them to-day and the manner in which young " Tarn " Morris negotiated them many years ago.
The article then goes on to note that while Scotland may have better turf (although according to article, not for long,) American courses excelled through bunker placement.
On the other hand, the hazards on the American courses make golfing more enjoyable than abroad; that is, good golf is encouraged and poor play penalized more thoroughly through the judicious arrangement of bunkers. Golf became popular in the United States so rapidly that the majority of the courses had to be selected more with a view to acreage than suitability, and for this reason artificial hazards had to be made. Generally five or six of the leading exponents of the game got together and discussed the proper positions for the hazards, setting forth arguments pro and con and eventually agreeing on their disposition. In this manner the best courses in the United States had the advantage of having their artificial bunkers properly placed, and the result is that a good golfer is rarely penalized, while a poor player is continually in trouble.
The article then delves into an incredible discussion about ideal dimensions and placement for bunkers, and contains such advice as . . .
The ordinary bunker has a trap or pit two and one-half feet deep, eighteen feet wide, and thirty feet long. The cop at the back of the trap should be three feet high in front with a sloping back, its thickness depending entirely on the quantity of earth or other filler at hand. The tops of the cops are sometimes rounded, but are oftener flat for about twelve inches from the front, and then they slope gradually to the fair green. The front of the cop should be built in steps-of-stairs fashion, each sod being cut in a strip fifteen inches long, six inches wide, and allowed a hold of four inches. In order to prevent players or caddies from climbing over the cops, a pathway should be cut through the centre in such a manner that the ball cannot roll through it. The entrance to this passageway is generally three or four feet to the right or left of the exit, and it is desirable to sod its sides, with a long All cops should be built on a sloping base and not perpendicular. . . .
As a rule, in a well-regulated eighteen hole course there are three holes of the following average distances: one 150 yards, one 340 yards, and one 500 yards long. Judging from the lay-out of some of the best golf courses in the United States, the most judicious arrangementof hazards for such holes follows:
Take a 150-yard hole, for instance, and if there are no natural hazards it is advisable to place two cop-bunkers 110yards, from the tee, side by side clear across the course. About one-fourth of the bunker in front should overlap one fourth of the other, leaving a path running sideways and not straight for the hole, to prevent balls rolling through. Each of these bunkers should cover one half of the width of the course. The trap should be twenty feet wide . . .
For variety, and in order to add to the picturesqueness of the course, mounds are sometimes erected to guard the green. They should be placed 285 yards from the tee, and built about six or eight feet in height, twelve feet wide, and extending -almost across the course. The end of one mound should overlap the other with a path between, running sideways. The the cop should be three feet from the ground. . . .
In order to catch a sliced or a pulled ball, an oblong or half-moon shaped bunker, without cops, two feet deep with sloping sodded sides, should be placed on each side of the putting-green, about five yards from its edges. . . .
For a hole 340 yards long the theoretical arrangement of artificial hazards would be: Place two bunkers, two feet deep, end for end eighty yards from the tee, with cops eighteen inches high to catch topped or foozled drives. On the right or left of the course, depending on its conformation, and 140 yards from the tee, it is generally desirable to place a long,
sunken bunker, running with the course, of any desired shape, the dimensions being, say, thirty-five feet long, fifteen feet wide, and three feet deep. . . .
. . .Build a cop in two sections about three to five feet high, with a shallow bunker in front extending across the course about fifty yards from the tee. On the right side of the course place a long bunker 150 yards from the tee, running lengthwise with the course, without a cop, to catch sliced balls. The trap should be thirty-five feet long, fifteen feet wide, and three feet eep. About 240 yards from the tee it would be advisable to place a cop-bunker twenty feet wide, three feet deep, and as long almost as the width of the course will permit. This bunker should be built in half-moon shape and have two paths running through it.
The article concludes that those building courses ought to hire one of the “experts” who apparently came up with this stuff, through “science:”
Promoters of minor golf clubs should be made fully cognizant of the importance of engaging experts to lay out artificial hazards, because of the probable and ofttimes permanent effect of badly arranged bunkers upon the game of the amateur, who may some day belong to a club with a scientifically laid-out course. Experts are open to the charge of being cranks, but they know the game most exhaustively, and apply science instead of sentiment to the adjustment of bunkers. To them every angle of the course is as much of an open book as are the angles of the billiard table to the world's greatest three-cushion players. Because of their supersensitive grasp of the situation they " know things," and express them intuitively in directing the man with the spade to begin operations. So it should appear to the golfer that the mission of the bunker is a wider and more comprehensive one than that of provoking profanity.
-
Some examples of the early courses in America, some of which are also in Sean’s excellent link . . .
Baltusrol 1909
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/09blstrl.jpg)
Oakmont 911
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/11okmt.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1890-Garden-City-Cop.jpg)
Women’s USOpen at Shinnecock 1900
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1890-Shinnecock-6th-RR.jpg)
More Shinnecock
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1890-Shinnecock-The-Bastion.jpg)
"Typical Shinnecock cop"
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1891-Shinnecock-Typical-Bun.jpg)
Brooklawn 1901
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1891-Brooklawn.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1898-Atlantic-City-Routing.jpg)
Unidentified Miami Cop
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1898-Miami-Professional.jpg)
St. Augustine 1898
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1898-St-Augustine-Tee.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1899-Concord.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1899-Lakeside-VA.jpg)
Ontwentsia 1899
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1899-Ontwentsia-1st-looking.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1899-Portland-GC-ME.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1899-Portland-ME-Bunker.jpg)
St. Paul 1899
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1899-St-Paul.jpg)
-
David,
I will get back to you on this stuff when I have a little more time this evening.
-
more . . .
Westchester 1899
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1899-Westchester.jpg)
Chicago 1900
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1900-Chicago.jpg)
Garden City 1900
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1900-Garden-City-Cop-Bunker.jpg)
Lakewood 1900
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1900-Lakeside.jpg)
More Lakewood 1900, notice the cop on the right of the photo.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1900-Lakewood-3rd.jpg)
More Lakewood
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1900-Lakewood.jpg)
Onwentsia
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1900-Onwentsia-Bunker.jpg)
Richmond
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1900-Richmond-wee-drop-gree.jpg)
Stockbridge, Mass
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1900-Stockbridge-MA.jpg)
Albany 1901
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1901-Albany.jpg)
Baltusrol 1901
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1901-Baltusrol-Ladies-Open.jpg)
Midlothian 1901
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1901-Midlothian-Trap.jpg)
Pinehurst
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1901-Pinehurst-from-the-Clu.jpg)
Pot Bunker 1901
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1901-Pot-Bunker.jpg)
Scarsdale 1901
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1901-Scarsdale.jpg)
Thomasville GA 1901
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1901-Thomasville-GA.jpg)
Westchester 1901
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1901-Westchester-Golf.jpg)
More Westchester
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1901-Westchester.jpg)
Baltusrol Cop
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/Baltusrol4thGreen.jpg)
Unidentified Cop
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/copbunker.jpg)
Drops
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/Drops.jpg)
Homewood Cop
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/hmwdcop.jpg)
Midlothian
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/Midlothian-Map.jpg)
Tampa
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/Tampa-Plan.jpg)
Ontwentsia 1899
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/_1899-Onwentsia-1st.jpg)
-
"4) This dark ages approach was quite formulaic and industrial looking, not just in the shape of the features, but even moreso in the placement of the features."
Industrial looking???
What the hell does that mean? Do you think that early architecture looked like a factory? Don't bother to answer if you do.
What you need to do is go back and read Max Behr's take on this rudimentary style and time and the real reasons for them. Maybe I'll post what he said about it for you so I can watch you disagree with him too. ;)
Maybe I'll also post again what Bernard Darwin said about the reasons for that early style so you can disagree with him too or tell me what Tom MacWood did----eg that Bernard Darwin must have been joking. ;)
Just incredible.
-
"6) I have seen no evidence that this era of design evolved from some other activity like steeplechase, nor have I seen any evidence that this era was a product of the rudimentary efforts of those who did not know any better. To the contrary, this era seems to be a conscious rejection of those course principles found in the great seaside links courses. The reason being was that the Scottish courses were too random and arbitrary to consistently punish the week shot and reward the good shot."
David Moriarty:
Have you seen the remark from Bernard Darwin about how much those early Dark Age courses and their rudimentary architecture looked like steeplechasing? Have you even seen a steeplechase course?
There is no question at all that the era of the "Dark Age" architecture was one of intended penality. It was called the "penal" school of architecture and it preceeded the "strategic" school of golf architecture that took it's inspiration from particularly TOC and from architects such as Park, Abercromby, Colt and Fowler all of whom knew TOC well, and all of whom plied the Heathlands with the world's first really good INLAND golf course architecture outside of Scotland.
You can read all about this evolution and the reasons for it in the Part One of Cornish and Whitten's book, "The Architects of Golf".
I'm still not sure why either you or Tom MacWood think you can redefine or alter the things they and just about everyone else of knowledge about architecture in the history of architecture's literature said about this evolution and the reasons for it.
"'The laying out of courses used once to be a rather a rule-of-thumb business done by rather simple-minded and unimaginative people who did not go far beyond hills to drive over, hollows for putting greens and, generally speaking, holes formed on the model of a steeplechase course.'"
Bernard Darwin
How much more clear do you think that can get?? ;)
-
My response to your first post, about my No. 4.
I am sure you know what I mean when I describe these features as industrial. If not, look above for dozens of examples.
Further Tom, what about the USGA Bulletin article, written during the "dark ages?" It seems to completely contradict your position.
In sum, he is saying that except for the turf, the "dark ages" American courses were better and more fun than the links courses precisely because because of the formulaic bunkers and features.
Or how about the Junye 1900 article in Outing Magazine by Willie Tucker, where he gets into great detail in how to locate and build a golf course, including hiring an expert, agronomy, drainage, leasehold issues, grow-in, and layout. (This would seem to undercut your theory that these courses were created in as a simplistic, fly-by-night pursuit.) Tucker's says use natural hazards (like lakes, roads, and rock fences) if they are there, but otherwise he describes precisely how to use artificial hazards . . .
Golf is comparatively in its infancy in America, and time will gradually develop it, but for the average American golfer of the present day, and for the next five years, I think a bunker 135 to 140 yards’ carry is quite sufficient. After that time the younger element will be coming right along, and it may be practicable to extend the carries to 160 yards. . . . If in laying out your course considerable lengths are sometimes absolutely unavoidable, and there are no ponds or long grass or bad lies, and where a player who tops his ball is not penalized, then put a sand bunker or pit 135 yards from the tee, so as to catch a half-topped drive. Also put a sand-pit or bunker as near the green as possible. If the hole is 210 yards from the tees, put your bunker from twenty to twentyfive yards short of the green, according to whether your ground is dead or fast. . . .
The best course is where the holes run at these distances, 175 to 185 yards, 320 to 330 yards, 465 to 475 yards. If you have the opportunity of making a short sporty hole of 80 to 100 yards, with water or bunkers protecting the green, making the player pitch his shot on the green to stay there, it adds interest to the course. . . .
The photos he includes as sample hazards include two stone walls and a road ("A natural hazard at Westchester . . . ,") and some of the artificial mound hazards at Nassau.
-
Have you seen the remark from Bernard Darwin about how much those early Dark Age courses and their rudimentary architecture looked like steeplechasing? Have you even seen a steeplechase course?
Yes, Tom I have seen his remark, and with all due respect I think you are drastically overplaying what very well could have been a throw-away remark. Some of the features do look like something one might find on a steeplechase course, but this is a far cry from saying explaining the evolution of the golf course from links to the golden age. It seems like Darwin is attempting to be quite insulting and humorous here, and I dont know why we shouldn't consider the entire statement apocryphal.
But assume you are correct and that these features were designed after the steeplechase. This does not explain why so many early designers turned to steeplechase rather than to the great links courses of golf. It also doesnt explain why they rejected randomness, whim, and strategy for formulaic penal golf.
There is no question at all that the era of the "Dark Age" architecture was one of intended penality. It was called the "penal" school of architecture and it preceeded the "strategic" school of golf architecture that took it's inspiration from particularly TOC and from architects such as Park, Abercromby, Colt and Fowler all of whom knew TOC well, and all of whom plied the Heathlands with the world's first really good INLAND golf course architecture outside of Scotland.
I do not really disagree with this. My point is that "dark ages" penal architecture was a conscious and deliberate break from St. Andrews and the strategic and natural links courses.
So to be more precise, the dark ages represented a break from a naturalistic, strategic roots of golf, and the golden age represented a rejection of the dark ages and a return to those roots.
You can read all about this evolution and the reasons for it in the Part One of Cornish and Whitten's book, "The Architects of Golf".
Thanks for the suggestion but I've already read it.
I'm still not sure why either you or Tom MacWood think you can redefine or alter the things they and just about everyone else of knowledge about architecture in the history of architecture's literature said about this evolution and the reasons for it.
I wont speak for Tom MacWood, but I am not trying to redefine or alter anything. Rather I am trying to understand the evolution of the golf course. As good as the Cornish Whitten book is, it isnt perfect, and it may be that while they captured a large part of the history, they didnt quite get it all exactly right, at least at the level of detail which interests me.
Knock me if you want for saying so, but that is how history works, Tom. Constant review and research and a slow shaping of what is accepted as true and and what is not.
Tom, you still havent addressed the points of the article above.
-
"Yes, Tom I have seen his remark, and with all due respect I think you are drastically overplaying what very well could have been a throw-away remark."
David Moriarty:
A throw-away remark? A throw-away remark??
Well, isn't that convenient of you to say after he completely made my point and refuted yours? :) With all due respect to you that is a rather pathetic "last ditch" remark to claim his statement was a throw-away remark.
Tom MacWood claims he was joking and you claim it may've been a throwaway remark??
Need I say more? ;)
-
"Further Tom, what about the USGA Bulletin article, written during the "dark ages?" It seems to completely contradict your position."
How many more times do I need to answer that before you quit asking??
What do you expect someone in that era and before the onset of the first good golf course inland would have said about it---that they were basically creating shit??
I'm telling you what the best historians of golf architecture's evolution up to and through the Golden Age said about that early time. Do I need to remind you again of who THEY were?
-
Need I say more? ;)
With all due respect, Tom . . . Yes. You need to say much more if you want to make a convincing case that Darwin really believed that Steeplechase courses had a major design influence on golf course architecture.
Don't get me wrong, it is an interesting notion but it is entirely underdeveloped and unsupported. It seems to me like he was just trying to be insulting, and also pointing out that, "generally speaking," these courses forced the golfer to go over the hazards, as opposed to giving the golfer options.
I dont see his comment as a Thesis statement explaining the evolution of golf course features.
But you may be right. Have you any other support besides this one comment? Are there many examples of steeplechase features which served a dual purpose as golf hazard? Were steeplechase jumps called "cops?" Were there any golf designers that also designed steeplechase courses?
If you care to present convincing facts, I am willing to be convinced.
-
"But assume you are correct and that these features were designed after the steeplechase. This does not explain why so many early designers turned to steeplechase rather than to the great links courses of golf. It also doesnt explain why they rejected randomness, whim, and strategy for formulaic penal golf."
Do I really need to go over the reasons for that AGAIN?? I've only been explaining that on here for about two years now. Why don't you just read Max Behr on this issue? In my opinion, he says it better than me despite his labrynthian writing style. ;)
In my opinion, and I'm certain GeoffShac's too, the man was a genius on this stuff--he was amazingly prescient. We've both been reading him over and over for years now. One seems to get a little more from him each time.
-
How many more times do I need to answer that before you quit asking??
What do you expect someone in that era and before the onset of the first good golf course inland would have said about it---that they were basically creating shit??
I'm telling you what the best historians of golf architecture's evolution up to and through the Golden Age said about that early time. Do I need to remind you again of who THEY were?
With all due respect, Tom, it is precisely this perspective with which we should be concerned. That you and history later deem their work ugly and rudimentary is rather besides the point. They thought they were doing something sophisticated and attractive. They thought they were rejecting the style and aesthetic of the links and replacing it with something better. That you and I disagree with them is completely beside the point.
-
"But you may be right. Have you any other support besides this one comment? Are there many examples of steeplechase features which served a dual purpose as golf hazard? Were steeplechase jumps called "cops?" Were there any golf designers that also designed steeplechase courses?"
Darwin's words are good enough for me, and I have eyes---I see what many of those early geometric hazard features looked like and I live in a world of steeplechasing and have for about three decades. Believe me it definitely has not changed the look of its features since the 19th century. Are there many examples of steeplechase features which served a dual purpose as a golf hazard???
David Moriarty, this time you're kidding me right? Golf may have been rudimentary and rough in the last half of the 19th century but I seriously doubt even those people back then would ever think to play golf on a steeplechase course. I asked you if you've ever actually seen a steeplechase course in person, and so now I'll ask you if you've ever seen a steeplechase course after a steeplechase? Are you aware that horses have hoofs or hooves ;) and what they do to turf? Apparently not if you seriously are asking a quesiton like that.
"f you care to present convining facts, I am willing to be convinced."
I have presented facts whether you think so or not and the lasst thing I believe I'd like to do now is continue to try to convince you about anything. To me it's just not even remotely worth it. Sorry about that. It's just fine with me that you think whatever you want to think about golf course architecture, it's histories and evolution and the reasons for them.
There is definitely no good reason I can think of that you and I need to agree about anything.
-
Tom,
Pardon me for saying so, but I think you have twisted-up something quite important here.
--For years now, we have been discussing various influences on certain periods of golf course architecture.
-- And for years you have denied that the "dark ages" of architecture was a conscious rejection of the aesthetics and style of the links courses in favor of a more formulaic, mathematic, and pseudo-scientific approach.
-- But now you have fundamentally altered not only your position, but also the entire nature of the conversation. You now seem to be saying 'so what if they thought they were rejecting the styles and aesthetics of the links courses; so what if they thought they were replacing these styles and aesthetics with something superior, something formulaic and scientific; so what if saw their style as more advanced and better than the links courses. They were wrong! The dark age ourses weren't advanced or sophisticated or better!And because they were wrong we should disregard their influences; disregard their explicit rejection of the links style and aesthetic; disregard their notions of what made good architecture.
Noone is denying that they were wrong. But this has never been what this discussion was about. The discussion has always been about the specific influence of various periods of golf course architecture. To flatly reject their stated influences and explanations is in effect an abdication of the positions you have argued throughout this entire multi-year conversation.
So how about we try to get back to the discussion we have been having for years?
The designers of the dark ages . . . .
1)Explicitly rejected the links style and aesthetic;
2)Tried to replace randomness and quirk with formulaic layouts and a pseudo-scientific approach to the game.
3)Were ultimately rejected and replaced by a group who wanted to return to the style and aesthetic of the links-- the very style and aesthetic that the dark agers rejected.
That is why I keep asking you to address the two articles I cited-- they give insight into just why the dark ages came into being and what it was all about stylistically and aesthetically. For you to dismiss these commentators by simply saying they did not know better is entirely missing the point.
___________________
As for your steeplechase theory, I hope you don't mind me summarizing your answer to my question as follows: You have no actual factual support your conclusion other than this one snippet from Darwin, and your opinion that some of the hazards look like steeplechase jumps.
Needless to say, I am not yet convinced. I'm more than willing to take Darwin's word on this, but I disagree with you regarding the import of this single snippet.
-
Dave Moriarty,
Don't forget that many greens and tees were sand, and as such lent themselves to more rectangular appearances.
I don't know that I agree with your blanket categorization of early 20th century architecture as the "dark ages" in form and function.
I think maintainance practices, or lack of them, had an overwhelming impact on design.
I happen to love cop bunkers.
In addition, many mounds may have been functional, serving as debris recepticles or storage facilities made into architectural features.
I don't have the time to delve into this now, but hope to devote some time to it this weekend.
-
Patrick
Looking at the literature, it is pretty surprising just how prevalent the "dark age" approach was.
That being said, there are a couple of notable exceptions . . .
First, the designers did use natural features when the features were already there anyway and they could be fit into the course. And just about anything qualified as a "natural" feature, not just rivers lakes, bunkers, dunes, quarrys and pits, but also "natural" features such as roads and stone walls. That being said, when artificial features were needed, they pretty much followed the "dark age" approach in form and function.
An example of a mix of already existing natural features plus artifical "dark ages" features might have been Maidstone, which had ample natural dunes and bunkers, but also had five cop bunkers, according to one early article.
Second, there were a few commentators who weren't thrilled with the "dark ages" approach. One that you might be especially interested in was Walter Travis, who wrote an article called "Hazards" in 1902. While Travis is quite critical of TOC, he is also very critical of the American courses "from Portland to Oregon" which all "bear the same family resemblance as to suggest a common origin."
He described these courses as consisting of "the regular stereotyped patterns which tend largely to disfigure
so many of our courses. They are co-existent with the era of terraced putting-greens and built-up tees. Usually they are represented by huge embankments thrown up transversely the full width of the course, resembling rifle-pits, of uniform height throughout—hideous excrescences on the fair face of Nature."
He also describes the "regulation bunker" and notes that this bunker is placed repeatedly at predictable distances (80 to 130 yrds from the tee then again before the green.)
Notably, Travis may be an exception which helps prove the rule, for while Travis is more enlightened than most and is trying to move golf in a more interesting direction, he pretty much confirms the prevalent "dark ages" style of the era.
-
The thing that surprised me the most about going through SEGL was how the early courses were created by man over nature. There was no effort to make the courses harmonize with the land, they were very penal with the hazards being laid out in a standardized formula that was repeated throughout the course.
The one picture that is the most over the top that I have seen is the one of Pinehurst from 1901. I can count at least 50 piles of sand that the caption calls a hazard. I have no other info than this one picture of the hole, would love to see more.
What the hell were they thinking! This goes way beyond the person responsible for laying out the course not knowing how golf was played, or over what kind of arrangements. Other people(golfers)would have seen them building the hole and they played golf on it. Yeah, it might not have lasted for long, but they did put 50 plus piles of sand on a hole and called it a hazard. For me this is some evidence(albeit singular) that golf was going or was already in a different direction. It seems that Vardon even played the course in 1900 and he thought of it as one of the best in the south, sporty even.
The mounds are not set up in a random order they are very formal in appearance that must have been quite the sight from the tee! It is almost military in style trying to defend the hole like a Maginot Line.
I enlarged the picture of the hazard take a look...
http://homepage.mac.com/tullfescue/PhotoAlbum7.html
Tully
-
Dave the USGA archives are wonderful so much to discover.
http://www.usga.org/aboutus/museum/library/segl.html
This is from "British Golf Links" (published 1897) and it's the 4th at Dornoch.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v355/HMPalindrome/Dornoch4thsquare.jpg)
I don't know who did it or how long it stayed there but I'm certain Ross would have seen it (Born 1873).
I will read your posts again over the weekend there’s a lot to take in. I'm troubled by a few articles proclaiming a rejection of what's gone before and the fact at the time there was an explosion in golf courses with a rush to create new ones and lengthen the old, when there were few 'architects' and no specialised builders.
Keep posting these research papers I think it's a fascinating time that is passed over very quickly by most histories.
-
David Moriarty:
In reply to your post #14 this is my response from the bunker 1900-1932 thread to the same questions in post #14 on this thread. Apparently you didn't notice them on the other thread;
"1. The dark ages represented a conscious rejection of the style and aesthetic of the great links courses by so-called experts who thought they could improve on golf courses through a formulaic and pseudo-scientific approach."
No, that is not something I subscribe to at all. I subscribe to the conclusions of Max Behr and most of the others in golf architectural literature who maintained that early Dark Age architecture was merely the result of people building rudimentary golf courses on sites unsuited for it using the only models they knew that could be alternatives to the necessities of golf. I don't know who that author is who wrote that early article you cited but obviously he was one of those that the likes of Darwin and Behr described as knowing no better. Again, I wouldn't expect that author to claim they were creating shit no matter what it was they were making.
"2. The goal of this formulaic and pseudo-scientific approach was reward good shots and punish bad shots."
No question about that at all. This was the age of the "penal" school that preceded the "strategic" school that began the era of the Golden Age of architecture.
"3. The dark ages ended when designers rejected this formulaic and pseudo-scientific approach in favor of a return to the style and aesthetic of the great links courses."
I've only been saying that for about six years on here now. It was the rejection of the rudimentary shit that those who knew no better had made which for the first time led them to examine what it was about the "natural" linksland that made it so ideally suited for golf----AND without really even the benefit of golf course architecture, by the way.
"4. Some of the dark age features look a little like steeplechase jumps."
I didn't notice that Darwin said either "some" or "a little". Again, this is what he said; "'The laying out of courses used once to be a rather a rule-of-thumb business done by rather simple-minded and unimaginative people who did not go far beyond hills to drive over, hollows for putting greens and, generally speaking, holes formed on the model of a steeplechase course.'"
-
"-- But now you have fundamentally altered not only your position, but also the entire nature of the conversation. You now seem to be saying 'so what if they thought they were rejecting the styles and aesthetics of the links courses; so what if they thought they were replacing these styles and aesthetics with something superior, something formulaic and scientific; so what if saw their style as more advanced and better than the links courses. They were wrong! The dark age ourses weren't advanced or sophisticated or better!And because they were wrong we should disregard their influences; disregard their explicit rejection of the links style and aesthetic; disregard their notions of what made good architecture."
David Moriarty:
I have not altered anything I've said of this subject. Most of my discussion on this issue of Dark Age golf architecture was on "Arts and Crafts" threads anyway, something you've just said you don't want to discuss with me. That's fine, I see no need to discuss it with you either.
You're apparently attempting to quote me above. Those are not my words at all, every single one of them are yours. When you quote somebody, David, a pretty good rule of thumb is not to preface an ersatz quotation of someone else with your own words 'you seem to be saying'. ;) :P
-
Dave
You've never left them, have you? ;)
On another thread you wondered why I questioned the timeline of the "Golden Age". Well........our Beloved One places it at 1900-1937, and from what Sean and you and others have posted recently, there was a lot of "darkness" then too, even from some of our most adored dead guys. GCA (and even life) is often not as simple as it seems.....
-
Rich,
You're partially right.
"In general, the courses fall into one of four distinct architectural periods..... 1900-1937: For the first time, architects started to move and shape land to create hazards and add strategic interest. Such work started with the heathland courses outside of London and men like Charles Blair Macdonald brought it to America, where he coined the term 'golf architect' around 1910. Tom Simpson called the Roaring Twenties the 'Golden Age' of course design, and he was right."
-
Sean, I've edited your post slightly so as to address seperately what seems to be to be two distinct points.
Sean said:
Concerning your first premise. It has been my understanding that courses were thrown up quickly and sometimes by people that had never seen a links . . . It is difficult to for folks to reject a style of architecture if they haven't experienced it.
This is certainly the conventional wisdom and often repeated on this site, but I just don't think the historical record supports it. Plus their are a number of facts which cut directly against this.
1. Many of these courses were laid out by Scottish professionals who were quite familiar with links golf.
2. While these courses may have been built quickly, they were also designed meticulously, with bunkers placed in specific, formulaic placements and measurements.
3. If these truly were primitive and built by people who did not know better, then I would expect to see quite a bit of variation from location to location, especially in the States where these locations were quite spread out. But as Walter Travis notes, these formulaic features were replicated in course after course and all over the country-- from "Portland [Maine] to Oregon," as Travis said.
4. The literature of the time documents that this was not random acts of rudimentary design, but part of a specific style and aesthetic, the goal of which was to build an place bunkers in a pseudo-scientific and formulaic manner so as to punish the bad and reward the good.
I think much of what made up links were not strategic-it depended on what nature had to offer. Remember TOC was famously made strategic by the widening of the course first started by Robertson and completed by Old Tom sometime well into the 1880s-maybe later. TOC was then recognized as the king of strategy and I believe this is in fact when designers and critics alike began to fully understand and appreciate the principles of strategy. Even today much of what we admire about 19th century links holes is often not the strategy, but quirk, randomness and the simplicity of design.
Your point regarding strategy is well taken, but it wasnt just the (relatively new) strategic aspects of TOC that the "dark ages" rejected, but was also the "quirk, randomness, and simplicity" of design. There was little quirk, randomness, or simple about these "dark age" designs, not did they make any effort to emulate the naturalness of some of the links courses.
______________________
TEPaul said"
You're apparently attempting to quote me above. Those are not my words at all, every single one of them are yours. When you quote somebody, David, a pretty good rule of thumb is not to preface an ersatz quotation of someone else with your own words 'you seem to be saying'.
Do you mean like this, from below, which I have bolded but not otherwise altered?
-- But now you have fundamentally altered not only your position, but also the entire nature of the conversation. You now seem to be saying 'so what if they thought they were rejecting the . . . .
________
Rich,
Good point. I may have never left them.
from what I have read, I think America was a little later than Europe, but putting specific dates on the "dark ages" or any other stylistic movement is difficult, if not impossible. Not only that, but trying to nail down specific date probably leads to more misunderstanding then understanding.
________________________-
Sean Tully,
I agree with your impressions. This was not random, natural, or haphazard. It was specific, formal, and planned.
-
Sean, I've edited your post slightly so as to address seperately what seems to be to be two distinct points.
Sean said:
Concerning your first premise. It has been my understanding that courses were thrown up quickly and sometimes by people that had never seen a links . . . It is difficult to for folks to reject a style of architecture if they haven't experienced it.
This is certainly the conventional wisdom and often repeated on this site, but I just don't think the historical record supports it. Plus their are a number of facts which cut directly against this.
1. Many of these courses were laid out by Scottish professionals who were quite familiar with links golf.
2. While these courses may have been built quickly, they were also designed meticulously, with bunkers placed in specific, formulaic placements and measurements.
3. If these truly were primitive and built by people who did not know better, then I would expect to see quite a bit of variation from location to location, especially in the States where these locations were quite spread out. But as Walter Travis notes, these formulaic features were replicated in course after course and all over the country-- from "Portland [Maine] to Oregon," as Travis said.
4. The literature of the time documents that this was not random acts of rudimentary design, but part of a specific style and aesthetic, the goal of which was to build an place bunkers in a pseudo-scientific and formulaic manner so as to punish the bad and reward the good.
I think much of what made up links were not strategic-it depended on what nature had to offer. Remember TOC was famously made strategic by the widening of the course first started by Robertson and completed by Old Tom sometime well into the 1880s-maybe later. TOC was then recognized as the king of strategy and I believe this is in fact when designers and critics alike began to fully understand and appreciate the principles of strategy. Even today much of what we admire about 19th century links holes is often not the strategy, but quirk, randomness and the simplicity of design.
Your point regarding strategy is well taken, but it wasnt just the (relatively new) strategic aspects of TOC that the "dark ages" rejected, but was also the "quirk, randomness, and simplicity" of design. There was little quirk, randomness, or simple about these "dark age" designs, not did they make any effort to emulate the naturalness of some of the links courses.
______________________
TEPaul said"
You're apparently attempting to quote me above. Those are not my words at all, every single one of them are yours. When you quote somebody, David, a pretty good rule of thumb is not to preface an ersatz quotation of someone else with your own words 'you seem to be saying'.
Do you mean like this, from below, which I have bolded but not otherwise altered?
-- But now you have fundamentally altered not only your position, but also the entire nature of the conversation. You now seem to be saying 'so what if they thought they were rejecting the . . . .
________
Rich,
Good point. I may have never left them.
from what I have read, I think America was a little later than Europe, but putting specific dates on the "dark ages" or any other stylistic movement is difficult, if not impossible. Not only that, but trying to nail down specific date probably leads to more misunderstanding then understanding.
________________________-
Sean Tully,
I agree with your impressions. This was not random, natural, or haphazard. It was specific, formal, and planned.
Dave
The point I was trying to make was that the idea of strategy wasn't fully realized until the start of The Golden Age. I don't believe there was strategic model for dark agers to look back toward. Lets say for argument sake that TOC didn't become what we would consider a strategic masterpiece until 1890. That leaves just over 10 years before Park "discovers" a method to utilize more natural "TOC like" strategy and, importantly, on turf which more resembled links.
I don't think dark agers had enough time to properly formulate, learn, impliment, and assess their design concepts before they were rejected by a more modern and what turned out to be Golden Age wave of designers. Included in this new wave of design were the principles of randomness, quirk and simplicity of design taken from the old guard of 19th century links design. I think the idea of strategy is mainly born with the post Tom Morris version of TOC. These two largely separate sources of inspiration combined with the discovery of heathland turf were the driving forces for The Golden Age.
Of course its all theoretical bullshit, but bullshit flies all the time on this site.
Ciao
Sean
-
"TEPaul said"
Quote:
You're apparently attempting to quote me above. Those are not my words at all, every single one of them are yours. When you quote somebody, David, a pretty good rule of thumb is not to preface an ersatz quotation of someone else with your own words 'you seem to be saying'.
Do you mean like this, from below, which I have bolded but not otherwise altered?
Quote:
-- But now you have fundamentally altered not only your position, but also the entire nature of the conversation. You now seem to be saying 'so what if they thought they were rejecting the . . . ."
Yes, just like that. The remark below isn't my words either---they are yours---again. ;)
-
Dave and Tom, all I can say is you two have provided one hell of a discussion on both threads, thanks for the monumental efforts.
I'm leaning towards the notion that the "Dark ages" were a symptom of a time when there was great arrogance about the powers and dominion people had over nature, due to the burgeoning industrial-technology age. Sort of like 'manifest destiny', they didn't give a crap about the aesthetics or the impact on the land, only the technicalities of the game to be mastered.
I think the builders of these monstrosity golf courses did it because they could. They did know what great golf links looked like. But, at first they didn't bother to emmulate them. They were more concerned about manufacturing a field of play for their skill set based game, and didn't give a crap about the aesthetics. They built these formulaic geometric designs out of arrogance and disrespect for nature, not ignorance of what natural links ought to be like. Most all of them knew how to play the game at the highest level of their times. But, they didn't have a respect for the cradle of the game in terms of the symbiotic relationship it has with nature and the ground. When they did add something to a natural links, they put in ugly sleepers, and such because they didn't have an aesthetic awareness of the relationship of the game and the ground, or couldn't be bothered. They just cared about the penal nature of obstacles to overcome in order to win the match and demonstrate their skills, not the ultimate and total experience of the golfer.
After man went throught the initial phase of arrogance and dominion over the land that the game is played upon, the more aesthetic ethic of the total experience and respect for the land and golfer reasserted itself, as a natural progression of things.
That is my limitted thoughts that come from your fine thread.
-
RJ
There's little question that the Victorian Era in England and the entire AGE of the 19th & early 20th century industrial revolution in GB and America was a time of hubris, complex dynamics and all kinds of new possibilities never before known in almost all fields---business, social issues, art, religion, philosophy etc, not to mention the extraordinary connection to almost everywhere railroads were providing in these industrial countries.
Golf obviously benefited from some of those things, particularly business (greater prosperity for a far greater number due to the prosperity of the Industrial revolution) and the far easier transport of railroads.
Arrogance, hubris, the "fin de siecle", if you will, was surely evident but I still just do not see anything much to support the fact that the earliest inland golf architecture in England and America---eg that era from perhaps 1875 to 1910 known as the "Dark Ages" was anything other than the first scratchings of wholly man-made architecture on sites simply not suited for golf (as Behr kept mentioning). The fact that so many of those inland Dark Age course clubs did not even understand the necessity for good golf of really good ground both topographically and vis-a-vis soil conditions is incredibly indicative of the lack of understanding of those early inland examples.
Those rudimentary geometric features that Darwin described as looking like steeplechasing was the result of the unsophisiticated mind as it pertained to the necessity of naturalism for golf on raw sites and certainly in the vein of manufactured architecture which, again, we must realize had never before happened. As C&W mentioned about Old Tom and some of his early Scottish "lay-out" compatriots we probably should hold them that responsible for most of the pathetic attempts at architecture on many of those early Dark Age inland courses for the simple reason that they never stayed there more than a day or two anyway.
This first emigration outside of Scotland was the first attempt at real man-made architecture. We shouldn't forget that. The first attempts!! Can we logically expect those very first attempts inland on those unsuitable sites to be sophisticated or even arrogant or some form of rejection of the almost wholly natural wonderful golf courses of the Scottish linkslands?
I don't think so. What it really was is extremely simplistic AND unsophisticated, as the likes of golf's best observers of that time, Hutchinson, Darwin, Behr and Macdonald said it was.
-
It would be interesting to find out how much these rudimentary course cost to be built.
-
Paul:
Good point, and one I was going to make but forgot to.
As Darwin mentioned the "layout" designer generally rushed around hurriedly with locals chasing after him staking a tee, a landing area and a green site (generally in some hollow) nine or eighteen times and was then back on the train and out of there with probably a few pounds of a design fee in his pocket.
As for the architectural features of that kind of rudimentary Dark Age course----afterall how much does it cost to demark a tee space on the ground, make about 36 pits and berms 3ft high, 30ft long and 18ft wide, all at exact intervals and a square space for a green on the ground, all to be erected later by cheap labor? I'd say not very much.
How in the world anyone could call that advanced and sophisticated golf architecture, or even that those creating it would call it that is beyond me. ;)
Bernard Darwin labeled these kinds of early and simple inland courses as what they were---hurried rudimentary inland layouts on land and soil unsuited for golf and the work of simple-minded people that generally looked like a steeplechase course.
In his descriptions of this kind of Dark Age course Darwin was obviously not joking or offering a "throw-away" remark---he was, as always, the excellent golf and golf architecture observer.
-
TEPaul,
"Avanced and sophisticated architecture" costs money. Maybe these first courses were done simply because the folks who were having them built didn't think it would be prudent to waste a lot of cash on a sport that was in it's infancy here in the U.S..
I don't think it's a stretch to believe that frugal (a familiar word here in New England) clubs looked at it this way. Wasn't golf just another diversion, along with croquet, badminton, tennis, shooting and polo?
-
JimK:
Perhaps cost was a factor in the last half of the 19th century, but logically I would think with most of those so-called Dark Age courses done in that early era it was probably simply a lack of expectation and a lack of knowledge. what else would they have done anyway on those inland sites? We shouldn't forget that in that early era golf architecture as we know it really didn't even exist yet. Who did a golf course on an inland site that in any way attempted to mimic nature before Park jr and Sunningdale and Huntercombe? No one did and that's precisely why Park jr has always been given credit for doing the first good golf course architecture in inland England in the Heathlands.
Again, who had ever thought to imitate nature until that point? No one had. That's why this notion that those rudimentary inland courses of the Dark Age of architecture was some general rejection of the linksland is unsupportable.
-
Patrick, I was just at Pinehurst for three regrettably non-golfing days of business. I did have time to walk a few holes at #2, what incredibly difficult greens! There are a ton of pictures on the walls throughout the Carolina Inn of the old days at Pinehurst, where the greens were sand until into the '30's. And most of those were quite symmetrical, mostly round.
-
huge embankments thrown up transversely the full width of the course, resembling rifle-pits, of uniform height throughout—hideous excrescences on the fair face of Nature."
That has to be one of my favorite putdowns ever. Old Mr. Travis sure could turn a phrase.
-
It's funny, the more I see of the supposed 'dark ages' of GCA, the more I feel like it may have been the most exciting time in the history of Golf. They didn't have many "standards" or models or really any conventions to draw upon beyond the links. In a way, (and I may be stoned to death for this) images from the 'dark ages' are often the most surprising, innovative and interesting images of all.
Using the term 'Dark ages' has a similar effect to the periods in history most often referred to as 'dark' - In our preoccupation for how wrong they were, we seem to dismiss it, and learn little of what might have been accomplished there.
GCA has evolved into a spectrum with, on one end, 'realism' or 'minimalism' which attempts to minimize the disruption of the natural landscape and to blend its constructions into the earth as to appear as if it were always there. On the other end would be located a more 'abstract' art of stylized bunker shapes and hazards; 'unnatural', 'contrived' gardens which have a distinctly manmade appearance. However, few of those architects on the 'abstract' end, ever really pushed the art to the limit - Muirhead was most likely one of the few who tried. I'd say Dye is another, to a lesser degree.
Who knows where golf might go, if we weren't such puritans? I may be among those who fear that frontier, but it is interesting to consider.
-
Dave
The point I was trying to make was that the idea of strategy wasn't fully realized until the start of The Golden Age. I don't believe there was strategic model for dark agers to look back toward. Lets say for argument sake that TOC didn't become what we would consider a strategic masterpiece until 1890. That leaves just over 10 years before Park "discovers" a method to utilize more natural "TOC like" strategy and, importantly, on turf which more resembled links.
Sean,
I'll take your word for it regarding TOC and the links courses. Unfortunately, I really don't know much about them much less their history. Still though, there was much to learn from the early links-- naturalness, whimsy, randomness, quirk, luck, etc.-- yet they not only turned their back on all of this, tried to minimize these whimsy, randomness, quirk, and luck in order to make the game fair-- punish the bad shot and reward the good.
I don't think dark agers had enough time to properly formulate, learn, impliment, and assess their design concepts before they were rejected by a more modern and what turned out to be Golden Age wave of designers.
I think you may be underestimating the prevalence and reach of this style. As Walter Travis notes in 1902, this style dominated golf in the United States from "Portland [Maine] to Oregon. And we are not talking about a few "dark ages" courses, but perhaps hundreds.
-
This first emigration outside of Scotland was the first attempt at real man-made architecture. We shouldn't forget that. The first attempts!! Can we logically expect those very first attempts inland on those unsuitable sites to be sophisticated or even arrogant or some form of rejection of the almost wholly natural wonderful golf courses of the Scottish linkslands?
I don't think so. What it really was is extremely simplistic AND unsophisticated, as the likes of golf's best observers of that time, Hutchinson, Darwin, Behr and Macdonald said it was.
Yet they were arrogant about their rejection of the links model, and they thought they were being sophisticated in their designs as well. Nothing the listed authors write contradicts this.
Moreover, the writers of the time tell us they were rejecting the linksland, and tell us that the bunkering and features made the "dark ages courses" superior. So how can we assume anything else. To ignore what they have told us and instead substitute our own unsupported, post hoc judgment is fallacious.
Likewise, this notion that a lack of money lead to the "dark ages" features is likewise unreasonable and without factual support. It is certainly more expensive to build 30, 40 or 50 yard cop bunkers, one or two on each hole, than it is to leave the land alone or sprinkle a few random features here or there. And many of the clubs we are talking about were monied clubs who could afford to spend more than a little and did. Does anyone seriously contend that a club like Baltusrol built over a dozen cops because they were trying to save money?
The amazing thing about this conversation is that many would rather speculate about the way they they think things might have been rather than actually taking a look at the evidence of how things were. We've no need to speculate about this stuff, because the historical record is now readily accessible. Thanks USGA!
I've seen no evidence that the features of this era were a result of frugality. If anything, many of them look like rather large and expensive earth work projects (see the Pinehurst mounds for example.)
Here is a shot of Nassau Country Club from 1909. with their modest clubhouse in the background. At this time the course was 15 yrs. old.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1909-Nassau-with-Clubhouse.jpg)
-
The following is from the Guide to American golf by A.H. Findlay. I could not find a date in the book but the last date referenced was 1897 so this is pretty early. The entire book lays out the rules of the game and some thoughts on laying out a course, hints on playing the game, etc. It seems inevitable that this was used by any number of people as a guideline for their taking up the game and building there own golf course. Funny that there is a reference to steeple chase, but it is not attached to the cop bunker, but a hedge made from branches and is frowned upon. If you read this and the other articles that I put in a previous thread it shows a very defined description of how to layout a course and build bunkers. The first two articles are very interesting and as you read them you see the thought moving towards allowing nature into the design of bunkers.
http://homepage.mac.com/tullfescue/PhotoAlbum11.html
Where nature, by some oversight, has forgotten to provide
hazards or bunkers, they should be built by man. The best
are made by building a pile of earth work, about waist high
and with sloping sides. The sod should be carefully removed
from the place where the bank is to be constructed, and the
earth thrown up in front of the excavation until a mound of
the right height is formed. Shape the earth so that the sod
may be replaced on the bank thus formed, for this adds
greatly to the appearance of the bunkers and preserves its
shape and outline. The trench behind the mound should be
filled with loose sand, if possible, as to get the ball out of sand
requires a peculiar stroke, unlike any other in golf, and there-
fore adding to the variety of the game, and it is less unpleasant
to play a ball out of sand than out of the mud that is sure to
collect in such a place in wet weather. This bunker may be
either in a straight line across the course, or in a zig-zag pat-
tern like the lines of a fortification. Hazards may be also made
by building hedges of branches, such as are used as hurdles in
steeple-chasing, but these are not so satisfactory, as the ball is
apt to be lost in them or creep into such a nook as to be un-
playable. Wooden hurdles with sloping sides are also open to
objection, as the ball often strikes there and bounds over on
the other side.
2nd part...
This is a perfect description of golf that dominated in America in 1903 when the Oxford and Cambridge Golfing Society’s made a tour of our best courses at the time. This first page gets to the point of our whole discussion. This is only the first page to three-page article that only gets better when they refer to CGC and some other courses in the East. I have always wanted to see Myopia Hunt Club from the first pictures that I saw of the course, and this article is even greater impetus for me to see the course.
You have to love the intro, I’m sure they had a lot of fun on their trip. In a side note, a member of the OCGS was a young man named C.H. Alison, I wonder if he ever wrote anything about his thoughts on his trip?!!!
Some Reflection Upon American Golf Courses By J. A. T. Bramston
USGA Bulletin November 1903
WHEN our ancestors gave dinner-parties in the hard drinking days, it was customary to put their best wine on the table at an early stage in the meal, the poorer quality being retained until the taste and discrimination of the guests had been somewhat blunted by their potations. This method was adopted by those who had charge of the arrangements of the Oxford and Cambridge Golfing Society's tour. For there is little doubt, at any rate in the minds of the English players, that the best course on which they played was that of the Myopia Hunt Club in Massachusetts. The reason why this course proved so popular was because it presented many of the characteristics of the British links. The holes are made to fit into the natural lie of the ground, and the ground is not tortured and twisted so as to afford holes of the supposed ideal lengths. Moreover, natural hazards are made use of and brought into play wherever possible, and the greens are not banked up and made true with a spirit level, but are left naturally rolling and undulating. All this is admirable, and it proves what a great advance has been made in the American conception of a good golf course, Elsewhere the courses show many proofs that the spirit of mathematics has been abroad. The hole, it has been assumed, must be a definite number of yards in length, and when that distance has been measured off, the green is manufactured irrespective of position, surroundings, and the natural play of the ground. It is easy to see how this method has arisen. It is a direct corollary of the American thoroughness. Some authority gave out that the holes should be of certain varying lengths, and this dictum has been followed out in the absolute letter, without regard for the greater plasticity of treatment demanded of the spirit. But, after all, the origin is more or less immaterial. It is the result which is important. And the result is a number of courses of a very similar nature, which call for the same strokes time after time. There is nothing to make the player exert himself, to draw him out, and compel him to use his judgment. In a word, there is a great lack of interesting shots. Now this plea for interesting shots is not in the least confined to the American courses. The English links (as opposed to the Scotch) have in many cases the same characteristics as those across the Atlantic, arising also from the sudden spring that the game made into popularity. Only this happened in England some fifteen years ago, whereas in America it was more recent. The courses were laid out by a few men whose ideas upon golf were materially the same, and, unfortunately for the game, these were not the best ideas. The result was a crop of holes varying between 300 and 400 yards, with a narrow bunker across the course to catch a miss hit drive and another of the same type in front of the green to entrap a foozled second. But it must be patent that the amount of skill requisite to surmount these obstacles is infinitesimal, and the interest which they arouse really non-existent.
Thanks to the USGA for making this info available on the internet.
-
Dave
The point I was trying to make was that the idea of strategy wasn't fully realized until the start of The Golden Age. I don't believe there was strategic model for dark agers to look back toward. Lets say for argument sake that TOC didn't become what we would consider a strategic masterpiece until 1890. That leaves just over 10 years before Park "discovers" a method to utilize more natural "TOC like" strategy and, importantly, on turf which more resembled links.
Sean,
I'll take your word for it regarding TOC and the links courses. Unfortunately, I really don't know much about them much less their history. Still though, there was much to learn from the early links-- naturalness, whimsy, randomness, quirk, luck, etc.-- yet they not only turned their back on all of this, tried to minimize these whimsy, randomness, quirk, and luck in order to make the game fair-- punish the bad shot and reward the good.
I don't think dark agers had enough time to properly formulate, learn, impliment, and assess their design concepts before they were rejected by a more modern and what turned out to be Golden Age wave of designers.
I think you may be underestimating the prevalence and reach of this style. As Walter Travis notes in 1902, this style dominated golf in the United States from "Portland [Maine] to Oregon. And we are not talking about a few "dark ages" courses, but perhaps hundreds.
I guess all of my rable is really leading up to the idea that the so-called "dark ages" existed from the begining of golf until roughly 1900-05. There are really three elements which make the Golden Age golden. 1. Design with strategy in mind. 2. Utilizing land that was similar to links conditions. 3. The effort to "build" courses which imitated nature.
I don't think there were courses existing before the "completion" of TOC that were obvious models for dark agers to look back toward. Examples of holes that incorporated all three of the Golden Age principles were not common even on links. Why else would nearly every links have been radically changed after the completion of TOC? The improved balls can account for added length in design, but nothing else.
Granted, the US was probably 15 years behind the UK in developing Golden Age designs. In that period and previously many Brits came to the States to make their fortune. I am not convinced that a lot of these "pros" would have been well versed in what we today would consider good design simply because there were few Golden Age courses about to learn from. I have no doubt that what you say about arrogance and building superior courses is true for some. Why not? Architecture was and remains a subjective field. However, I am not sure this indicates any rule of thumb.
Ciao
Sean
-
What follows is an index to courses in the US and Canada from 1899. The authors acknowledge that the list is incomplete.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1899-Golf-Guide-Index.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1899-Golf-Guide-Index-Pg2.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Early%20Inland/1899-Index-to-Golf-Guide-pa.jpg)
-
SeanT:
Thanks for posting the 1903 USGA Bulletin article by J.A.T. Bramston.
That article appears to be an excellent description of not only the state of early geometric so-called Dark Age architecture (perhaps coined by the likes of Macdonald) but also the apparent reasons for it.
I read that article a few montha ago but rereading it I see much in that article that very closely parallels what Max Behr was to write about later regarding the necessity of 'Nature's part' in both golf and golf architecture, and why that was not preserved when golf first migrated out of the Scottish linksland. At that time (1903) Behr was probably an underclassman at Yale and aware of Bramston's article and others like it. Behr was also one of the nation's best amateurs (as well as an excellent tennis player) and probably fairly close to those of the early USGA.
Behr wrote often of the inclination in early golf and its early architecture of the use of what he called 'the game mind of man'. What he meant by that is Man's inherent inclination to define or precisely demark the lines and boundaries of many of his recreational games such as tennis, football, baseball. In this sense the inclination to incessantly measure things in that early Dark Age architecture (the exact dimensions of hazard features, other man-made features as well as the foumulaic length of holes) as mentioned in Bramston's article would seem to be the result of the same motivation.
It is interesting how steeplechasing is mentioned again (that sport's jumping obstacles were exactly defined and measured) as well as the basic model of mathematical military fortifications as they might apply to or look something like the exact dimensions of the hazard features of those geometric early courses.
I think Behr's later description of the inherent "game mind of man" to precisely define and measure his playing fields is an excellent one. As Behr mentioned, this is Man's inherent inclination in most all his "games" (and probably in most things he builds and constructs), as opposed to what Behr terms as "sport" (the necessary inclusion of Nature herself in the contest). This inherent inclination to define, measure and demark produced the playing field of tennis, football, baseball etc, as well as apparently the makeup of early geometric golf courses. It seems this was simply the inherent thing to do with no previous man-made model for golf architecture, with no previous experience in the building of golf courses etc.
Consequently, I would even more seriously doubt that those early geometric, defined, measured, demarked golf courses of the so-called "Dark Ages" were any more a rejection of the natural linksland courses than the playing field of tennis, football, baseball, steeplechasing or even military fortification, all of which preceded golf architecture, were a rejection of something useful in its natural state in such pursuits.
Again, as Behr mentioned, that inherent inclination in many of his sporting recreations is simply the "game mind" of Man, which is little more than his inclination to define, demark and measure.
Doing these things (defining, demarking and measuring) were obviously not just idle endeavors to this inherent inclination of Man---he clearly did it to more completely and closely isolate skill so that it alone could be seen to be the determinant in the outcome of the particular contest.
However, as Behr also said, this was the unfortunate misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the part of those early erectors of the so-called "Dark Age" courses inland and outside Scotland----eg they took the letter out but not the spirit and essence of the Scottish linksland sport which was the overiding use of Nature herself unaltered and unsullied by the hand of Man.
This is what they did not understand until the onset of "Golden Age" some 2-3 decades later when golf architects first began to turn back to the natural linksland model and more closely examine it perhaps even out of total disgust for what had transpired in the very first early scratchings of man-made architecture on sites outside Scotland and naturally unsuited for the sport of golf.
-
In continuing to consider the methods and motives of those who built the dark age courses, I believe we have to look at the crossections of society at that time. We have to examine who these movers and shakers were that rapidly brought the game to the American soil.
Not that the dark ages of the formulaic and geometric didn't also invade England's soil after the games first apearances in England like Royal North Devon and other links. But once the move out from the links ocurred we did in fact see the construction/manufacture of those same ugly courses there in non-links like ground.
But, who was responsible for promoting the growth of golf at this burgeoning era of the game? I think it was the the captains of industry and commerce of the day. I think the Brits may have wanted to take the letter of the game, the regulations and skill sets of the game from Scotland (where it was always more democratic and eqalitarian) and assign a more aristocratic nature for the gentrified folk that played and have access to the game in England. Thus, they started "manufacturing" their courses on their own land, in the same mindset that one would expect from "movers and shakers" of a community of people that were used to the methods of the society to which they belonged. They imposed their will to get it done, on my land, my way or the highway. Make it stern and penal!
Their will picked up on the challenges of the skill set and the "game mind of man", as Tom refers to Behr's comments, and as he states they picked up on the letter of the game, without appreciating the "spirit". So, with their mindset of dominion over the earth they imposed the rigors of the game by formula and regulation, rather than by the enchantment and harmony with nature of the original game in all of its quirks and uncertainties related to the random naturalness of the links land from which the game was born.
Johnny Bramson's comments, contrasting the natural and more true to natural golf links ideals VS mathematical and torturous formulaic approaches that they encountered on their U.S. tour reveals what the best players knew - they just didn't find it in the new world of courses built by that same class of movers and shakers on this side of the pond.
In fact, I think that most of the class of people that were developing golf clubs and golfing societies on this side of the Atlantic were Anglophiles. They were more apt to have encountered the game on trips to England, or if they played in Scotland, they played with English people of commerce and wealth and adapted to the anglo view of things.
Then, look at 'who' pointed out in various inspired writings the hideousness of the formulaic/geometric, dark age golf course designs. Those commentators were often people that would have naturally reacted to the class distinctions that progressive thinkers were making in opposition to the "robber barrons" and wealth society that were doing all manner of activities to rape the land and garner its resources for their immediate private use and gratification without regard to nature, conservation, or legacy to our successors. It wasn't just the construction of golf courses, it was much more.
Hunter, Darwin, Behr, Hutchinson, were men that I suspect would not have been sympathetic to the methods and motives or politics of the class of people that were predominantly spreading the game at that time (1890s-20s) Perhaps their critical comments on the new class of manufactured golf courses was also indicative of their desire to point out the developers methods and motives that were leading to values that were contrary to origins of the game.
-
RJ;
Interesting post. I think I understand what you're driving at.
-
Good, because I probably don't! ::) ;D
-
I was afraid of that and consequently worded my post carefully. ;)
-
I hereby disclaim everything I have ever said up until now, except those areas where history may prove I was right! :P ::) ;D
-
"Hunter, Darwin, Behr, Hutchinson, were men that I suspect would not have been sympathetic to the methods and motives or politics of the class of people that were predominantly spreading the game at that time (1890s-20s) Perhaps their critical comments on the new class of manufactured golf courses was also indicative of their desire to point out the developers methods and motives that were leading to values that were contrary to origins of the game."
RJ:
An interesting assumption there.
Hunter may've been opposed in some ways to that class and their domination of early golf clubs in the US. Hunter had been of a decided socialist bent but then he was also married to a very rich Connecticut aristocrat. ;)
I wouldn't really know about Darwin but perhaps he followed his Country Life predecessor Horace Hutchinson and was totally influenced by William Morris and the Arts and Crafts Movement. Morris, by the way, was an English political socialist and nigh onto a communist.
As for Max---well who the hell knows about a guy like that? He could've been anything. In the end he created his own over-all philosophy that was based on his own creation of numerology.
But there was one guy among them who supported the aristocrats and their philosophy in earlier golf about totally---eg a card carrying elitist----Charles Blair Macdonald! ;)
-
Tom, as for CB, it would seem that way. One also would think that MacKenzie was not too sympathetic to any socialist causes from his comments. I wonder if MacKenzie and Hunter ever had it out?
And yet, this was also the time of Teddy Roosevelt and the Trust Busters, Muckrakers, and Bull Moose, etc. Reading TRs comments on environmental issues and odes to a vigorous lifestyle, I am inclined to think that he would have gotten on with the Good Dr. quite well. Even though TR played a little golf but warned Taft that it was a game for sissies.
But, while I'm no literary expert, nor historian, when reading various passages by the great golf writers, I am put in the frame of mind that comes when I read things written by Roosevelt, and I think that sort of mindset influenced the great golf writers attitudes in that era when it came to describing things in nature, including recreational pursuits in the outdoors, like golf and the fields it is played upon.
-
Back to the dark ages!
....
Darwin's words are good enough for me, and I have eyes---I see what many of those early geometric hazard features looked like and I live in a world of steeplechasing and have for about three decades. Believe me it definitely has not changed the look of its features since the 19th century. Are there many examples of steeplechase features which served a dual purpose as a golf hazard???
David Moriarty, this time you're kidding me right? Golf may have been rudimentary and rough in the last half of the 19th century but I seriously doubt even those people back then would ever think to play golf on a steeplechase course. I asked you if you've ever actually seen a steeplechase course in person, and so now I'll ask you if you've ever seen a steeplechase course after a steeplechase? Are you aware that horses have hoofs or hooves ;) and what they do to turf? Apparently not if you seriously are asking a quesiton like that.
"f you care to present convining facts, I am willing to be convinced."
....
I could not resist after I saw the following taken from the Golfers Green Book of 1901.
THE Newspaper Golf Club of Chicago was organized in
October, 1899, and incorporated the following month.
From that time until May, 1901, its clubhouse
and grounds were situated in Oak Park at West
Madison street and Carpenter avenue. The officers of the club
during the first year of its corporate existence were: John
D. Sherman, president; Edward G. Westlake and Worthing-
ton Wright, vice-presidents; William H. Freeman, treasurer, and
Joseph E. G. Ryan, secretary. During the fall of 1900 a nine-hole
course was laid out on the infield of the Harlem race track and
early this spring the Newspaper Golf Club leased it for a term of
five years and commenced play in May. While the ground is flat, it contains enough hazards to make play very interesting, the obstructions consisting chiefly of steeplechase jumps, swampy
ground outside of the line of play, and a pond going to the third hole.The score card, with the name, distance and bogey of each hole, appears on a following page.
Too top off this little bit of information a respectable architect of his time laid out the course and he has ties to Chicago Golf Club!
The course was laid out by...
James Foulis
-
There is a theory that "Jockie's" Burn on Carnoustie (the one which guards the 3rd green was named because it was a water jump on an old race course rather than in honour of some guy named Jock.
-
When particularly "inland" golf architecture first began to emigrate out of Scotland and began immigrating into particularly England in the second half of the 19th century, to not notice or acknowledge that its early features and specifically its early "hazard" features looked like (were formed on the model of) the obstacle features of the horse recreational world of that time, particularly steeplechasing, is to completely miss the obvious, in my opinion. And furthermore, we have one of early golf and early golf architecture's best observers and chroniclers, Bernard Darwin, who remarked;
“'The laying out of courses used once to be a rather a rule-of-thumb business done by rather simple-minded and unimaginative people who did not go far beyond hills to drive over, hollows for putting greens and, generally speaking, holes formed on the model of a steeplechase course.'”
In my opinion, remarks like Darwin’s above are both indicative and valuable to the understanding of how things were in early golf architecture of that time and why things were as they were at that time. To discount Darwin’s remarks, presumably to make some other point about why that early golf architecture looked as it did, or worse yet, to assume that Darwin must have been joking in what he said, is to do real disservice to an excellent observer and chronicler of that time and to also do disservice to a valuable piece of his observed information.
David Moriaty asked me to supply more early written examples that early golf architecture features looked like obstacle features on steeplechase courses. Thank you for supplying another written example SeanT.