Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Adam Clayman on November 25, 2007, 01:46:03 PM
-
Tom Paul asked a question in the Joshua Crane thread that deserves it's own website. But this thread will have to do for now.
What are the similar aspects, concepts and principles of both the Penal and Strategic schools?
In other words, what commonality did Crane and his followers have, to what Behr/Mac/Jones espoused?
I'll save all you smartasses out there by acknowledging Teeing Grounds Hazards and Greens.
I have great hopes for this exercise, please share your thoughts.
-
Adam,
If the golfer so chooses, the so-called strategic school becomes the penal school. It is in challenging the hazards to reap a reward that they become penal. Based on the definitions generally accepted, the penal school eliminates the choice to varying degrees over the strategic.
Therefore, I'd say the difference lies with the golfer.
-
Kyle, I'd only add the word 'freedom' to the end of your last sentence.
-
Kyle, I'd only add the word 'freedom' to the end of your last sentence.
Sounds good.
-
It seems to me that penal design demands one route to the hole which if not taken of hit well punishes the player. Often the penalty does not fit the crime.
Strategic design of the other hand allows the player a variety of ways to play the hole. There is always one line if taken can reward the player for a good shot but fail to pull off the shot there is a penalty to pay. The safe line does not punish a poor shot very much but neither does is reward a good shot as much.
-
Adam -
This is a tough one for me. I want to say the two schools share much in common, but I can't quite make myself say it.
On the one hand, I'll defer to those who say the debate wasn't then and isn't now as black and white as I make it, and that both sides of the debate were/are more nuanced than I'm able to see; and I'll accept the consensus opinion that penal and strategic architecture are points on a continuum rather than polar opposites.
But on the other hand, here's how Crane ends his essay (the one I quoted from earlier):
"Possibly when the shock of the public disclosure of the many faults of certain famous courses has become softened by time, those golfers who have known it for years but who have only whispered it with bated breath heretofore to close-mouthed friends, will find that after all they have not been in the minority. Let us hope that a new era of open, fair, and unbiased discussion of merits and faults be inaugurated, to the betterment of the game."
So here's my problem:
When Crane says 'certain famous courses' he has in mind St. Andrews.
St. Andrews, because of its width and big greens and changing wind and random bounces says "strategic" to me; in fact, it almost defines strategic.
Crane wants very much for the golf course that defines strategic to be the subject of an "unbiased" discussion, by which he means a "scientific" and "objective" discussion. (But remember, by this point he'd already put the Old Course through his scientific ringer and had found it lacking...dead last in fact.)
Crane believes that this objective discussion will expose publicly all of St. Andrews' faults...and to the betterment of the game no less.
In short, Crane thinks that a high opinion of St. Andrews (as held by Jones and Mackenzie) was neither merited nor good for the future of golf course architecture.
In other words, he believes (and deep down thinks he's proven via the scientific method) that the elements of TOC others see as the ESSENCE of good golf architecture are in fact the ANTITHESIS of good golf architecture.
I don't know how we can find 'common ground' there. In fact, it seems like TOC is the 'uncommon ground' in more ways than one; and that if you try to apply to TOC any of the conventional/consensus opinions about penal vs strategic you end up more confused than ever (or at least I do).
Yes, there may be more nuance than I'm seeing/understanding, but I can't escape the feeling that, on Crane's part, most of that nuance was just window dressing; he doesn't really believe it, nor does he think there's much common ground at all.
It's as if it took us 80 more years to come to the enlightened conclusion that penal and strategic architecture are in fact simply points on a continuum. But, since I can't believe that I understand golf architecture better than did Bobby Jones or Mackenzie or Max Behr, that tells me that I'm missing something much more fundamental than just some argumental nuance; THEY seemed to think it was about something more fundamental.
Peter
-
Peter, It is hard to say where they agreed. As this thread had shown it so much easier to express the divergences.
So far, Freedoms and weak holes appear to be the areas where we should focus.
In my own experience Pebble Beach is another great example of how greatness is compiled from both the strong and weak holes, acting in tandem. A course that has 18 great holes can be less of a course in my mind.
Martin's thread on the weakness of the TOC also touches on this counter intuitive nature to greatness.
-
St. Andrews, because of its width and big greens and changing wind and random bounces says "strategic" to me; in fact, it almost defines strategic.
Peter
Could you please elaborate on that thought? It is too "Behrish" in its generality to have any meaning to me. Even if you believe those criteria (and the fallacy that a course can be "strategic"), there are many other and better "definitions" of "strategic." IMHO, of course.
Rich
-
Rich -
I bet my opinion is more humble than yours, and necessarily so.
You know TOC well; I know it only from the descriptions and experiences of people like Bobby Jones, which descriptions I take seriously and place of high value on.
The description/definition of "strategic" that I used is based on Jones' idea that at TOC a top-flight golfer "must use something beyond shots and clubs", and that the course can't be played the same way round after round.
There is an special premium placed on thinking and imagination and self-dicipline there, not in spite of but because "the course is broad and open... the fairways confront you in every direction...the greens are huge... and the wind is a worthy foe". It is a course where a given hole "may be played four different ways, all correct and widely at variance".
All that strikes me as "strategic", independently of what the text-book definition of the word is (which I'm not sure I know anyway). But what really IS the definition/meaning of that word when Jones/MacKenzie/Behr think that TOC breaks all conventional ideas of what a golf course should be? (Is it the "freedom" that Adam mentions?)
Whatever it is, though, Crane didn't like it or approve of it. Does that mean he wanted "penal" architecture (whatever THAT means)? I don't know, and as I say I'm sure there's more nuance there than I'm seeing. But there sure seemed to me to be very little "common ground" there, and that's fascinating to me.
What COULD they have been arguing about that TOC should've been so polarizing a subject?
Peter
-
Would #14 at St. Andrews ever yield 4 different playing options to one type of player?
Am I really standing on that tee choosing among 4 fairly equal distance/direction combinations for that shot?
Or is it that a foursome of players with varying abilities might choose their own direction from the tee?
-
Let me put it much more clearly, Rich, and in the form of a question for you and everyone else:
Jones thought TOC the greatest course in the world; Crane ranked in dead last.
WHY?
What differing ideas/philosophies about what a golf course should be explains this huge disparity?
THEY seemed to know; do we?
Peter
-
JES
the way I read the quote, Jones seemed to be talking about himself/his own game. For HIM, the 14th could be played 4 different ways...all of them legitimate and correct depending on conditions.
You will know much better than I -- have you played many holes that you could say the same about?
Peter
-
Peter,
I read it as 4 distinct direction depending upon your capabilities (maybe I am just picturing the diagram and putting Jones' words with it)...the thing is...a day with a strong tailwind changes Bobby Jones "capabilities" versus the same strength headwind...
I do not know the answer...but if we are to assume that Jones is actually trying to make the lowest score possible on the hole, are there really 4 viable options on the tee of a 500+ yard hole?
"What are the similar aspects, concepts and principles of both the Penal and Strategic schools?"
Adam,
How about...they all thought in whole hole terms. This shot should dictate the next shot...that kind of stuff.
In fact, I would bet they thought about the actual playing of the game very similarly. Where they diverged was in the analysis of what intangibles actually made the game great...
I am much, much less read in the individual writings of these guys so feel free to tell me I'm making to big a leap somewhere, but is it possible that Crane was just trying to quantify the "feelings" and "emotions" golf courses developed in him and the other guys were happy to just leave it at "feelings" and "emotions"?
The fact that TOC came out lowest on his ranking list is irrelevant when discussing "feelings" and "emotions" isn't it? A similar exercise today might feature someone (of note, and influence) publishing a list and formula that showed NGLA to be greatly overvalued by current afficianados...
What have I missed?
Seems to me to be an argument between sides that disagree on AN OPINION and the resulting bases for their opinions...
-
Thanks for the replies, Peter
A few random and tentative responses:
1. Crane "ranked" the Old Course dead last of a very short list of the greatest courses in the world, not of all the courses in the world
2. My objection to Jones' quotes is that they could really apply to just about any golf course. To say that only the Old Course requires one's brain to be used is not correct; most courses (and all courses in areas with heavy and variable winds) play differently from day to day, many much more dramatically and interestingly than the Old Course; the Old Course has far less width than most people think, and what width it has is deceiving.
3. The real differentiating factor of the Old Course (and probably the reason that it hasn't been copied more) is it's almost relentless blindness, particularly off the tee. This is what makes the course a mental strain, particularly for the best players, as they can't see what they have to do, and get limited feedback on what happens after they hit the ball since they can't see it land. Some people call that "strategic." I call it quirky, but overdoes of quirk, particularly one kind of quirk, is a serious flaw in my book.
4. You and Jim are both right vis a vis the 14th. Four players of different abilities and swing patterns will have (at least) 4 diffeerent ways to play the hole on the same day, and the same player (i.e. Jones or you) will have some number of different ways to play the hole on different days. Both of these phenonema are true for just about any golf hole, however, although I will admit that for the 14th it is more so, because of the design.
That's all I have time to write now.
Cheers
Rich
PS--I actually agree with Tom Paul (don't tell him!) when he opined on another thread that the reason Crane got so much flack for his system is because it ranked the Old Course so relatively low. If his system had confirmed Mackenzie and Behr's and Jones' preconceptions, I doubt if they would have come down on him so hard.
R
-
"2. My objection to Jones' quotes is that they could really apply to just about any golf course. To say that only the Old Course requires one's brain to be used is not correct; most courses (and all courses in areas with heavy and variable winds) play differently from day to day, many much more dramatically and interestingly than the Old Course; the Old Course has far less width than most people think, and what width it has is deceiving."
Richard:
First of all, Jones did not say that TOC is the ONLY course that requires one's brain to be used. Only you said above that he said that!
Second, since I doubt you were alive when Jones wrote what he did about TOC I think perhaps you should refrain from telling us how wide it was when Jones played it and consequently wrote about how wide it was.
And thirdly, you wrote in an earlier post that you don't put much stock in what Jones wrote in those quotes on this thread because he had a terrible temper. The fact that he once exhibited a bad temper has virtually nothing to do with what he said about TOC and the differences in it, in his opinion, with some of the American championship golf courses of that time.
-
"PS--I actually agree with Tom Paul (don't tell him!)"
Well, at the very least, that, to me, is cold comfort. ;)
-
"3. The real differentiating factor of the Old Course (and probably the reason that it hasn't been copied more) is it's almost relentless blindness, particularly off the tee. This is what makes the course a mental strain, particularly for the best players, as they can't see what they have to do, and get limited feedback on what happens after they hit the ball since they can't see it land. Some people call that "strategic." I call it quirky, but overdoes of quirk, particularly one kind of quirk, is a serious flaw in my book."
Blindness in golf and architecture, particularly blindness of the type Jones and Behr claimed with TOC (a type of blindness that could often be strategically played away from towards visibility) and also blindness formed by wholly natural landforms was prized.
Behr wrote an article dedicated to the subject of blindness in golf and architecture. His primary tenet is it could make a golfer use his imagination better and trust that his imagination was accurate in play and risk and reward. His other point was somewhat related----blindness called for a lack of instant feedback and instant gratification and that forced golfers to only imagine what their opponent had done.
In my opinion, as apparently in theirs, all good things in golf and architecture if not completely overused.
-
JES
the way I read the quote, Jones seemed to be talking about himself/his own game. For HIM, the 14th could be played 4 different ways...all of them legitimate and correct depending on conditions.
You will know much better than I -- have you played many holes that you could say the same about?
Peter
Peter,
After re-reading the quote you are correct...Jones was referring to an individual person (himself) playing the hole 4 different ways depending upon the conditions (wind).
That being said...do we give credit to the architecture? To the conditions (variable wind)? Or...to the individual players perception, imagination and, most importantly, ability?
It sounds like this course might LET a player like Jones experiment more...
I think width is the thing that makes these tee shots feel different (better?)...I try to hit the ball several different distances on most holes I play depending on the conditions, but rarely is there more than a 15 yard difference in my target width-wise...right pin I go for the left side of a fairway and vice-versa etc...
-
To me penal architecture continually dictates the shot necessary, and punishes any deviation from that predetermined requirement.
What I see strategic design sharing with penal is that certain shots are still required to score well, and missing those shots will typically have an effect on the golfer's score. The difference is that strategic design will typically give you more than one desired shot, or will offer other avenues to score besides just the one option. Rather than severely punishing any deviation from a desired line, strategic design offers additional difficulty, which might result in a higher score, but which also might be overcome by an excellent shot. Still, in both cases there is reward for good shots (even though in one case the shot is dictated, and in the other various options are presented) and punishment for wayward shots (again, in one case the punishment is obvious and severe, while in the other it is more subtle and may be overcome with quality play).
Am I making sense?
-
You know in a real way I've always thought of myself as one of those people who REALLY would like to have a time machine and use it---if for no other reason than to just go back and ask some people questions they may've never been asked or felt compelled to explain their answers to.
I've also felt I am one of those people who is bothered most by "The Great Divide". I think anyone truly interested in history probably is bothered by that more than most.
The reason I say those things is it seems to me to be a damn crying shame that the likes of Joshua Crane, Max Behr, Alister Mackenzie and Bobby Jones et al can't be here to read the questions and opinions on this thread and be able to respond to them!! ;)
But unfortunately there probably never will be a true bridge across "The Great Divide".
-
Jeez, Tom
I throw you a bone ("I agree with Tom") and you try to bite me! :o In order:
1. I wasn't quoting myself, I was quoting PeterP's quotation of what Jones wrote.
2. This hisotry of the Old Course and it's width (or lack thereof) is well documented.
3. I never made any connection with Jones' temper and his credibility. Pleaes go and re-read that thread and report back tomorrow. ;)
4. At Jones peak, most great golf courses were trying their damnedest to eliminate blindness, because it was increasingly out of favour. That's what Harry Colt did to Portrush and Ounty Down. I can't remember whether or not you have actually played the Old Course, but the blindness gets pretty tiresome after a while, even (I'd guess) to someone with such a high boredom threshold (necessary for reading large doses of Max Behr) as you.
Goodnight, Gracie.
R
-
In my opinion, as apparently in theirs, all good things in golf and architecture if not completely overused.
This raises an interesting question - when does a particular aspect/feature of a golf course become overused?
If the golf is always interesting and fun and gives you different shots to hit, couldn't you say never?
Dornoch has mostly plateau greens - are the few that aren't -
8, 16 and 18 tosome degree, from memory - enough to render that particular feature not tiresome?
What is the line between variety, and thematic consistency?
-
"I throw you a bone ("I agree with Tom") and you try to bite me! ::)
Richard the Obtubee...:
If you don't know how to throw an old dog a bone which you obviously don't, the chances you'll get bitten are pretty good.
-
"2. This hisotry of the Old Course and it's width (or lack thereof) is well documented."
Richard:
You can just keep throwing out horseshit remarks like that apparently hoping it will cover some of the things you say on here but I think anybody on this website with half a mind can understand that the way the course was when Bobby Jones played it was a whole lot more accurately described by him than by you through whatever kind of documentation you think you may have. ;)
"3. I never made any connection with Jones' temper and his credibility."
That's true you certainly didn't. And you didn't make any connection between Jones's temper and anything else that has anything to do with this thead either. And so one wonders why you even mentioned it.
"At Jones peak, most great golf courses were trying their damnedest to eliminate blindness, because it was increasingly out of favour. That's what Harry Colt did to Portrush and Ounty Down."
I realize blindness was going out of favour and that may've been one of the issues the likes of Behr and Jones et al had at that time.
I do know Portrush and County Down. I thought particularly County Down had a ton of blindness and frankly I just loved each and every instance of it. The only thing I questioned at County Down is how in the world many of those golfers back in the old days got the ball up high enough and quick enough to carry over the ridge on #11. Some of the rest was simply selective.
-
"What is the line between variety, and thematic consistency?"
Probably something like the line between what is and what isn't pornography. But if the subject is blindness in pornography perhaps something in the reverse from blindness in golf architecture---eg with pornography prudes demand blindness and the free of spirit demand total visibility.
-
Mark, Thought provoking questions. From Mozart's "too many notes" to Vaudeville's "always leave'em wanting more" comes to mind.
When a feature gets overused, usually in a predictable manner, after the round I feel like I never want to see that feature again.
Somehow I think it is all site specific and is a large part of the art and balance in design.
-
Rich & TomP
Isn't the margin of error tightly connected with blindness? In other words, I don't think folks mind blind shots too much if there is plenty of space. For instance, if I hit a wide shot I don't give a tuppence if there is a blind bunker(s) out there. The bunkers and blindness had nothing to do with my poor swing. Where people get caught up with TOC's blindness is that the blind bunkers are seemingly right in the middle of the best place to be. At the very least if there is gonna be trouble on the line of instinct then it should be visible. This is a situation which many people just don't accept. I wouldn't hold so tightly to such a doctrine, but many do and not only that, many of the folks who do think blindness is bad equate it luck.
Many will forgive the dreaded combo of blindness and line of instinct trouble once or twice, but TOC puts this situation on the player's plate an awful lot and very early in the game. IMO, this IS THE MAIN ISSUE which divides opinion on TOC. As Mark states, how much is too much? For me, TOC steps over that invisible line, though I do accept it and consider TOC a great course, just not one of the very best.
I do find it most interesting that given the favourable "expert" opinion on TOC, somebody has not tried to replicate TOC in full measure. By full measure I mean:
-wide fairways scattered with countless bunkers, many of which are blind
-several blind tee shots
-an unusually high premium placed on the par 4s (lack of par 3s & 5s)
- many terribly penal bunkers
-massive greens which go a long way toward helping create the varied angles
-bumpy fairways which demand proper ball flight control and extreme accuracy for the ground game
-out and back routing
Why have archies only used the TOC model in half measures if it is so great? Is it all just a little too much for any archie to dare copy?
Ciao
-
Sean:
Excellent post and excellent questions. Of course the question has been asked practically forever why St Andrews, if it really has always been considered the prototype of all golf architecture, and such a great course, has never been emulated with all the odd characteristics you just listed.
Look at Max Behr's remark from another thread about it:
"St. Andrews violates every conception of what we think a golf course should be. It is now up to our authorities to prove the beneficence of the terrors they spread in the golfer’s way. But this they can never prove. The final appeal which a golf course makes is to the feelings. As I said at the beginning, we get out of a thing only what we bring to it. Mr. Jones brought the greatest golfing skill in the world to St. Andrews, and after he had been tested by it, it was sufficient proof for him to pronounce the Old Course the greatest in the world."
St. Andrews violates every conception of what we think a golf course should be!! Behr doesn't even say it violates every conception of what a good golf course should be, he says a golf course.
Does Behr mean that himself? I doubt he does. Matter of fact, I'm quite sure he doesn't, particularly if one reads the rest of his remark. His remark probably has to mean (when he says "we") those who he believes are taking golf and architecture in the wrong direction----eg people like Joshua Crane. It seems Behr may even be using TOC as the ideal model or prototype from which golf course architecture should never diverge very far.
(I would love to take a time machine back and ask Max Behr what he thinks of my "Big World" theory?). ;)
But it's hard to say if Behr is recommending that TOC should be emulated more completely or simply be allowed to be left alone without alteration since it has earned it through age and some kind of ethereal respect---eg his statement about the importance of "Feeling".
But Behr also wrote an article specifically on blindness defending that characterstic in golf architecture.
But why indeed was TOC never more completely emulated if the likes of Bobby Jones really did feel it was the greatest course in the world?
In the next post I'll offer what I think might be the primary reason.
-
Sean:
Perhaps one of the primary reasons some aspects of TOC, such as its eventual width, was not emulated more elsewhere, may have to do with the odd and unique site configuration of many of the old linksland golf courses.
Simply due to the fact that many of the old Scottish coastal linksland golf sites were long and very narrow (that physical configuration may've been what produced the original natural bents and fescue grasses due to alluvial deposits spread sideways out of contiguous rivers) the massive width of play (after the gorse was cut back from the original narrow playing corridors) was actually a result of combined playing corridors of juxtaposed out and back holes.
Was that result (hugely wide playing corridors of combined holes through out and back juxtapostion) even considered when golf eventually began to emigrate out of the Scottish linksland to sites in other lands that Max Behr mentioned were not suited to receive golf and the "spirit" (naturalness) of the game?
Probably not. No one back then likely ever even thought of such a thing. And right there, right out of the emigration box, golf and its architecture was beginning to get off the tracks of what it once was, and for reasons perhaps not even recognized at that time.
And where was golf and its architecture heading when it first began to emigrate out of the Scottish linksland (probably beginning around the middle of the 19th century when railroads were beginning to blanket GB bringing far more people in and out of Scotland thereby creating greater desire to take the game home with them)?
Darwin mentioned that a lot of that early golf and architecture in inland England was what he referred to as "steeplechase" golf and what even Joshua Crane referred to as "cross country" golf.
Golf and its architecture was headed out of its original home of sandy, alluvial, tumbling and narrow coastal sites wedged between the coastal dunes and nearby inland farming, and off to new lands and its new iteration combined with open, non-narrow sites and hard packed ground of the recreational and sporting world of the horse!
Did any of those people who took the game out of Scotland to sites inland in other lands even notice or understand what they were leaving behind of the game and its original playing fields and what that would come to mean?
According to Max Behr's articles most likely not.
-
Sean:
To carry on Behr's evolutionary thinking about the game when golf was taken to these other lands and sites ill-suited to the way linksland golf had always been due to the uniqueness of the links land sites, man began to tear the component parts of the game apart and try to analyze what they should be---how they should be more logical and scientific than what had been naturally offered land-wise in the unique natural configurtions of links land.
Behr said:
"But to transport it he had to commit a sacrilege--he had to analyze it, tear it to pieces the more easily to pack it in his mind. And, in so doing, he did not realize that what he carried away with him was the letter only, and that he left behind something intangible, that property of unsullied nature, innocent beauty undefiled as yet by the hand of man.
"It was inevitable that the first review of links land golf should have engendered a type of architecture which disclosed a conscious adhesion to a formal order of things. It was not to be expected that the mind would immediately seize the senuous appeal of native golf. Hence, it was not considered in the construction of the first inland courses. The natural architecture of the linksland, passed through the sieve of the mind, came out utilitarian in aspect and mathematical in form. The novice landscape gardener cannot see the planting of trees other than in rows, nor the lawn in front of a house other than in terraces. The conscious mind delights in the fitness of things, in the easily comprehensible, and thus dwells on the surface of phenomena."
I believe what Behr meant when he said 'the conscious mind delights in the fitness of things, in the easily comprehensible' he was referring to what he would come to call "the Game Mind of Man"-----eg much greater definition in golf's inherent component parts, greater visibility and the elimination of blindness, greater fairness through the elimination or minimalization of the natural component of luck via the configurations of natural landforms.
-
Behr said:
"It was inevitable that the first review of links land golf should have engendered a type of architecture which disclosed a conscious adhesion to a formal order of things. I was not to be expected that the mind would immediately seize the senuous appeal of native golf. Hence, it was not considered in the construction of the first inland courses. The natural architecture of the linksland, passed through the sieve of the mind, came out utilitarian in apect and mathematical in form. The novice landscape gardener cannot see the planting of trees other than in rows, nor the lawn in front of a house other than in terraces. The conscious mind delights in the fitness of things, in the easily comprehensibe, and thus dwells on the surface of phenomena."
Thank you, Tom. Finally you have found a quote of Behr's that is precise, well written, and cuts to the chase of what golf course architecture is all about. I now realiise that I having been dwelling on the surface of phenomena for far too many years, and I am ashamed.... :'(
In abject humility
Rich
-
Sean:
Perhaps one of the primary reasons some aspects of TOC, such as its eventual width, was not emulated more elsewhere, may have to do with the odd and unique site configuration of many of the old linksland golf courses.
Simply due to the fact that many of the old Scottish coastal linksland golf sites were long and very narrow (that physical configuration may've been what produced the original natural bents and fescue grasses due to alluvial deposits spread sideways out of contiguous rivers) the massive width of play (after the gorse was cut back from the original narrow playing corridors) was actually a result of combined playing corridors of juxtaposed out and back holes.
Was that result (hugely wide playing corridors of combined holes through out and back juxtapostion) even considered when golf eventually began to emigrate out of the Scottish linksland to sites in other lands that Max Behr mentioned were not suited to receive golf and the "spirit" (naturalness) of the game?
Probably not. No one back then likely ever even thought of such a thing. And right there, right out of the emigration box, golf and its architecture was beginning to get off the tracks of what it once was, and for reasons perhaps not even recognized at that time.
And where was golf and its architecture heading when it first began to emigrate out of the Scottish linksland (probably beginning around the middle of the 19th century when railroads were beginning to blanket GB bringing far more people in and out of Scotland thereby creating greater desire to take the game home with them)?
Darwin mentioned that a lot of that early golf and architecture in inland England was what he referred to as "steeplechase" golf and what even Joshua Crane referred to as "cross country" golf.
Golf and its architecture was headed out of its original home of sandy, alluvial, tumbling and narrow coastal sites wedged between the coastal dunes and nearby inland farming, and off to new lands and its new iteration combined with open, non-narrow sites and hard packed ground of the recreational and sporting world of the horse!
Did any of those people who took the game out of Scotland to sites inland in other lands even notice or understand what they were leaving behind of the game and its original playing fields and what that would come to mean?
According to Max Behr's articles most likely not.
TomP
You are probably correct about the first wave of inland course builders - with some exceptions I am sure. However, by 1900ish the cat was out of the bag and several guys cottoned on about what was unique about links and attempted to recreate interesting golf courses by utilizing interesting land. So the break in the architectural timeline from links to heathland was minimal and without very lasting effects.
I do think the width of TOC was emulated starting around 1900 - probably about when people started to realize width was an important factor in TOC's uniqueness and for the success of heathland golf. Its further down the line that the gca trait of width is not recognized as essential and I think we are still at that point now. Probably as many archies today know width is important as back in 1910, but there are a hell of a lot more archies about today.
I am not so sure width will ever come back like it once existed. First off, there aren't that many models of width about these days. Most links and heathland courses have narrowed considerably. Additionally, as it seems was Behr's lament, the attitude of pencil and paper golf or championship golf became and remains prevalent. Perhaps the most influential golf body in the world pushes the "ideal" of championship golf by providing " a driver's test" nearly every US Open. The R&A has been guilty at times as well. I don't see public opinion changing anyday soon especially with concerns over future water supply and cost. Perhaps the day may come where those clubs who want width will have to accept inferior conditions. I reckon this is when mighty Pennard will shine as a beacon like no other! Assuming the course doesn't just turn back into the sandy waste from which it came.
Now, what about the really important issue of the line of instinct being not only blind, but cluttered with hazards. How does the modern archie get around this?
Ciao
-
"Thank you, Tom. Finally you have found a quote of Behr's that is precise, well written, and cuts to the chase of what golf course architecture is all about. I now realiise that I having been dwelling on the surface of phenomena for far too many years, and I am ashamed.... :'("
Richard the Magnificent:
You are assuredly most welcome.
However, it is you, not me, who has finally found a quote of Behr's that makes sense to you. I've had this stuff for perhaps half a decade and I read it and reread it all the time. There always seems to be some interesting new thought or revelation that comes from it.
Welcome to the path that might take you to the sunlit uplands of true golf and architecture, my friend! ;)
Now, just one last little caveat for you. Do not attempt to be cleverly satirical with this stuff or it will be something like the very large jaws of a very vicious dog that will tear a truly significant amount of your ass off of you!
-
"TomP
You are probably correct about the first wave of inland course builders - with some exceptions I am sure. However, by 1900ish the cat was out of the bag and several guys cottoned on about what was unique about links and attempted to recreate interesting golf courses by utilizing interesting land. So the break in the architectural timeline from links to heathland was minimal and without very lasting effects."
Sean:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the above. For instance, 'the break in the architectural timeline from links to heathland was minimal and without very lasting effects'.
If what you mean by the break in the architectural timeline from links to heathland, that era could probably accurately be labeled the so-called "Dark Ages" combined with that other label sometimes called "Geometric" golf architecture.
The entire extent of that particular era, particularly inland, may've lasted for nearly half a century, even if the quantity of it ramped up bigtime from the 1860s and 1870s, nearly doubling into the 1880s and then nearly tripling in 1890s.
The significance of what happened in the English Heathlands around 1895-1905, in my opinion, cannot possibly be underestimated in its influence on what was to come---eg the great "Golden Age" of architecture, particularly in America.
I believe what happened in the healthlands was significant in that it was considered to be the first really good INLAND architecture to happen in the world. The model for that heathland architecture was of course the Scottish linksland, and a very belated reappreciation of what it was and what its naturalism really meant to golf and golf architecture.
So the Golden Age to come was most certainly a real reunderstanding (renaissance) of the signifcance of the natural linksland golf architecture via those first breakthrough sites and courses in the inland heathlands of England.
(We should also understand that the heathlands itself was not just a breakthrough architecturally but every bit as much an iNLAND breakthrough agronomically because the fact is underneath that theretofore gorse and heather ground covered land and soil of the Heathlands was a soil and drainage characteristic remarkably similar to the Scottish linksland. That characteristic INLAND had basically theretofore never been found or used).
Original linksland golf and inland golf in the latter half of the 19th century had had a most uncomfortable relationship ("Nae links, nae golf") but via those first few healthland courses it was all finally beginning to come together.
And then on it all went into the Golden Age of architecture but even 20-30 years later golf and architecture seemingly could not, and according to Behr, had not, shaken itself loose from that niggling problem that he came to refer to as "The Game Mind of Man"----basically constant mathematical and scientific analysis of what golf its architecture should be!
-
Sean:
One of the real ironies, at least to me, is that during that perhaps half century known as the INLAND "Dark Ages" and "geometric" golf architecture, there were many man-made features appearing on the natural linksland sites and courses at the same time that were every bit as rudimentary, and artifical and man-made looking as what was appearing on some of those "Dark Age" inland sites and courses.
Of course the extent of them was never so great as on those 19th century inland courses because it didn't have to be in the linksland as Mother Nature had given those linksland sites and courses so much natually anyway.
But I can't see how anyone can deny that those batten and board sleepers that began to appear on linklsland bunkering could be considered anything but remarkably rudimentary and artificial (man-made) looking.
But why would it be anything different, as man-made golf course architecture was essentially just being born at that time in both the linksland and other lands?
-
Sean:
One of the real ironies, at least to me, is that during that perhaps half century known as the INLAND "Dark Ages" and "geometric" golf architecture, there were many man-made features appearing on the natural linksland sites and courses at the same time that were every bit as rudimentary, and artifical and man-made looking as what was appearing on some of those "Dark Age" inland sites and courses.
Of course the extent of them was never so great as on those 19th century inland courses because it didn't have to be in the linksland as Mother Nature had given those linksland sites and courses so much natually anyway.
But I can't see how anyone can deny that those batten and board sleepers that began to appear on linklsland bunkering could be considered anything but remarkably rudimentary and artificial (man-made) looking.
But why would it be anything different, as man-made golf course architecture was essentially just being born at that time in both the linksland and other lands?
-
Tom
Sorry to keep getting on your case but could you please clarify one of the sweeping generalisations in your last post?
Firstly, what (exactly or roughly) were the dates for that half century of INLAND dark ages courses that you reference?
Secondly, could you name some of the courses built during that time to which you refer?
Thanks
Rich
-
TE
thanks for that excellent Behr quote. I'd read it once before, but like most of his writing it packed so many (excellent and subtle) thoughts into one small package that it defies easy recollection or use in an appropriate context. One of the many interesting things about it is what's left unsaid but still clearly suggested. He writes:
"It was inevitable that the first review of links land golf should have engendered a type of architecture which disclosed a conscious adhesion to a formal order of things."
And, to me, what is left unsaid is something like: "But we are no longer novices, delighting only in the easily comprehensible and the surface of phenomenon; and as we grow into maturity we needs put away childish things, and embrace with both the conscious and unconscious mind not only the letter but the spirit of the links, with a living faith in things unseen, and a fervent hope in the power of unsullied nature".
Was this not his hope for the future of golf course architecture? Is this what happened?
Peter
-
"TomP
You are probably correct about the first wave of inland course builders - with some exceptions I am sure. However, by 1900ish the cat was out of the bag and several guys cottoned on about what was unique about links and attempted to recreate interesting golf courses by utilizing interesting land. So the break in the architectural timeline from links to heathland was minimal and without very lasting effects."
Sean:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the above. For instance, 'the break in the architectural timeline from links to heathland was minimal and without very lasting effects'.
If what you mean by the break in the architectural timeline from links to heathland, that era could probably accurately be labeled the so-called "Dark Ages" combined with that other label sometimes called "Geometric" golf architecture.
The entire extent of that particular era, particularly inland, may've lasted for nearly half a century, even if the quantity of it ramped up bigtime from the 1860s and 1870s, nearly doubling into the 1880s and then nearly tripling in 1890s.
The significance of what happened in the English Heathlands around 1895-1905, in my opinion, cannot possibly be underestimated in its influence on what was to come---eg the great "Golden Age" of architecture, particularly in America.
I believe what happened in the healthlands was significant in that it was considered to be the first really good INLAND architecture to happen in the world. The model for that heathland architecture was of course the Scottish linksland, and a very belated reappreciation of what it was and what its naturalism really meant to golf and golf architecture.
So the Golden Age to come was most certainly a real reunderstanding (renaissance) of the signifcance of the natural linksland golf architecture via those first breakthrough sites and courses in the inland heathlands of England.
(We should also understand that the heathlands itself was not just a breakthrough architecturally but every bit as much an iNLAND breakthrough agronomically because the fact is underneath that theretofore gorse and heather ground covered land and soil of the Heathlands was a soil and drainage characteristic remarkably similar to the Scottish linksland. That characteristic INLAND had basically theretofore never been found or used).
Original linksland golf and inland golf in the latter half of the 19th century had had a most uncomfortable relationship ("Nae links, nae golf") but via those first few healthland courses it was all finally beginning to come together.
And then on it all went into the Golden Age of architecture but even 20-30 years later golf and architecture seemingly could not, and according to Behr, had not, shaken itself loose from that niggling problem that he came to refer to as "The Game Mind of Man"----basically constant mathematical and scientific analysis of what golf its architecture should be!
TomP
Yes, the break I speak of is that roughly 25 year period which had little lasting effect on gca was the years between 1875ish (about the year I consider TOC to be the course we recognize today) and 1900ish (about the time of the first heathland courses). The light bulb really switched on for archies in that they realized there was no need to reinvent the wheel. Loads of architectural models already existed. It was now a question of getting the most out of the land by learning from past experience and how to use tools at their disposal. Though, I would bet pennies to pounds that there were exceptions even during this so called dark period. Remember, many links clubs were founded in this period and imo the nuts and bolts of architecture was already well in place by 1900ish. So the period(s) before 1900 couldn't have been too barren!
Ciao
-
Enter C.B. Macdonald.
A Canadian born Chicagoan, who struggled endlessly trying to impart the ways of golf visa vie TOC and the principles found there.
I suspect it was these hard headed Mid-Westerners, with their inherent desire to improve on others ideas, that took the first steps toward the wrong road.
Anyone who wants to re-live the early days of this website, need look no further than Tom Paul's posts on this thread.
Thank you Tom for your teaching and sharing nature.
-
I think AdamC is right---this has been a very good thread for those inclined to this type of subject on here. The thread has come a long way.
However,
"TomP
Yes, the break I speak of is that roughly 25 year period which had little lasting effect on gca was the years between 1875ish (about the year I consider TOC to be the course we recognize today) and 1900ish (about the time of the first heathland courses). The light bulb really switched on for archies in that they realized there was no need to reinvent the wheel. Loads of architectural models already existed. It was now a question of getting the most out of the land by learning from past experience and how to use tools at their disposal. Though, I would bet pennies to pounds that there were exceptions even during this so called dark period. Remember, many links clubs were founded in this period and imo the nuts and bolts of architecture was already well in place by 1900ish. So the period(s) before 1900 couldn't have been too barren!"
Sean:
If I'm understanding the above correctly there are probably a lot of your thoughts there I just don't think add up historically, but, frankly, I can't come close to proving any of my opinions to the contrary so maybe I should just leave it alone.
Rich:
I can't answer your questions in post #36 so maybe I should revise my "Dark Age" era estimate to more like the 25 years Sean mentioned.
-
Tom P
I spose I look at the evolution of architecture like the evolution of a species. Two (or perhaps more) distinct versions of a species can exist side by side for some time. I don't think the lines of architectural evolution are anywhere near as sharp as you suggest. Good stuff was being built during the entire period(s) prior to the heathlands, it was just in pockets. During the heathlands period those pockets of high quality golf were just larger than previously - the poor stuff never disappeared and it never will.
I think those pockets of good architecture were larger for several reasons.
1) Archies realized that basic models of good architecture already existed. Many of the best types of holes were already built. What was required was that archies needed to tweak these models to suit their theories and to fit on different types of land. The best of the archies were famously successful. I think this pool of famous archies from the period has grown over time once people of our generations did a little digging into the past.
2) Archies found decent land both in terms of features and playing quality to build inland courses on.
3) Archies were able to take advantage of tools and devise more systematic ways of building courses (not surprisingly as gca became a profession - which is an important development).
4) Archies began to create better designed hazards: land forms, bunkers, streams, funky greens etc (I use the term hazards as it was originally used) which added interest, strategy and aesthetic qualities to the game.
BTW I can't prove any of my BS either, but it doesn't stop me from shooting my mouth off!
Ciao
-
Sean:
I just don't agree with most of that post of yours just above and here's why.
1. The specific art and craft of golf course architecture was generally undeveloped up until perhaps the beginning to middle of the 1890s.
The likes of that small travelling band of Scottish golf professionals/golf architects who were frankly most of the only golf architects of that early time simply didn't have the time or perhaps even the knowledge to actually understand how to "MAKE" golf architecture that was decent, particularly inland on sites that didn't offer much of anything naturally.
I think they probably had a far greater understanding of how to USE a good site for golf better than almost anyone else of that time and that may be why most all the decent courses and decent architecture of that early time was at coastal sites that was decent for golf NATURALLY, unlike most of the early inland sites that didn't have much to offer naturally.
I'm not even saying those first early architects had no talent or latent talent, it's just a matter of the fact that they basically never took the time to do any single projects comprehensively.
We have it from some of the contemporary close observers and writers of that time and process such as Darwin and Hutchinson who explained in writing that most all of that traveling band of Scottish golf professionals/golf architects (the Dunns, the Davises, the Parks etc) would basically come in for a day or two and layout a basic routing and then they'd be off again back to their day jobs---eg club golf professionals or just on to another single day or two "layout" process.
Again, it's not that they may not have had architectural talent, they basically just didn't take the time to ply it in that early time. They did what they were asked to do and paid to do both of which were definitely not much.
And I think that's the significance of courses like Sunningdale and Huntercombe in the English heathlands----Willie Park Jr finally took the time to slow down and apply himself and dedicate the time necessary to actual "MAKE" a few really good INLAND golf courses. Instead of a day or two on a project he actually took months if not a few years to design and construct a golf course and its architecture himself.
Before that people like Park Jr essentially just came in and staked out tees, landing areas and green sites (a basic "layout" routing and then they'd be gone.
At least, that was the process and modus operandi on particularly inland sites of that time that has been reported to us from contemporary observers who certainly seem credible and believable to me.
Can you prove that to be wrong to any extent? Can you even show any evidence at all that it was otherwise in that early time?
In my opinion, obviously all things have to start somewhere and for golf course architects and golf course architecture this was the time and the place where it was just beginning, and consequently one would intutively not expect it to be much in that early time and particularly if those men doing it were taking nowhere near the time to do it they did later beginning at the end of the 1890s and the beginning of the 1900s.
-
Tom
One rather large hole in your theory is that the Old Course (as we know it today) was more than 50% created in 1857 when they went from 9 holes (in and out) to 18 holes. Virtually every green going out (1-9) was created. Some of the greens coming back (e.g. 16, were significantly changed). Vast swathes of whins were ripped out, grass was planted over heather and shells, fairways widened, greens improved, bunkers laid.
If that ain't golf course architecture, I don't what is. And that was 1857, and what was created is the course that exists today and is as revered and studied as any in the world in terms of its architecture. It is also a fact that many of the greatest architectural features (e.g. Redan, Alps, Foxy, Dell, Road Hole, etc.) had already been created well before 1890. Many of the greatest basic routings (e.g. Old Course, Portmarnock, Dornoch, North Berwick, etc.) had already been laid out before the turn of the century
You've been drinking Tom Macwood's koolaid, Buckaroo! Maybe the next thing you'll tell us is that Old Tom Morris was actually William Morris in disguise! ;)
Ricardo
-
"Tom
One rather large hole in your theory is that the Old Course (as we know it today) was more than 50% created in 1857 when they went from 9 holes (in and out) to 18 holes. Virtually every green going out (1-9) was created. Some of the greens coming back (e.g. 16, were significantly changed). Vast swathes of whins were ripped out, grass was planted over heather and shells, fairways widened, greens improved, bunkers laid."
Rich:
That is not part of my point at all, and I've most certainly never denied that man-made architecture had not been done previous to those "Dark Age" inland sites, particularly outside of Scotland.
The first attempts at man-made architecture clearly happened in the linksland and certainly also on TOC. And those first attempts at man-made architecture in the linksland did precede even most of the first attempts at man-made architecture outside the linksland and Scotland.
Obviously, that's why it's probably been said, and reliably so, that the first real example of man-made golf architecture may've been Alan Robertson's 17th green and Road Hole bunker at TOC. Others such as Tom Morris followed up on that in the linksland and certainly at TOC.
The point is linksland was clearly imbued with wonderful natural ground for golf generally speaking and could prosper for golf for so long without the need to manufacture things.
That was just not the case with most of the land used for golf in inland sites in England and such when golf first began to emigrate outside Scotland. Essentially most of those sites just didn't offer very much naturally for golf or for agronomy.
And when you add to that reality the fact that those first peripatetic Scottish golf professionals/golf architects generally spent so little time on those poor inland sites outside Scotland then it's not hard to figure out why those types of courses were so poor leading most in the know to call both them and their era "The Dark Ages".
But the real irony is that even with the first attempts of say an Alan Robertson's work on TOC (say the Road Hole green and Road Bunker) although they may've played great I doubt anyone would say they were a great expression of naturalism.
The same was true of another highly rudimentary man-made architectural feature that probably first appeared in this world in the Scottish linksland----ie the board sleeper supporting vertical bunkers.
That was definitely not a natural looking architectural expression or example and it's just so ironic and interesting that type of feature not only probably happened first in the otherwise wonderfully natural ground for golf in the linksland but was ALSO a man-made architectural feature that a Pete Dye picked up and used again in this country over a century later! ;)
-
Tom
You really didn't read my post, now, didn't you not (as they say in Lanarkshire--an inland part of the UK, BTW)? As Brian's mom said, you are just a naughty boy!
R (Ach, what the hell, another emoticon, just for old times sake...) ;)
-
Tom Paul's timeframe for the expansion seems accurate because of improvements in transportation technologies, like the Iron Horse.