Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: MCirba on March 26, 2015, 10:59:12 AM
-
On Joe Bausch's "Oakmont - The Birth of Greatness?" thread http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,60746.0.html the initial article from 1905 contains the following snipped about the course being "laid out scientifically". Subsequent articles on that thread show that the original terrific routing and wonderful balance of natural golf holes exists to this day (although the bunkering took years to reach the present state), and were already conceived by early 1903.
Given that timeline, with very little in the United States (Myopia? Garden City?) already existing with much in the way of architectural sophistication, does anyone know where Fownes may have received his architectural education? I know the family frequented Pinehurst every winter and clearly would have known Ross and Travis down there in subsequent years, but this timeline seems to even proceed their efforts.
All facts and wild speculation welcomed here... :D
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7639/16935681401_98e4ffac00_z.jpg)
-
Is it true that Hugh Wilson took Fownes on several tours of Scotland, guiding him on the principles and features of the best of Scottish golf? I am sure I have seen the ships' manifests somewhere.
PS Good to see you again Mike! ;)
-
Andy,
Great to see you as well!
Seriously, I think ship manifests may be my next stop. I suspect he went abroad to learn about golf courses prior to Oakmont because I can't figure out where he'd have learned it in the US at that time.
-
Feel free to correct me if im wrong, but I believe in one of the Pinehurst books I read (maybe the Chris Buie book) I remember it was claimed Pinehurst was a heavy influence.
-
Mike - I'm not sure Mr Fownes had to have travelled anywhere; something was already 'in the air' in America back then. I was struck that the article (and not necessarily Mr Fownes himself) used the word "scientific" to describe the layout; and, while you're right that 1903 is very early on, I read an article in the NY Sun from 1906 called "Thinking Golf". It said that "Thinking Golf" was all the rage in America, and that club committees were busy having their courses altered so as to better exemplify this new ethos. (It mentions Walton Heath as a wonderful example of Thinking Golf). The article also notes, interestingly, that the top amateurs of the day were more enamoured of the Thinking Golf ideal than the professionals were, one of whom (I think it was Taylor, or it may have been Braid) thought it 'unfair' that a worse player was not necessarily penalized for being unable to get over a hazard that the better player could. All of which to say: I think there was a lot more discussion and debate in America -- even as early as 1906, and maybe even 1903 -- about what constituted quality design than we might imagine.
Peter
-
This thread and the companion both place great weight on the phrase "laid out scientifically" as if this was a new way of describing golf course design and some sort of indication of quality architecture. But this was not a new way to describe golf courses or golf course design, nor was it necessarily terminology associated with what we could consider to be quality golf course design. There are similar references to scientific courses and golf holes in the United States going back into the mid-1890's. And, if I recall correctly, the references to scientific and/or mathematical design were often associated with the so-called dark age, or victorian architects such as Willie Dunn.
Both these threads seem aimed at re-rewriting history to turn Oakmont circa 1905 into something that it was not. No doubt that, eventually, Oakmont would come to be considered considered a great golf course, but this took time and a lot of work by the Fownes.
-
I'm with David on this one. There is more to the story of Oakmont and the Fownes only having made changes to the course.
What changes did Ross make and how much of that work changed the course into what we have come to know it as today ? How much if any, did Ross help shape the ideas that Fownes may of had on GCA given their very close connection through Pinehurst and beyond?
Tully
-
Hi Sean,
The first mention of Fownes going to Pinehurst that anyone has found was in 1904, after Oakmont was already routed and that routing exists today virtually intact. I'm not sure if there was anything noteworthy to see at Pinehurst by then, as #2 wasn't even a gleam in Ross's eye yet.
Certainly one could reasonably assume that Fownes' ideas on bunkering that followed was likely influenced by both Travis and Ross at Pinehurst during his winter visits, and Travis wrote extensively about "scientific bunkering" during the development of that course.
Hi David,
I'm really not putting all that much weight on the term "laid out scientifically" except to note it asking where he would have gained this knowledge by 1903?
Certainly the course developed further over the next decades as did most of these labors of love designed and built by amateur architects. But, very few of them maintained their original routing and the only hole routing different at Oakmont is that the 8th green was moved and rebuilt. By contrast, a course like Merion had 8 of its original holes either completely or fundamentally replaced by the mid 1930s, from the similarly nearly bunkerless course that opened in 1912.
-
Merion? I was hoping you hadn't returned to gca.com with the intention of continuing your idiotic Merion crusade, but I guess by now I should have known better.
It seems to me that you are stretching and distorting at both ends of your analysis. I'll leave aside Merion except to note that you count holes that, in your opinion, have been "fundamentally changed." Yet with regard to Oakmont the only change you mention is the relocation of the 8th green. So your suggestion is that the only hole that has been "fundamentally changed" at Oakmont is the eighth? If so, this is absurd. If not, then your comparison to Merion is inapt.
Why don't you see if you can stick to Oakmont? From the article posted by Jim Kennedy in the other thread: "Beginning in the early 1910s and for the next three decades, W.C. began to transform Oakmont, regularly refining but not radically altering the outline of his father’s design. He slanted, slickened, and quickened the greens to unheard levels of speed; he also raised and contoured the greens and introduced baffling new undulations that elevated putting into a mental puzzle with missing pieces. He also introduced omnipresent hazards (of all shapes, sizes, and depths) adjacent to the fairways, in the fairways, and surrounding the greens. These included numerous sand bunkers, thickly grassed bunkers and mounds, narrow, overgrown ditches, and vast open pits with god-knows-what at their bottoms." The same article cites a 1915 NY Times article, which mentioned that "a thorough remodeling of the links took place about five years ago."
Rebuilding greens, adding contour, adding slope, elevating greens, adding ditches and pits, adding an extensive bunker system, defining playing corridors, adding hundreds of yards in length, etc. All these changes strike me as rather "fundamental," as does a thorough remodeling of the links. And these were just the changes which took place circa 1910. Many more changes were to follow. For you to try and make it seem as if the Oakmont we see today is Oakmont as it was in 1905? Stretched well past breaking.
__________________________
As for your backtracking on the use of the term "scientifically" I still don't follow. If you aren't giving any weight to the term, then why did you start a thread about it? You ask "where he would have gained this knowledge by 1903?" What, exactly, is "this" knowledge? The scientific approach was aimed at "the purpose of making every hole perfect as far as the number of shots are concerned." Is this the "this" about which you ask? What exactly do you mean when you say he learned "'Scientific' Architecture?"
Despite your suggestions otherwise, Fownes did not live in a vacuum prior to original the creation of Oakmont. While he first showed up in Pinehurst in the winter of 1903-1904 (the same time period Oakmont was being laid out) he had been a fixture at east coast tournaments for at least a few years prior to that, most notably at the winter Atlantic City tournaments. And all the usual suspects (Travis included) also attended those same tournaments. And there were knowledgeable individuals right there in Pittsburg, including the Scottish born and raised George A. Ormiston, who was one of the top golfers in the region (and who famously beat Travis in the 1904 US Amateur.) Ormiston was member at Highland (Fownes previous club) and I believe a founding member at Oakmont, and if I recall correctly he was involved in the design of at least one Pittsburg area golf course.
-
Mike,
Here's some info from your thread on Oakmont greens:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/board,1.0.html
Here is some further evidence of changes.
From 1925:
Even a cold winter is not preventing the Oakmont Club from preparing for the coming of the great amateur stars during the approaching season. Emil Loeffler, the course greenkeeper, under the guidance of William C. Fownes, Jr., started early last summer to prepare the course, putting in new tees and changing many of the greens, so that those who played over Oakmont in the 1919 championship will see a course vastly different from that which greeted them when the title event was staged here five years ago. Number thirteen green, which was picked by "Chick" Evans as the thirteenth green on an "All-American" course some time ago, is among the greens being changed, Needless to say, it is not being made easier. The number six green, difficult enough in 1919, has been remade, and it is now said to be one of the best holes in the country. The same is true of number seven. This green was rebuilt early in the season but after being almost finished was deemed not good enough and was torn up again. Now it is said to equal any number seven hole in America. Other changes are slated between now and the time for the big title tournament that will make the course, already considered an extremely difficult one, the equal of any golf course ever constructed.
From 1927:
The course has undergone some big changes since the amateur championship was played there in 1925. The old
sixteenth hole has been eliminated and a new hole built. There was fault found with this old hole by some of the players, who pronounced it a bit unfair. The green was of the hog-back variety and it was difficult to hold your tee shot on it. The hole measured 230 yards and the safest way to approach it was to play your tee shot, short, and slightly to the left, permitting your ball to trickle on the green. Often a well played shot onto the green would be penalized, as it would not stick on, but would land in the traps and bunkers on the sides or rear.
The new hole is a big improvement and is now one of the sportiest one shotter on the course. The tee has been moved back and elevated, while the green has been brought forward. There was no change made in the distance, and it still measures 230 yards. The rim of the green has been built up and there will be no difficulty in holding
your tee shots. The green is severely trapped and bunkered, and a poorly played shot will be penalized and there
will be no escaping with impunity. It will be all carry from the tee and an accurate shot will be rewarded. Another important change is the one to the fifteenth green. A new green moved back 40 yards has been built and it calls for a full iron on your second shot. The hole measures 470 yards with the new green. This green is also guarded with deep traps and bunkers on the sides and rear. A new tee to the eighteenth hole will add 20 yards distance and make it a lot harder, this will make a fine finishing hole.
(Oakmont played at 7,000 yards for The US Open that year)
David mentions his associations w/other notables of the time - HCF played in the 1902 US Am with the likes of Travis, Ormison, Behr, Egan, Harban, Lockwood, and Tweedie.
Osmosis alone would have gained him plenty of food for thought while hanging out with that bunch. ;D
-
I think that Mike's question about the origins of Fownes' architectural education to be a fascinating one. As the Travis Society's archivist/historian, I have applied that question to Travis on several occasions, and my guess is that he and Fownes share some aspects of their architectural educational background. Travis wrote about his conversations with Ross, in Pinehurst, and it is likely that Fowmes was a part of that conversation. It was mentioned earlier on this thread that Travis used the term, "scientific", in describing the placement of hazards in his early writings. Beginning in 1900, Travis wrote extensively about various aspects of golf course design, including a series of articles published in "Golf" that became the basis for his book "Practical Golf". I would imagine that those articles caught the eye of several golf course designers of that era. But, as Jim suggests, the process of "osmosis" probably explains the "education" of Fownes, Travis, Ross, and others.
Just a comment regarding the courses in existence, as referred to previously. Garden City Golf Club and Myopia were mentioned as among few courses of merit. In a 1901 article on "The Construction and Upkeep of Courses", Travis listed the following as the "best courses in the country": Garden City Golf Club, Wheaton, Atlantic City, Morris County, Newport, Nassau, Apawamis, Midlothian, and Myopia. He expressed the opinion that the Ekwanok Country Club course showed the "promise of being a really good one in time". A little OT perhaps, but suggests that people like Fownes had courses fairly close at hand from which they could have learned.
-
Jim,
Thanks for those additional materials which help our understanding of the evolution of Oakmont. It's a course that I think was very distinctive in approach, possibly the first of it's kind even by 1903, which I'll try to explain shortly.
You asked some questions on the other thread, particularly about the US Amateur, and I'd like to get back to them but probably should consolidate the discussion on one or the other. I'd suggest the other as those articles can be found there for easy reference, thanks!
-
Thanks for all of the added materials. I, too, would like to learn more about how the course evolved over time, so long as we don't devolve into the time-honored pi##ing matches that sometimes occur. We can surely avoid said architectural history contretemps!
-
Just a comment regarding the courses in existence, as referred to previously. Garden City Golf Club and Myopia were mentioned as among few courses of merit. In a 1901 article on "The Construction and Upkeep of Courses", Travis listed the following as the "best courses in the country": Garden City Golf Club, Wheaton, Atlantic City, Morris County, Newport, Nassau, Apawamis, Midlothian, and Myopia. He expressed the opinion that the Ekwanok Country Club course showed the "promise of being a really good one in time". A little OT perhaps, but suggests that people like Fownes had courses fairly close at hand from which they could have learned.
Ed,
That's an interesting list of courses, perhaps if only to illustrate how lean the number of architecturally significant courses that existed in the early 1900s. Nearly all of the courses mentioned still were based on "non-scientific" earlier methods with golfer's encountering one after another "Steeplechase" type cross-hazard of hedgerows, mounds, and cross bunkers.
Ed Oden's thread of early routings (which Jim Kennedy has done tremendous work populating) has been really instructive in showing just how primitive most of these early courses were. If we need illustrations here for purposes of discussion, I'm sure I can dig up the 1901 versions or so of all these courses and folks would perhaps better understand.
That's one of the reasons I find the early Oakmont so compelling;
Here's others....
* Built clearly with the intention to be a Championship Course and stretchable to 6800 yards.
* Virtually no bunkers built on inception except those greenside on #2, with the intention of careful, thoughtful placement based on examination of actual play vs the rote cross bunker mentality previously in vogue.
* Wide variety of hole lengths with the idea that this was desirable.
* It had a sophisticated routing much different than many of the out and back, and/or racecourse progression courses of the time.
* No blind holes or steep uphill climbs
* Greens built with variety to test every type of play and not just to function as flat areas to place the hole and accommodate putting.
I would suggest that anyone who didn't see that as quite novel and distinct in the American design progression in the year 1903 might give it another look.
-
Mike,
1. Again, when you say that those courses were "non-scientific" I think you are misusing the term "scientific" in reference to early golf course design. What exactly do you mean by "scientific?" Because in 1903, I don't think it meant what you seem to think it meant. "Scientific" was more likely to describe what you term as "steeplechase" as anything else.
2. I think you should take another look at the reference to Oakmont being a 6800 yard course in 1905. It seems based on faulty math and a misunderstanding of golf courses and their lengths as much as anything else. If I recall correctly, the article stated that the course was around 6400 yards, but the tees were 20X20 yards, therefore the course could be stretched to 6800 yards. This doesn't make sense on a number of different levels which I hope I don't have to explain. The course was listed at 6400+ yards, which was still quite long. But not 6800 yards long.
3. What evidence is there that the original greens were "built with variety to test every type of play?" Eventually, maybe, but initially?
4. As for the actual routing, I am not seeing the distinction between the "sophisticated" routing at Oakmont and what you term the many of the out and back, and/or racecourse progression courses of the time."
5. Nor am I seeing that the original course at Oakmont offered a "wide variety of hole lengths in comparison to what else was ongoing at the time."
-
I believe that if you read Travis's April 1902 article titled "Hazards", you will get an idea of what "scientifically" designed meant in those days; at least to Travis. In that article, he expressed great distaste for the type of bunkering in vogue at the time, according to him. For example, in regards to bunkers, he stated, "Too much importance is attached to the putting in of bunkers across the entire width of the course, too often at just that distance that will catch a moderately played shot." In his example of "scientifically" designed bunkers, he provided an iillustration showing a bunker to be carried, but with room on either side for a shorter player unable to carry it; a bunker for a sliced shot, "or oone off the proper line: and "a hazard for a pulled ball". I'm not sure what is meant by "steeplechase' hazards, but if that refers to "cop" bunkers placed at predictable intervals stretching across the fair green, Travis was vehemently opposed to them.
I believe that his uise of the term "scientific" referred to the systematic placement of hazards based on shot distances, types of shots, and types of mistakes to be penalized. Travis would definitely not use the term to describe "steeplechase" hazards (if I understand the meaning of that term).
-
Ed, I am familiar with Travis's "Hazard" chapter but I don't think that the article uses the phrase "scientifically designed" or any similar phrases.
Regardless, I don't really see the connection to the reference in the article about Oakmont.
-
I think this opening day article perhaps exemplifies a number of points related to how the term "scientific" specifically related to Fownes design intent for specific variety of hole lengths, sophistication of the original greens, as well as overall difficulty and challenge.
I really don't think it's that questionable that Fownes was doing things quite differently than what preceded him...even just building a course without bunkers but instead waiting to see what actual play dictated was novel at that time, but I think the question again inherent in this thread is what his inspiration and examples were because virtually nothing like this with the exceptions of perhaps Myopia and less convincingly 1903 pre-Travis version of Garden City existed in the US at the time.
One point I think folks sometimes forget is that a well-designed course of sufficient length was woefully difficult for the average club member, even without any bunkers or other artificial hazards. The individual scores shown below from some of the best, most experienced players in the Pittsburg region attests to that fact. I'm reticent to bring up Merion again, but there are some parallels in that only once the course was considered for national tournament play was it deemed prudent to add stiffer bunkering to enhance the challenge for the best players in the nation.
In the case of Oakmont, I'm unclear why Fownes didn't stick to his original plan to add $10,000 worth of bunkering in the first couple of years and ask for a US Amateur by 1907 but it could very well be due to the significant difficulty of the course already for the regular membership. Or, it could be due to the fact that the New York and Chicago regions had a virtual stranglehold on US Amateur venues at that time, as I'll get into later.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Oakmont/Oakmont19041002PIttsburghWeeklyGazette.jpg)
-
David--Go to pg 247 of Travis's "hazard" article, just above the illustration of "scientifically applied" layout of bunkers. 0
I agree that my response had nothing to do with Oakmont, but was related to other comments on the thread, including your opinion that the meaning of "scientific" in the early 1900s would have something to do with "steeplechase" type hazards.
-
I also find that Fownes' use of holes that bend in dogleg fashion to be among the first I'm familiar with on US Courses. Holes that bent significantly include 4, 12, and 17 with lesser turns on a few others.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8719/16804075979_9d28728b09_z.jpg)
Contrast that with Chicago Golf Club around the same time (1901 Golfer's Green Book) and I think you'll see some distinct differences.
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7616/16988655771_869e4753d5_z.jpg)
It doesn't appear that Chicago changed much in the first few years as this drawing by a member who joined in 1898 seems to indicate. Mind you, even in the middle of the first decade of the 20th century the 3 courses mentioned as the best in the country were Myopia, Garden City and Chicago, but I believe that's primarily due to Oakmont not being in a major golf metro center at that time and therefore not having the same exposure.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8733/16803359809_f44b0ed1d3_z.jpg)
-
Ed. Thanks. I missed that. My point to Mike about Oakmont is that the term "scientific" was not some sort of magical talisman indicating a certain type or quality of course. The term had been in use to describe various types of courses and golf holes from the beginning of golf course architecture in America (and beyond.) In Oakmont's case it doesn't seem to have had anything to do with bunkering but rather referred to the length of the holes.
-
Here's a 1899 Garden City from Joe Bausch and 1900 early routing/bunkering scheme of the same from Jim Kennedy.
(http://i52.tinypic.com/23lijv7.jpg)
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2869/12490404505_916761e789_o.jpg)
Again, these are to show contrast with early Oakmont in terms of approach, routing methods, and introduction of artificial hazards.
-
Mike,
Oakmont wasn't the only course w'doglegs at the time. Here's just a few more.
Beverley GC -2
Detroit GC 2
Hartford GC -2
City Park, NOLA- 6
Glen Echo- 1
Stockbridge -1
Sarasota GC - 1
Ed.- Even the short lived Euclid GC, home of the the 1907 US AM, had one.
-
Do we count the Road Hole as a dogleg?
Not a US course, but well known in the US.
Bob
-
Mind you, even in the middle of the first decade of the 20th century the 3 courses mentioned as the best in the country were Myopia, Garden City and Chicago, but I believe that's primarily due to Oakmont not being in a major golf metro center at that time and therefore not having the same exposure.
Again with the geographical bias argument? You don't think the "primary" reason might have had something to do with the fact that the course hadn't yet been bunkered or improved? Really?
You are grinding pretty hard here, Mike, but going nowhere.
-
"Scientific" architecture meant different things to different people, as noted above. It seemed to fall out of common use by 1915 or so. I'm not sure it is a useful beginning point for sorting out what Fownes was doing at Oakmont.
Bob
-
A couple of nuggets to discuss:
1. When Oakmont opened it had 8 par 5's and a par 6 for a total par of 80. Perhaps Fownes foresaw some of those holes evolving into long par 4's with the advent of the new ball, but perhaps he just had a preference for par 5 holes. There were longer courses in existence on an average distance per shot basis.
2. Any discussion of the holes being laid out scientifically can only refer to the hole lengths, as the bunkers were laid out at a later date.
3. By all accounts, Fownes had a plan in mind prior to actually finding and purchasing the land for the course. Yet there is still discussion that he worked with the natural landforms. Sounds to me like the course was crafted, rather than found, and that the talk of naturalism is a bit misplaced.
The Pittsburgh Press - Feb. 7, 1934
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Western%20PA%209%20-%20The%20Pittsburgh%20Press%20Feb.%207%201934%201_zpsjczmoqtg.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Western%20PA%209%20-%20The%20Pittsburgh%20Press%20Feb.%207%201934%202_zpsotyfww7l.jpg)
-
Sven,
Thanks for sharing that article. I'll try to put together some related thoughts in the morning.
-
A couple of nuggets to discuss:
1. When Oakmont opened it had 8 par 5's and a par 6 for a total par of 80. Perhaps Fownes foresaw some of those holes evolving into long par 4's with the advent of the new ball, but perhaps he just had a preference for par 5 holes. There were longer courses in existence on an average distance per shot basis.
2. Any discussion of the holes being laid out scientifically can only refer to the hole lengths, as the bunkers were laid out at a later date.
3. By all accounts, Fownes had a plan in mind prior to actually finding and purchasing the land for the course. Yet there is still discussion that he worked with the natural landforms. Sounds to me like the course was crafted, rather than found, and that the talk of naturalism is a bit misplaced.
Sven,
Really interesting article, thanks again.
To your points;
1) The 80 wasn't the par at Oakmont, it was the "Bogey Score", although with scores of 90 shot by both H.C. Fownes and George Ormiston on Opening Day, even that may have been a bit low.
2) Completely agree, and I've been taken to task by everyone from Bob Crosby to Melvyn Morrow regarding usage of "scientific" so I must be wrong. I think you're correct that what the term means in the Oakmont origin articles I posted was a very purposeful intent to create golf holes requiring certain clubs to be played, sort of an early "every club in the bag" with an emphasis on the longer ones. In fact, the articles Joe and I posted say almost exactly that, vis a vis "The golf course was developed with the best standards, having been laid out scientifically with the purpose of making every hole perfect as far as the number of shots is concerned."
3) I'm not sure if you've been to Oakmont Sven, but I think you'd find it far from crafted, particularly in terms of locations of green sites. And I'm not sure that there is much validity to the assertion that having an overall plan for lengths and balances of golf holes on a course is limited by much but total overall acreage. For instance, George Crump knew very clearly what balance and lengths of golf holes he wanted for his "ideal course" at Pine Valley, even if he didn't know exactly where each would be located. Similarly, CB Macdonald pretty much knew a lot of the ideal template holes he wanted to place at NGLA, although arguably in some cases like the Road Hole he did craft them a bit to get the desired imitative result. Macdonald also provided Merion with an ideal balance of holes for their purposes which they seem to have followed loosely, although they extended a bit beyond his recommended "6,000 yard" course. I don't think any of those cases led to a course that wouldn't be described as utilizing natural features.
Finally, a question for you. What is the first course chronologically that you're familiar with where it was purposefully built without any (or very few) bunkers with the intention that they would be added later after actual play was carefully observed? Thanks!
Here's a related article you may find of interest;
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8737/16815300300_f6f2f0e7e7_z.jpg)
-
Mike:
Here's the USGA's page on Fownes discussing 8 par 5's and a total par of 80.
"Oakmont opened in 1904 and featured eight par-5s, one par-6 (the 560-yard 10th) and a total par of 80."
http://www.usga.org/news/2010/May/Fownes--The-Oakmont-Architect/
I'm also not sure what to make of your attempted comparison of the Chicago and Oakmont routings from earlier in the thread. The courses were laid out nearly ten years apart. Even though you use a 1901 routing for CGC, they were not contemporaneous designs.
Sven
-
The first mention of Fownes going to Pinehurst that anyone has found was in 1904, after Oakmont was already routed and that routing exists today virtually intact.
The 1904 date is patently false.
Chris Buie's book The Early Days of Pinehurst contains a 1901 quote from Fownes discussing the various experts and enthusiasts one would come across at the resort.
Sven
-
Mike:
I'm not sure what your point was on the Fowler ideal course (and I'm curious as to the date which seems to be some time after the creation of Pine Valley). There were a number of articles written during the first couple of decades of the 20th century discussing "ideals." MacDonald's is the one we discuss the most, but there were others. I recently posted a piece from 1898 by W. Girdwood Stewart which contains many of the tenants of strategic golf.
In addition, on the point of whether or not the 80 number was a bogey or a par assignment, here's a June 1910 Golf Magazine discussing the standard distance/par correlations.
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Par%20Distances%20-%20Golf%20Magazine%20June%201910%201_zpso47jkdes.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Par%20Distances%20-%20Golf%20Magazine%20June%201910%202_zpswg2hsg5f.png)
-
Sven,
Great find the yardage par/bogey parameters for 1910. Do you think the WGA mirrored the USGA? How have those yardages changed through the years and where can it be sourced?
-
Bob
I agree with your comment on use of scientific and indeed I don't recall reading an explanation of what it meant or even an architect using the term. It seems to have been mainly commentators/writers who used the term, perhaps because it was a term that was in vogue in the world at large ?
Mike
Re not building the bunkers until after the course has opened, I thought that was fairly standard procedure for Old Tom etc, or am I mistaken ? Maybe they did things differently over the pond.
Niall
-
Niall -
As far as I can tell "scientific" design was used to mean one, some or all of the following:
- an inland course
- an inland course designed to have hole lengths requiring multiples of "full shots"
- an inland course designed to have hole lengths requiring multiples of "full shots" and cross hazards at appropriate intervals
- an inland course designed to have cross hazards at appropriate intervals
- a course with greens and tees built by a human
- a course that required the removal of trees and other vegetation to build
- a course that required earth-moving
- a course designed by a human and/or built to a plan
- any feature of a course designed by a human
No doubt I've overlooked other usages of the term. It is interesting and revealing that that term seems to disappear (more or less) from the literature at about the same time older Victorian design 'axioms' fell out of favor.
Bob
-
Mike:
Here's the USGA's page on Fownes discussing 8 par 5's and a total par of 80.
"Oakmont opened in 1904 and featured eight par-5s, one par-6 (the 560-yard 10th) and a total par of 80."
http://www.usga.org/news/2010/May/Fownes--The-Oakmont-Architect/
I'm also not sure what to make of your attempted comparison of the Chicago and Oakmont routings from earlier in the thread. The courses were laid out nearly ten years apart. Even though you use a 1901 routing for CGC, they were not contemporaneous designs.
Sven
Sven,
I'm not sure I'd take the author's modern interpretation of the "bogey score" of Oakmont as synonymous with "par" when it first opened. Plus, she quotes liberally from GolfClubAtlas so that in and of itself is suspect. ;)
Regarding the attempted comparison of Chicago and Oakmont routings, it's meant to show that at the time Oakmont was designed and built, most of what was believed to be superior architecture in this country was of the straightforward, cross-bunkered and cross-bermed type. Even through most of the first decade of the 20th century most experts at the time named Myopia, Garden City, and Chicago as the preeminent American golf courses.
Myopia was largely similar to today's course by then and men like Alex Findlay believed it to be the best course in the US. However, Garden City wasn't improved by Walter Travis (with his re-bunkering and green modification plan) until after 1906 and I believe Chicago Golf Club stayed relatively static through this period.
In contrast to what else existed in the US in 1903, it's tough to imagine today's routing (even if the greens were lifeless, which they weren't) at Oakmont not being among the very preeminent designs in this country from inception.
-
The 1904 date is patently false.
Chris Buie's book The Early Days of Pinehurst contains a 1901 quote from Fownes discussing the various experts and enthusiasts one would come across at the resort.
Sven
Sven,
I'm not sure where the confusion lies regarding Pinehurst and Fownes. My information comes directly from Chris Buie who emailed me last month when I started the thread. I trust he won't mind me sharing and perhaps he'll weigh in further;
Regarding your Oakmont thread, I've wondered where Fownes got his
knowledge, as well. It was almost unbelievable work for 1903.
FYI, the earliest he is recorded to have been in Pinehurst is 1904.
The main question to me is did HC Fownes visit GB/I prior to building
Oakmont? It almost seems as if he had to.
What do you think?
-
The 1904 date is patently false.
Chris Buie's book The Early Days of Pinehurst contains a 1901 quote from Fownes discussing the various experts and enthusiasts one would come across at the resort.
Sven
Sven,
I'm not sure where the confusion lies regarding Pinehurst and Fownes. My information comes directly from Chris Buie who emailed me last month when I started the thread. I trust he won't mind me sharing and perhaps he'll weigh in further;
Regarding your Oakmont thread, I've wondered where Fownes got his
knowledge, as well. It was almost unbelievable work for 1903.
FYI, the earliest he is recorded to have been in Pinehurst is 1904.
The main question to me is did HC Fownes visit GB/I prior to building
Oakmont? It almost seems as if he had to.
What do you think?
Mike:
Regarding Chris Buie's information, here is the quote from page 10 of his book:
"Considering the fact that Henry Fownes largely went in the opposite direction [discussing how Oakmont was more penal than Pinehurst] it is curious that his affections for the winter resort were so effusive. Here is Fownes in 1901 - two years before Oakmont began construction:
"There is something in the air of Pinehurst that makes it insidiously attractive; all who breathe it want more of it. Here, golf is the sport of sports; experts are counted by the dozens and enthusiasts of all kinds by the hundreds.""
As for whether or not Fownes traveled abroad, I am generally not a fan of speculation. He may have, but there is nothing telling me he must have.
Sven
-
Mike:
It seems to me that you are arguing that a course that wasn't fully bunkered until well after it was laid out was supposed to have been a strategic masterpiece from the get go.
We have no idea what Henry Fownes' thoughts were on how the course would be bunkered in 1903.
As I stated earlier, the course had the bones to be great, it just didn't have the polish until later on. And pinning a 1903 date as the start date for the thoughts that went into the final product is a specious argument until we know more.
As for the comparison between the Oakmont and Chicago plans, what I see is a simple stick routing of a course in its infancy and a more detailed plan of a course that had ten years of history.
Sven
-
Mike
Re not building the bunkers until after the course has opened, I thought that was fairly standard procedure for Old Tom etc, or am I mistaken ? Maybe they did things differently over the pond.
Niall
Niall,
Let's just say that things didn't exactly get off to a roaring start with golf in this country, architecturally speaking.
Almost every golf course that was built had the same motif as described in the following Walter Travis article and which can be seen above exemplified in the Chicago Golf Club schematic. Frankly, the idea of bunkering a course any other way but largely by rote was something almost novel in this country and I'm trying to track down the first instance, which I also asked Sven Nilsen.
http://www.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1920/ag2333f.pdf
Sven,
There are no significant differences between the schematics of Chicago Golf Club between the 1898 drawing by a member who joined that year and the 1901 drawing in "Golfer's Green Book".
I suspect it was largely that way from inception, as I can't imagine looking at the rudimentary bunker plan that much was added due to careful observation of play.
As far as Chris Buie, perhaps he can weigh in and clear up the matter as to the date. I'm just pretty certain that there was nothing much to see in Pinehurst from an architectural standpoint before 1903, wouldn't you agree?
-
As far as Chris Buie, perhaps he can weigh in and clear up the matter as to the date. I'm just pretty certain that there was nothing much to see in Pinehurst from an architectural standpoint before 1903, wouldn't you agree?
For starters, there was a golf course that didn't follow the Victorian model of cross bunkering.
And its spelled "Nilsen."
Thanks,
Sven
-
Mike:
It seems to me that you are arguing that a course that wasn't fully bunkered until well after it was laid out was supposed to have been a strategic masterpiece from the get go.
We have no idea what Henry Fownes' thoughts were on how the course would be bunkered in 1903.
As I stated earlier, the course had the bones to be great, it just didn't have the polish until later on. And pinning a 1903 date as the start date for the thoughts that went into the final product is a specious argument until we know more.
Sven,
No, that's actually not what I'm saying and I think perhaps I'm not explaining myself well.
What I'm saying is that a bunkerless Oakmont in 1903, knowing the use of the natural land forms there and the under-rated routing that largely exists to this day had to be as good a golf course as virtually anything that existed in the US at that time, save perhaps Myopia Hunt. I say that knowing there wasn't a single artificial hazard yet introduced, much less a strategy formulated by Fownes at that time.
Yes, it was polished, improved, modified, etc. through the next few decades, but from a moment in time, 1903, in comparison to what else existed, I think it had to be remarkable and superior in contrast to virtually everything else in the US at that time.
Hope that clarifies my point.
p.s. I corrected my spelling of your last name above. Sorry for the error.
-
Mike--Though not relevant to the discussiion of Fownes and Oakmont, I must respond to your comment about Garden City Golf Club, and when it was "improved". You indicate that it wasn't improved by Travis until after 1906. I believe that Travis began making changes to the course prior to 1906. In the July 1900 magazine, Outing, Travis describes the "very great improvements" made to the GCGC course that included the lengthening of several holes and "addition of several new hazards". He does not claim that he was responsible for the changes, but who would have, given his status at the time? Barker? Emmet?
I'm wondering if you're not giving sufficient credit to other courses that existed prior to 1903?
-
Hi Ed,
I believe that it was Travis himself who stated that his work at Garden City and improvements and suggestions to the bunkers and greens began in 1906. Please see the following first paragraph;
http://www.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1920/ag2333f.pdf
I'd be curious to hear anyone bring other courses circa 1903 that were architecturally meritorious in the United States?
Thanks!
-
Ed:
Excellent point.
Oakmont came about right at the turning point in American architecture. If it had been built 5 years earlier, it would have most likely been a very different golf course.
There were two key paradigm shifts taking place:
1. Distance - the new ball demanded longer courses.
2. Design - the old Victorian style was fading away, with a new style of design stemming from the great inland courses of the UK. Those ideas, particularly a move away from cross-bunkering and towards strategically placed hazards. Travis was at the forefront of this movement, as were others like John Low. The Oxford-Cambridge Golfing Society tour of the U.S. most likely had a significant impact as well.
Where Oakmont fits into this is a good question. In 1903/04 just after having been laid out it would have been a very long golf course that would have been a good test for the best players in the game (even at a par of 80). It was still a new course and would have been in very rough condition. It became a better course as it was tweaked by having bunkers added and moved and the greens improved over the years.
I have a hard time calling a course that had yet to realize its potential one of the greatest in the land. Should we heap the same praise on any of the early Victorian designs that would evolve into what we now consider a classic? Did Oakmont simply benefit from having been laid out on a plot of land that allowed for its later expansion and did not suffer the invasion of real estate interests? Like Pinehurst #2, which started in the same year, was the greatness due to an initial vision, or did it arise out of tender caretaking and tinkering?
American Golfer - Nov. 1903:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/American%20Courses%20-%20Golf%20Magazine%20Nov.%201903%201_zpslobt7hlu.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/American%20Courses%20-%20Golf%20Magazine%20Nov.%201903%202_zpsgcpik2yq.png)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/American%20Courses%20-%20Golf%20Magazine%20Nov.%201903%203_zpsdepxzkkt.png)
Here's an Oswald Kirkby article (Outing Magazine) from later on discussing the best courses in the East:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Golf%20in%20the%20East%20-%20Outing%20Magazine%201_zpsfif4ven4.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Golf%20in%20the%20East%20-%20Outing%20Magazine%202_zpseuwhyyc8.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Golf%20in%20the%20East%20-%20Outing%20Magazine%203_zpstnvmyzrd.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Golf%20in%20the%20East%20-%20Outing%20Magazine%204_zpshxeuwf8f.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Golf%20in%20the%20East%20-%20Outing%20Magazine%205_zps2cqatw9m.jpg)
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Golf%20in%20the%20East%20-%20Outing%20Magazine%206_zpsnkbcp36c.jpg)
-
Hi Ed,
I believe that it was Travis himself who stated that his work at Garden City and improvements and suggestions to the bunkers and greens began in 1906. Please see the following first paragraph;
http://www.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1920/ag2333f.pdf
I'd be curious to hear anyone bring other courses circa 1903 that were architecturally meritorious in the United States?
Thanks!
Mike:
Ed is correct that Travis' involvement with work on GCGC started well before 1906. The May 1900 Golf Magazine article on the course includes him as one of the parties responsible for its current layout. It is in 1906 that he started implementing his thoughts on bunkering and green contours, which is completely irrelevant to this thread, as that type of work took place at Oakmont after 1906 and continued for a number of years as pointed out by Jim Kennedy in the other thread.
Sven
-
Sven -
Thanks for posting the two articles. As Bramston points out, Myopia was the course singled out by the OCGS as most like a British links course in the summer of 1903.
The story of when and how America 'got' the revolution in golf architecture then in full swing in Britain (thank you John Low), Leeds and Myopia should be given important roles. A problem is that Leeds, unlike Travis and MacD, wrote so little on the topic.
Bob
-
Sven -
Thanks for posting the two articles. As Bramston points out, Myopia was the course singled out by the OCGS as most like a British links course in the summer of 1903.
The story of when and how America 'got' the revolution in golf architecture then in full swing in Britain (thank you John Low), Leeds and Myopia should be given important roles. A problem is that Leeds, unlike Travis and MacD, wrote so little on the topic.
Bob
Bob:
What the Bramston piece, and others, point out to me is that the ideas were in the air in America at the beginning of the century, and were just waiting to be implemented. I don't consider Fownes to have been at the forefront of this conversation, although he was undoubtedly involved.
Sven
-
Have you come across a drawing of the Myopia that Low, Alison and Bramston would have played in 1903?
Given the current 2nd hole (then the 1st), I'd guess that even though the OCGS group liked the course, it was hardly free of typically Victorian features at the time.
Bob
-
Have you come across a drawing of the Myopia that Low, Alison and Bramston would have played in 1903?
Given the current 2nd hole (then the 1st), I'd guess that even though the OCGS group liked the course, it was hardly free of typically Victorian features at the time.
Bob
Here's the closest I have, from the April 1905 Golfers Magazine:
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Myopia%20-%20Golfers%20Magazine%20April%201905_zpscd8ddeq5.png)
-
Sven -
Great stuff. Thanks.
Assuming this is more or less the Myopia Bramston and Low played, there are some Victorian cross bunkers, though not a lot.
(I note that the current 1st was in place by 1905, so my comment above was incorrect.)
Bob
-
Sven,
Thanks for the Bramston, Kirkby articles and the Myopia schematic.
I have not seen the Bramston article prior and it's very interesting and insightful. He really is quite critical of Chicago Golf Club as it existed at that time and very high on Myopia, which seemed to be fairly consensual opinion among those visiting from abroad.
I do think he brings up an interesting point that I believe you alluded to earlier which seems to suggest that the very idea of having in mind various hole lengths limits the architect's thinking in such a way as to not maximize any particular piece of property. While I think that certainly can be true with constricted real estate, I think with enough ground and natural features folks like Crump proved that it didn't have to be a handicap and I'd suggest the same is true at Oakmont.
Kirkby's article is interesting as one from a long-hitting tournament competitor viewing the landscape. He seems particularly fond of lengthy forced carries, or at least a premium on holes where such is required. For instance, his main criticisms of Garden City seem to be the lack of long carries from the tee as well as no long carries past cross bunkers. Perhaps coming from New Jersey he was related to Matt Ward? ;)
Great discussion, guys.
-
Bramston was a tragic figure. An attractive, athletic guy. He was probably the best golfer on the OCGS team that waxed the Americans. He was a fine writer and had - as you can tell from the article Sven posted - a good eye for architecture. Low thought highly of him. He was close friends with Alison and would have traveled in the same circles with Colt and Darwin. It is not wild speculation to think Bramston might have become an important architect one day.
He was already ill at outset of the exhausting OCGS tour in 1903 and he returned to England very sick. Bramston died a year or so later.
Bob
-
Mike
Re not building the bunkers until after the course has opened, I thought that was fairly standard procedure for Old Tom etc, or am I mistaken ? Maybe they did things differently over the pond.
Niall
Niall,
Let's just say that things didn't exactly get off to a roaring start with golf in this country, architecturally speaking.
Almost every golf course that was built had the same motif as described in the following Walter Travis article and which can be seen above exemplified in the Chicago Golf Club schematic. Frankly, the idea of bunkering a course any other way but largely by rote was something almost novel in this country and I'm trying to track down the first instance, which I also asked Sven Nilsen.
http://www.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1920/ag2333f.pdf
Mike
Thanks for posting that Travis article, an interesting read but unless I read it wrong there was no reference or suggestion that putting the bunkers in after the course was built was a new concept ?
Niall
-
Niall,
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it but to me the implication is that if you are to have a cross-bunkered, steeple-chase course with berms at repeated, rote intervals (as most US courses did) then there would never be any reason to wait to carefully observe play before placing bunkers, no?
I can think of only a few courses that were developed during this time period where I read that bunkering would be done later after play was observed and Oakmont is the earliest in the US I'm familiar with. From other research I know that in later years much the same thing was written about other courses, mostly long-term projects by amateur architects who had the time (and money) for such a fastidious and more expensive approach.
-
The suggestion that virtually all the courses built in the US before 1904 were built from the very beginning with a complete bunkering system is absolutely ridiculous.
The trouble with this thread and the related thread is that Mike has decided that Oakmont must have been revolutonary from the get-go, and he is is just making things up to try to justify that belief. He throws out questionable contention after questionable contention as if they are proven fact, and leaves it to the rest of us to correct him.
-
David,
Please cite some examples to make your case of early US courses built without bunkers that were then added intelligently after carefully observing play.
I'm not saying there are no others...I'm saying I'm not aware of any. Thanks.
-
I'm reminded of the phrase/concept that TEPaul used to use a lot, I think it was "designing up" -- in reference, I think, to that phase of course design that, in the early days of American golf, was just as important if not more so that phase one (i.e. the routing/laying out of the course.) So, first came the decisions on (and creation of) tees and greens and basic direction and length of the 18 golf holes in some kind of routing; and then came - in the designing up phase - the addition of bunkers and other hazards and mounds and tweaks to the length of the holes and evolving maintenance practices etc. And it seems to me that, whether it's Oakmont or Myopia or Merion, the courses we now (still) consider great owe a lot of their greatness to this "designing up" phase. I have no way of knowing how many well-routed/laid out courses from the early days of American golf never benefitted/benefitted enough from the designing up phase and thus were, either soon afterwards or in the decades to come, forgotten or bulldozed over.
Peter
-
No Mike. You have said that there aren't others. You've said it repeatedly. You think that because you aren't aware of any that there must not be any, and to put it politely, that isn't sound research. As for your request that I do your research for you, no thanks. You cant just throw out one half-baked theory after another as if they were fact, and expect us to clean up your messes. Yet that is what you have done repeatedly since your return.
Your research in this case seems to consist of nothing but cherry-picking a single course rendering from well after the time the course was built, and then pretending that every other course in the country was built the same way from its inception. Give us a break Mike. Do you know how many courses had been built by the middle of the first decade of the 20th century? And many with very limited resources for and sometimes by novice golfers. (Think of your Phoenixville example from a decade later.) Most courses were works in progress.
And, as Jim points out, whether it was fully implemented or not, Oakmont did have a scheme of hazards in mind from the very beginning, and it wasn't necessarily as advanced or enlightened as you portray it.
In short, you are making things up on both ends of your argument.
-
Mike,
Being in Pittsburgh woujd Andrew Carnegie have had any input. He started golfing in 1899 according to articles.
-
Pete,
I'm not sure about Carnegie as an influence but did come across the following;
Who Was Henry Fownes?
Like other 19th century Pittsburghers, Henry Clay Fownes made a fortune in iron and steel manufacturing. But while others used their money to build even greater empires, Fownes used the profits he received in 1896 by selling his Carrie Furnace Company to Andrew Carnegie, to go play golf. He was only 40 years old. Fownes played well enough to compete in the United States Open in 1901. By 1903 Fownes was looking around to build his own club.
How Did Oakmont Country Club Come About?
Fownes found the plot of land he was looking for on an old farm overlooking the Allegheny River just northeast of Pittsburgh. He drew up the routing for the new course himself and directed a crew of 150 men and 24 mule teams pulling scrapers to shape the land. Golf equipment was rapidly evolving at the time and Fownes built his course longer than most existing layouts to adapt to these improvements to the game. The course was so long, in fact, that when it opened in 1904, Oakmont played to a par of 80 (72 is normal). Fownes wanted a links-style course so Oakmont was built with no water hazards and, despite its name, scarcely any trees. The course routing seen today, lauded by some as America's greatest, is little changed from Fownes' original vision. Oakmont would be the only course Henry Fownes ever designed.
-
Mike,
Somewhere in Mark Frost's book "Grand Slam" it says that Carnegie introduced Fownes to the game. If this is true, then the nexus between them may be bigger.
-
Fownes wanted a links-style course so Oakmont was built with no water hazards and, despite its name, scarcely any trees.
Not sure where this is from (a citation would be nice), but it isn't entirely accurate.
The initial intention was to leave many of existing Oak trees on the site. Most of them died shortly after construction (with the exception of the iconic tree by the first hole). The open playing field we associate with the course and which was reclaimed years back by a tree removal plan was not an intentional feature.
Golf Illustrated - May 1931
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Oakmont%20Trees%20-%20Golf%20Illustrated%20May%201931_zpszl74xper.png)
-
Sven,
Yes, a citation would be nice, as well. ;)
One would think that if the Fownes family actually wanted trees on the course they would have planted them. Interestingly, I was just looking at some aerials of Oakmont this morning and was surprised to learn that most of the tree planting there occurred after 1969.
www.historicaerials.com
-
Early in this thread some mentioned that the work that Ross (and Travis) were doing at Pinehurst likely influenced Fownes and Son given their annual pilgrimage(s) to that mecca. It seems likely that would have indeed influenced them as they were also very close to the Philadelphians who at the time were themselves evolving in their thinking about golf courses through their exposure to Pinehurst; in fact Fownes was a charter member of Pine Valley. Given that Oakmont was routed prior to Pinehurst #2, and the fact that Pinehurst had flat, sand greens at the time, the architectural influence was most likely found in some of the ideas of "scientific bunkering" being implemented at Pinehurst.
Indeed it seems that the influence was felt at the same time in the Philadelphia region as well, as I posted some time back as follows. I should mention that a number of us believe that "Far and Sure" was A.W. Tillinghast;
Jim Kennedy turned me onto this awesome 1920 article by Walter Travis that speaks to his role in the 1906 "scientific bunkering" of Pinehurst #2.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1920/ag2333f.pdf
Also,
A March 11th, 1911 Philadelphia Press article titled "30 Quakers Tramp Pinehurst Links - Philadelphians Help Swell Army of Golf Enthusiasts at Southern Resort to 800" was but a sample of the type of ongoing enthusiasm and consistent support for Pinehurst among golfers in Philadelphia, as well as nationwide.
From the article;
"The number of Philadelphians who come here yearly is increasing steadily as there is no place in the South which compares to Pinehurst when it comes to golf. At one of the hotels there are more than 400 golfers quartered and it is safe to say that oever the three courses more than 800 golfers may be found any bright day."
"The Spring tournament, which ended today, was responsible for the second largest entry list in the history of golf. The entries numbered 241 and this was beaten in only one tournament - the Transmississippi at Denver a few years ago. Here, 228 actually played, which is a new record. This is remarkable in view of the fact that the weather was down to freezing and a stiff gale blew across the course."
"There are three distinct, great eighteen-hole courses here, which is true of no other place in the world except the R&A Golf Club of St. Andrews, Scotland. A fourth has been staked out and will be in readiness next Spring. The most famous of these courses is the No. 2 course, laid out by Donald Ross and Walter J. Travis. They did not plan it together, but each coincided with the other's suggestions. The only change suggested by Travis and which was adopted was the omissions of cross bunkers. The ground is rolling and the grass on the fairway is Bermuda grass, the only kind that is possible in most golf resorts in the South."
"The putting greens are of clay foundation and covered with sand. The greens are flat and as there are no worm casts, perfect putting is always possible. The greens are watered for a radius of a few feet from the hole and men are employed to do nothing else but water the greens and drag a roll of carpet over them to remove all traces of heel marks."
While this article and architectural attributions are noteworthy to point out the popularity of Pinehurst during these early years, it doesn’t speak necessarily to the architectural sophistication that was found there.
However, the following article from the May 1912 American Golfer does;
"After one of the most unprofitable—from a golfer's point of view—winter, Philadelphia extended a warm greeting to spring. It has been years since the links of the Quaker City have been so unplayable as the period from Christmas until the latter part of March. An occasional day was the only respite from weeks of the worst possible sort of weather."
"One thing will be noted by visitors from other cities whether they play over such excellent eighteen hole courses as Huntingdon Valley and the Philadelphia Cricket Clubs as representing the larger organizations or the two dozen or more courses of nine holes and that is the growing tendency to improve in a more scientific manner the courses around Philadelphia. "
"Time was when changes were made in a sort of a hit or miss manner. Today every trap or pit that is constructed means something definite and with it all has come the scientific construction of bunkers and hazards. Time was when the green committee built courses on a broad principle of the greatest good to the greatest number and as the greatest number in every golfing organization is the dub or indifferent player, the really good player suffered. As the chairman of the green committee of one of the largest courses recently expressed himself: "A few years ago we used to post the changes proposed. This met with so much opposition that we were forced to take a couple of days in the week when we were sure that the bulk of the players would not be on the course and then we started to construct a course that would help the good player and do no great injury to the poor player. Nowadays, fortunately, we are able to make changes without feeling that we would be subjected to the severest sort of criticism.""
"There is no doubt that the Southern courses have done wonders for golfing conditions around Philadelphia. It is not so many years ago that very few players took two weeks off in mid winter to play golf in the south. Where one player went South five years ago, twenty go now. Pinehurst, in particular has worked wonders. Hundreds of men who have always played a rather indifferent game have gone to Pinehurst and have been confronted with golf courses constructed on scientific principles where traps and pits have been placed in spots because good golf demanded their presence there."
"The result has been that the indifferent, careless player found that every shot he made demanded study and care and the golf there brought out the best in him. When he got back to the home heath he began to realize that one of the reasons he had not been playing better golf was because his own course was constructed on rather slip shod lines, on the one hand, or built on lines to suit him and scores of other players who insisted that the course should not be made any harder than it was. He realized for the first time that his wild shots were not penalized, that many of his approaches should have been punished but were not. The realizing sense finally came to him that he had not been playing golf but had simply used the paraphernalia of the game in a very bungling fashion."
"As a direct result scores of the indifferent players who have received their real golf education in the south have gone to the green committees and frankly and freely confessed that their theories were all wrong and asked them to stiffen the course. They now realize that it is impossible to play good golf over an inferior course and that a good course does not hamper their game but actually helps it."
"At any event, the golfing renaissance in Philadelphia has actually begun and before many years we shall have courses which are a credit to us and not a mark of good natured chaffing of others who know what constitutes a good course." - "Far and Sure" - May 1912
-
Interesting blurbs, but I am having trouble figuring out what they have to do with the premise of this thread, which was based on a 1905 blurb mentioning that Oakmont was "laid out scientifically" not with regard to bunkering, but with regard to the lengths of the holes (number of shots per hole.)
You wrote:
Given that Oakmont was routed prior to Pinehurst #2, and the fact that Pinehurst had flat, sand greens at the time, the architectural influence was most likely found in some of the ideas of "scientific bunkering" being implemented at Pinehurst.
I am trying to make sense of this, but I can't. You seem to be trying to draw a connection between use of the word "scientific" in both instances, but how could the original course at Oakmont have been influenced by the "scientific bunkering" at Pinehurst #2 when
1) Pinehurst #2 didn't exist when Oakmont was planned,
2) the original course at Oakmont had no bunkering, and
3) the "laid out scientifically" quote had nothing to do with bunkering.
-
"At any event, the golfing renaissance in Philadelphia has actually begun and before many years we shall have courses which are a credit to us and not a mark of good natured chaffing of others who know what constitutes a good course." - "Far and Sure" - May 1912
Did Tilly really say that the Philadelphia area courses weren't up to snuff in 1912? ;D
A Ross routing would also be a good example for the Fownes', as well as the many good courses they played prior to Oakmont's construction, and don't forget that they were surrounded by some of the best designers of the early 20th century.
I don't think there is any other construct that explains the quality of Oakmont's layout, absent some unknown statement to the contrary from the Fownes'.
-
I'm actually not trying to tie the mention of "scientific" design to the whole question of the systematic bunkering that took place at Oakmont except perhaps by way of coincidence that the term "scientific" is used in both the early Pittsburgh news articles discussing the creation of the course to describe the routing and hole length creation process and later by Travis to describe what he felt was a novel bunkering methodology in this country that (he?) began in 1906. As Bob Crosby pointed out, the term "scientific" seems to have been used to cover such a variety of things at the time as to be essentially meaningless.
The tie-in to Pinehurst is based on early suggestions by Philip Hensley, Sean Tully, and Sven that Fownes was likely influenced by Pinehurst and I'm merely pointing out that given the timing and state of Pinehurst at the time that could only have influenced their thinking on bunkering strategies.
Yet, I would suggest that there was something very different in the way Oakmont was created and then evolved than what happened at most courses at the time. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle article I posted from the spring of 1906 on the other thread stated;
"The course as laid out was the product of years of valuable experience on the part of several experts and needs only development to become well nigh perfect."
Again, this is still before implementation of the studied and systematic addition of bunkers based on careful and thoughtful observation of actual play that had been planned from the very beginnings of the club that was to follow in the next several years and then decades into the 1930s.
It seems possible to me that Oakmont was the first course to be built with the idea that it would be a living, evolving thing that would take many years of tinkering to perfect. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions here, and the tie-in to Pinehurst and what happened in terms of influencing Philadelphia later are related in a number of ways. For instance, who exactly where the "experts" who laid out Oakmont who already had "years of valuable experience"? Where did they receive that experience?
And Jim, of course Tilly would have bemoaned the state of Philadelphia golf course architecture in 1912, and he and some other prominent Philadelphians had been doing so for a number of years at that point. Merion wouldn't open until late that fall and before then there was really a hodge podge of various course of various quality (and not) but very soon the efforts of Tillinghast and others to stimulate golf in Philly through the creation of championship-level courses that would foster better competitors in the city would pay big dividends with the creation of Merion, Pine Valley, and Cobb's Creek by 1916.
As far as Ross, I'd have to check but I don't think he had done much in terms of routing at Pinehurst by the time Oakmont was designed in 1903, had he? Had he done his revisions to the #1 course by that time? That being said, I do think Fownes would have benefited from some of the ideas going on down there in terms of the bunkering initiatives described in the Travis article and I do find it interesting that of any American course I can think of that somewhat parallels Oakmont in terms of bunkering approach it would be Garden City post-Travis revisions.
What would you say were the "many good courses" the Fownes' had played that existed in the US prior to 1903 that would have influenced their thinking on Oakmont?
-
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle article I posted from the spring of 1906 on the other thread stated;
"The course as laid out was the product of years of valuable experience on the part of several experts and needs only development to become well nigh perfect."
....
For instance, who exactly where the "experts" who laid out Oakmont who already had "years of valuable experience"? Where did they receive that experience?
Mike:
This is one small example of the specious reasoning you've been applying in these threads. The BDE article does not state that it was the experts that actually laid out Oakmont, just that their valuable experience aided in its creation. Yet you've jumped to the conclusion that those experts actually laid out the course.
Sven
-
Sven,
Isn't that specious. ;) Are you taking Parsing lessons and not telling us? ;) :D
Seriously, how do you think those "several experts" contributed to the creation of Oakmont in 1903 and who do you think they were?
-
Any answer i'd have would be a guess, and i'd prefer not to continue the recent trend of posting speculation that with only the passage of time becomes confused for fact.
-
It seems possible to me that Oakmont was the first course to be built with the idea that it would be a living, evolving thing that would take many years of tinkering to perfect.
As far as Ross, I'd have to check but I don't think he had done much in terms of routing at Pinehurst by the time Oakmont was designed in 1903, had he? Had he done his revisions to the #1 course by that time? That being said, I do think Fownes would have benefited from some of the ideas going on down there in terms of the bunkering initiatives described in the Travis article and I do find it interesting that of any American course I can think of that somewhat parallels Oakmont in terms of bunkering approach it would be Garden City post-Travis revisions.
What would you say were the "many good courses" the Fownes' had played that existed in the US prior to 1903 that would have influenced their thinking on Oakmont?
I thought #1 was done in 1900, and the first 9 of #2 in that same general time frame?
Myopia? - bunkering added as need?
The "many good courses" they played would at least be the ones used for the US Ams that they played in prior to constructing Oakmont. Another would be Ekwanok, and I tend to think that they would generally be playing the best courses available for the time.
I don't think they book-learned routing skills, or were divinely inspired. :)
-
Yet, I would suggest that there was something very different in the way Oakmont was created and then evolved than what happened at most courses at the time.
You have suggested this, and you have offered conjecture after conjecture about what this "difference" might have been. None of your theories have been supported by facts.
You have started with your desired conclusion, and you have been unsuccessfully trying to twist the facts to fit that conclusion ever since.
It seems possible to me that Oakmont was the first course to be built with the idea that it would be a living, evolving thing that would take many years of tinkering to perfect.
Here we go again. Where is the evidence supporting this theory? What about all the other courses that had already significantly evolved before Oakmont even existed. Like many of your other theories, we don't have to go to far into the history of Golf Course Architecture in America to see that this theory is unsupportable. Look at Shinnecock, for example. Or Myopia. A more challenging study might be to try and find courses that had not "evolved" early in their existence.
As for who the various experts might have been, have you stopped to consider the possibility that they may have been some the same "itinerant" professionals you regularly disrespect?
-
I'm surprised that you fellows don't want to dig any deeper on the early origins of a course basically retaining the same routing for the past 112 years that is still generally acknowledged as one of the best courses in the country. That's ok, I'll add more as time permits but this is more fun as a collaborative exercise. Perhaps I'm the only one who doesn't know all there is to know about Oakmont. ;)
-
I'm surprised that you fellows don't want to dig any deeper on the early origins of a course basically retaining the same routing for the past 112 years that is still generally acknowledged as one of the best courses in the country. That's ok, I'll add more as time permits but this is more fun as a collaborative exercise. Perhaps I'm the only one who doesn't know all there is to know about Oakmont. ;)
1/3 of the posts are from you, 2/3 from others, plus, a lot of digging and a lot of information on the early origins of the course has already been put into this thread.
What do you feel is lacking or missing, and what hasn't been looked into?
-
To cross compare the Oakmont course that was designed in 1903 to the types of courses that were highly regarded during those days, following please find the layouts of all of the courses hosting the U.S. Amateur tournament, the most prestigious title in American golf, from inception in 1895 through 1907. As noted, most are in the Victorian style of cross-bunkered simplicity of design and many would soon be outmoded by the Haskell ball as well as changes in architectural thinking.
Contrast these with an Oakmont course that was 6400 yards with a routing that is essentially the same as todays. Consider also the thinking that bunkering wouldn’t be some rote affair with a cross bunker every statutory distance from the tee or for the next carry and perhaps you’ll see better why I feel Oakmont was almost revolutionary (and certainly visionary) in its day and why I asked the questions I have in this thread seeking to learn who the Fownes family learned from and who they were influenced by.
Newport – 1895 – Willie Davis
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/newport/Newport_TheGolfer_Nov1895.jpg)
Shinnecock Hills – 1896 – Willie Davis/Willie Dunn
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/maps/June16_1895_Sun_Shinnecock.jpg)
Chicago – 1897 – Charles Blair Macdonald/HJ Whigham/James and David Foulis
(http://i54.tinypic.com/zlz1u9.jpg)
Morris County – 1898 – Committee/Tom Bendelow
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/MorrisCountySept71898BostonEveningTranscript_zps2cb61f97.jpg)
Onwentsia – 1899 – HJ Whigham and Robert Foulis
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5049/5297710359_33d8fb583b_z.jpg)
Garden City – 1900 – Devereux Emmett, some Walter Travis suggestions possibly implemented by then.
(http://i52.tinypic.com/23lijv7.jpg)
Atlantic City – 1901 – HJ Tweedie/John Reid
(http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5500/12596132353_c1fb5010e6_c.jpg)
Glen View – 1902 – Richard Leslie
(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7303/12780893085_f38c06f729_c.jpg)
Nassau – 1903 – Committee Members/Tom Bendelow?
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/maps/Dec25_1898_NYSun_diagram.jpg)
Baltusrol – 1904 – David Hunter
(http://i1211.photobucket.com/albums/cc435/snilsen7/Baltusrol-GolfersMagazineJuly1904_zpse3774076.png)
Chicago – 1905 (See Above)
Englewood – 1906 – Tom Bendelow (Only have a much later graphic from 1915 but cross bunkers still in evidence)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/maps/Englewood_1915_NYEveningTelegram.jpg)
Euclid – 1907 – Bert Way
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7618/16993164385_f56f3f9416_o.jpg)
-
Mike,
Lot of stick routings in the diagrams you posted. Reminds me of another from the same period ;):
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8802/17264780356_4909450241_o.jpg)
And doglegs weren't unique in 1903:
Beverley GC -2
Detroit GC 2
Hartford GC -2
City Park, NOLA- 6
Glen Echo- 1
Stockbridge -1
Sarasota GC - 1
Myopia (earlier than Oakmont) located bunkers after the build in locations where they were 'needed'.
The Fownes' used the "Victorian" elements of long rough and ditches on a number of holes in lieu of bunkers
#5 - green surrounded by ditches
#7 - requires a clean tee shot, ditch in front of tee
#10 - requires a carry of 170 yards on the second shot to carry ditches and long grass
#11 - requires a perfect second shot to carry ditches and long grass
#12 - second shot plays from a hanging lie but requires a long carry over rough grass
#16 - green is entirely surrounded by difficulties
#18 - requires a tee shot of 165 yards to carry long grass
The list of men they pal'ed around with at the time reads like a who's who of people involved in the evolving architectural thought of the times.
The Fownes' took to the game like fish do to water, they had the 'best' friends, engineering degree, and if they had good ears they've had all they needed to learn about the physical plant.
-
Jim,
Thanks for all of that. I do think we're getting somewhere and I appreciate your input a great deal. Could you reference the year and source of that stick drawing?
I do think this fellow likely had some important input in the process, as well.
(***EDIT***Sorry for the sizing...I think I might need to move from Flickr to Photobucket)
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8800/17300166821_17088e1597_z.jpg)
-
Mike, While I am glad you finally got around to discovering George Ormiston, I do wish you'd take off your blinders and consider what others have been saying to for quite some time now. At the very least, it would speed the process along. From the first page of this thread:
. . . And there were knowledgeable individuals right there in Pittsburg, including the Scottish born and raised George A. Ormiston, who was one of the top golfers in the region (and who famously beat Travis in the 1904 US Amateur.) Ormiston was member at Highland (Fownes previous club) and I believe a founding member at Oakmont, and if I recall correctly he was involved in the design of at least one Pittsburg area golf course.
Another potential influence at Oakmont in the early years was Norman MacBeth. Like Ormiston, MacBeth also grew up with the game in Scotland, and he was well traveled in the British golfing world. Here is he is H.J. Whigham and other notables at the 1902 Indian Open:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/1902GolfIllustratedIndianChampionsh.jpg?t=1244244580)
I don't think that MacBeth was at Oakmont at the time of the creation of the course, but he was there during its important transformation around 1910.
MacBeth left Pittsburg and moved to Los Angeles, and among other courses, MacBeth is credited for Wilshire Country Club, which was masterfully routed and bunkered from the very beginning of its existence. He knew what he was doing. I guess one could argue that he learned from Fownes, but given his talent, experiences, and background it seems at least possible that he might have had something to offer, too. But we'll probably never know if he had any influence, and we can't really infer that he did just because he was there.
Here is MacBeth and other notables at Cypress Point in 1930 (from http://www.loonhill.com/galleryRobertHunter.htm#)
(http://www.loonhill.com/images/Robert%20Hunter%20Sr%20and%20Jr/Robert%20Hunter%20Jr,%20Norman%20MacBeth,%20Dr%20A%20MacKenzie%20and%20Roger%20Lapham,%20left%20to%20right,%201930_WM.jpg)
Also, Eben Byers was at Oakmont during the early years, and he too was well connected in the early golf world.
-
David,
Thanks for the additional info on MacBeth and Byers.
I was long aware of Ormiston and even played Schenley Park (the former Shadyside Golf Club, also still home of the Pittsburgh Golf Club) last fall, which he is largely credited with designing. I do have to say that anyone who has played Schenley has to be wondering about either of us drawing a connection to Oakmont in terms of design abilities and excellence, but he was such a talented early Pittsburgh golfer and coming from North Berwick where he caddied and played as a boy one would think he'd have to have much more architectural knowledge than the average US golfer at the time, even by osmosis.
He was also a scratch amateur when the Fownes family were getting strokes in the early tournaments and caddied for Fownes at Brookline in 1910 when he won the US Amateur. Early articles almost suggest that it was Ormiston who taught Fownes to golf but I'm not sure the timing is correct for that. I'm of the opinion that he was minimally a trusted golf advisor to the Fownes family, both in terms of playing and insight on the game in general, including architecture.