Cruden Bay 1927

[Brian_Ewen]

I have never seen a review of Cruden Bay without the writer quibbling about one of the holes . Even in 1927 .

[T_MacWood]

Brian
Thanks for sharing that article. I've recently done a lot of research on Tom Simpson for an essay I'm writing on him, and I'm certain he would enjoy the  criticism of the odd hole at Cruden Bay. He and Wethered claimed that the ideal golf course must have at least one 'bad' hole, actually one and half.

[ForkaB]

Great stuff. Brian.  I think Ambrose is dead right about the 2nd--a boring, jarring hole whose only real saving grace is that it leads on to the thrilling 3rd and 4th!  He is right that a green to the left would be a significant improvement.

[TEPaul]

"....and I'm certain he would enjoy the  criticism of the odd hole at Cruden Bay. He and Wethered claimed that the ideal golf course must have at least one 'bad' hole, actually one and half."

There seems to be a virtual laundry list of things that were said by some architects in the old days that if for nothing else than curiosty's sake should be looked into as to why they may have said them. That's not the first, second or third time I've heard that remark from some of the old European architects. The ironic and probably hilarious thing would be if we actually took some of those remarks that seriously. A remark such as 'the ideal golf course MUST have at least one bad hole or one and a half bad holes' was probably some defensive reaction born of excuse from the Euros due to a guy like C.B Macdonald and his unique NGLA theory that an ideal golf course should have 18 good golf holes. The ensuing "dynamic" beginning before WW1 between some of the old European "mentors" and the burgeoning American contingent striking out on their own with their own American thoughts and theories about golf architecture was an interesting time to really get the essences of the evolution in early golf archtiecture. Tillinghast defined and described pretty well a lot of that "dynamic" between the Euros and the Americans in many of his articles.





 

[T_MacWood]

TE
Simpson (and Wethered) explain their thoughts on this subject in The Architectural Side of Golf. They had an interesting, and slightly idiosyncratic, view of golf architecture. If you haven't read the book, I'd recommend it.

They definitely looked at golf architecture from an artstic perspective. Wethered was literary and art scholar. Simpson was artist and an art authority. Their opinion that the ideal (of any art form) must be imperfect was influenced by Ruskin, and relating it to golf design, by their experience on the ancient links (St. Andrews in particular).

[T_MacWood]

Simpson also wrote several articles about American golf design vs British golf design.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Simpson (and Wethered) explain their thoughts on this subject in The Architectural Side of Golf. They had an interesting, and slightly idiosyncratic, view of golf architecture. If you haven't read the book, I'd recommend it."

Tom MacW:

I read it cover to cover but that was a couple of years ago. I don't have the book but Gil Hanse has an unusually beautiful copy and he lives within a couple of miles of me so I borrowed his. Where can I get a copy now for my own?

"They definitely looked at golf architecture from an artstic perspective. Wethered was literary and art scholar. Simpson was artist and an art authority. Their opinion that the ideal (of any art form) must be imperfect was influenced by Ruskin, and relating it to golf design, by their experience on the ancient links (St. Andrews in particular)."

I think the fact that art and art in golf design should in some ways be imperfect or have imperfections is a wonderful thought---and one I also always associate with your articles on the Arts and Crafts Movement on this website.

Macdonald, in his own book, I believe, remarks on Repton's landscape ideas that imperfections of Nature should be eliminated from the eye in the art of landscape architecture. I don't think imperfections in the earth and in Nature should be eliminated from the eye in golf architecture but that's a long way from proposing a golf hole or one and a half golf holes on a golf course MUST be bad for the golf course to be "ideal"! That to me sounds like nothing much more than an excuse and not a very good one at that.