News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Thomas MacWood

Sir Guy Campbell's proposal
« on: October 20, 2008, 12:33:08 PM »
I was reading some old articles written by Sir Guy Campbell and came across one I thought might be relevent to today. It was written shortly after the conclusion of WWII, when England was suffering through some difficult economic times. The article was entitled The Future of Golf in this Country.

"In the changed social order in which we must aim at every one being employed consistently and constructively, golf as I foresee might more than any other, be the game engaging actively most individuals of both sexes, and giving the quiet healthful relaxation and good companionship essential to the strain of modern conditions of work. What an ideal to strive after!

How can such be achieved? In other words, on what basis can we budget?

I can find no other answer than a return to less costly and therefore simpler methods. Nor can I see the game suffering in any way thereby.

What does this entail? I suggest:--

(1) Shorter, more natural, and less 'architected' courses, requiring small green staff and a minimum of machinery.

(2) Cheaper clubs. Note--At the beginning of the century a first-class hand-made craftsman-fashioned club cost 6s. 6d. The average price today for a machine made hand-finished club is £2, 2s.

(3) The reduction of a set from 14 to 8.

(4) Cheaper golf balls.

I am confident all this is feasible and possible once all concerned realise and admit the problem confronting the game and show themsleves ready to work together for a solution. It requires only an invitation from the Royal & Ancient to make such conference a gathering of good omen."

Would any of these suggestions make sense today?

TEPaul

Re: Sir Guy Campbell's proposal
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2008, 12:45:16 PM »
What interests me is the various ways some of the architects who were apparently real thinkers in a sort of macro way with golf and architecture got into these types of proposals (basically to make golf more accessible and popular by making it generally cheaper all around).

Another interesting proposal in this vein was the theoretical ideas proposed by George Thomas based around the concept and proposal of "half strokes for putts."

Some must have felt he made this proposal because he didn't like putting or something but when one really considers his overall proposal as detailed in his book in the chapter entitled "Arbitrary Values" one cannot help but notice the basis of his proposal was to make golf more affordable by making architecture cheaper to construct and maintain.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sir Guy Campbell's proposal
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2008, 01:02:16 PM »
Did those views influence what Campbell did at Princes post WWII?

Bob

Thomas MacWood

Re: Sir Guy Campbell's proposal
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2008, 01:22:20 PM »
Bob
Campbell wrote about that as well - Reconstructing a Great Links. That was a little later around 1950. One of the more bizarre projects, half the holes designed by Campbell and half the holes designed by John Morrison.

"Here is the story of Prince's revisions, up to date.

Some two years ago, John Morrison and I were seperately commisioned to submit planned proposals for the reconstruction of Prince's links. The terms of reference were broadly:--

(1) To use as much of the original layout as possible, but to provide for 27 instead of 18 holes

(2) To arrange for two starts and finishes from and at the original clubhouse

(3) To arrange for three starts and finished from, and at, Shingle End, the site of the old coastguard station and houses destroyed during the war, so that in the event of a clubhouse being built there, three loops of nine holes would start from and finish at that point.

(4) To arrange for a practice grounds, (pitching and putting) coursrs, and turf nurseries.

(5) To make provisions for proper crowd control, and vantage points and good visiblitlity for spectators."

They submitted separate plans and although the Board liked aspects of each scheme it was not prepared to accept either in its entirety. They asked both architects to visit the site together, and it was at that time they agreed to work on the project together. So to answer your question I would say the financial difficulties did affect Prince's, but not in the adoption of those four Campbell suggestions, but in the fact that Campbell and Morrison agreed to this bizarre collaboration. I doubt either man would have agreed to that under normal circumstances.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sir Guy Campbell's proposal
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2008, 02:00:16 PM »
Tom -

Good stuff. Thanks.

Point 5 is a bit sad in retrospect:

"(5) To make provisions for proper crowd control, and vantage points and good visiblitlity for spectators."

Given the course that Campbell/Morrison left us, the likelihood that Prince's will host a major event with crowd control problems is pretty low.

Bob


Thomas MacWood

Re: Sir Guy Campbell's proposal
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2008, 02:10:22 PM »
Bob
I think the second part of point #1 is where they went wrong. I don't understand what an extra nine holes got them when weighed against seriously compromising one of the most famous designs of the 20th C.  On the other hand I have no idea how damaged the course was and if restoration was even conceivable.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sir Guy Campbell's proposal New
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2008, 02:19:40 PM »
Tom -

Agreed the third nine was a problem. I think the relocation of the clubhouse also had something to do with it. My guess is that it took up a lot of land from the heart of the old course.

Bob

 
« Last Edit: October 20, 2008, 02:29:18 PM by BCrosby »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back