Bunkers-early photos 1900-1932

[TEPaul]

"Right above, TEPaul.  My bolds . . .
Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 12:35:52pm
Those early rudimentary golf courses, particularly inland, when golf first emigrated out of the linksland to inland England and America were simply a total lack of understanding of what golf course architecture even was. And the reason for that is pretty clear---eg man-made golf course architecture, particularly on sites inland and outside Scotland, and on land naturally unsuited for golf had basically never existed before.
 
 
"As to the rest, Tom, pardon me for saying so, but it is a mistake for you repeatedly assume that I have not researched these issues before commenting.  

The beauty of this USGA search tool is that there is little need for speculation any more.  We can simply look it up.  Sean is not speculating.  I am not speculating.  Are you?"

David Moriarty:

It really is just mindbendingly frustrating and a waste of time trying to discuss any of this stuff with you.

Is it really so hard for you to understand that those early linksmen architects in both England and America in the late 19th century could have been very familiar with the linksland courses of Scotland (that point is so obvious it's just incredible you could think I ever said otherwise) and perhaps even talented in architectural creation and NOT do golf courses and their architecture in late 19th century England and America that was anything other than really rudimentary??

Again, is it so hard for you to understand why that happened? If most of them were paid what they were---eg a few pounds for basically doing a staked routing and then were on their way somewhere else in a day or two----precisely as Darwin described in writing, why is it so hard for you to understand that the features of those early inland courses such as tees and greens and bunkers and such which were made AFTER they were gone were so rudimentary and crude??

Have you ever heard of the cliche---you get what you pay for? Well, read what one of the most cogent sources of information of that early era, Bernard Darwin, said about why those courses were the way they were. If you want to be as evasive and wrong-headed as Tom MacWood was when I pointed out what Darwin said when he mentioned that in his opinion Darwin must have been joking, then be my guest.

Why or how do you suppose Willie Park jr who obviously laid out (staked out the routing) some of those early crude courses in England in probably in a day or two as well, suddenly found the talent to do Sunnigdale and Huntercombe the way he did them?

Do you, like Tom MacWood, actually think that Park jr who was a native of the Scottish linksland suddenly found the key of how to do far better and more naturalistic golf architecture from some English writer for an English magazine named Country Life?  

That is the most preposterous contention I've ever heard. He did what he did at Sunningdale and Huntercombe because for the FIRST time in inland England he was given the type of site (Heathland) that had basically the same soil makeup as the linksland (incredibly important!!) but more importantly for the FIRST time he had both the money and the TIME to design and build those golf courses.

What are we talking about here with an example like Willie Park jr---the one given the credit by almost everyone who understands this subject for doing the FIRST really good INLAND golf course architecture OUTSIDE the Scottish linksland?

What we are talking about is Instead of probably a day or two like most of those early linksmen immigrant architects like the Dunns and probably Park jr in England (and the likes of Findlay and Bendelow in the early US), Park jr spent a couple of years doing Sunningdale and Huntercombe.

You do the math, David Moriarty, and figure out what it means---if you can.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

First, you keep mentioning what Tom MacWood has said.  I am not Tom's keeper and am not answering for him.  Rather, I am speaking for myself.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Second, the evidence-- magazines, photos, USGA articles-- does not support your contentions.  (At least some) of these guys thought that they had devised a better way to build golf courses-- scientifically and formulaically, with precise placement of cops, bunkers, and traps, the goal being to punish the bad shot and reward the good.

Take a look at the article I quote in the other thread, from the USGA Bulletin.  The auther is not saying "we don't know any better."  To the contrary, he is claiming that at the turn of the century American courses were better than the links courses because, the "experts" didn't randomly scatter hazards, but rather came up with a formula to precisely place certain types of hazards where they would punish the good and reward the bad.  

As far as I am concerned, the industrial look of the hazards is secondary-- what the dark ages really rejected was the notion of quirk, randomness, naturalness, and what we think if as strategic design.  

Nonetheless, the industrial look of the features does fit in perfectly with their 'scientific' and formulaic approach to course design and creation.  Far from being crude or "rudimentary," the hazards of this era were advanced,  sophisticated, and developed in that they were precisely planned, shaped, and placed following a preconceived format for producing better, more enjoyable golf courses.  

Take a look at the article I cited, or just start browsing the magazines and this will become abundantly clear.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

I have never said that those people who created that obnoxious Dark Age architecture did not think they knew what they were doing or that they didn't think they may've had a better way or another way.

I'm sure they did think that. I'm sure none of them purposefully intended to create something awful but they did, and primarily as Behr said---eg basically for a number of years after golf first left the linksland the game was taken to sites that was wholly unsuited to receive the game. They made what they made because they basically knew no better or simply were not capable of better than they did at that early time which was the very beginning of golf course architecture and outside the linksland.

Don't take my word for what it was like----take Bernard Darwin's word---after-all he saw it, he lived through both times. He's the one who said it looked like a steeplechase course long before I did.  

[TEPaul]

" Far from being crude or "rudimentary," the hazards of this era were advanced,  sophisticated, and developed in that they were precisely planned, shaped, and placed following a preconceived format for producing better, more enjoyable golf courses."

Jesus Christ, now I really give up. What do you think they thought---that they were making a bunch of shit? Of course not. But that sure doesn't mean it was sophisticated or advanced. It was the first baby steps of golf architecture itself.

Again, read what Behr said about this era and the reasons for it.

"But to transport it he had to commit a sacrilege---he had to analyze it, tear it to pieces the more easily to pack it into his mind. And, in doing so, he did not realize that what he carried away with him was the letter only, and that he left behind something intangible, that property of unsullied nature, innocent beauty unsullied as yet by the hand of man."

Read what he said about the inherent "game mind of man" to create playing fields that were entirely defined--eg straight-lined like a tennis court. There was a reason for that---it was extreme definition to isolate and reward physical skill only. They knew no better at that time.

Read his distinction between golf as a "game" and golf as a "sport" which was basically written to define and explain this entire evolution in golf course architecture.

You call those early "Dark Age" architectural features that looked like the berms and fronting hazards of a steeplechase course sophisticated and advanced?

That's just beautiful, David Moriarty---you sure are the only one I've ever known to think or maintain something that preposterous about that early rudimentary golf course architecture that first existed when golf first left the Scottish linksland.  

[TEPaul]

"Take a look at the article I cited, or just start browsing the magazines and this will become abundantly clear."

David Moriarty;

I've looked through every article the USGA has provided over the Internet. This architecture archive initiative is one of the things I'm doing now. In the last year or so I looked through everything AAF/LA has provided but obviously none of that is going to stop you from thinking you need to educate me on this overall subject.  

[DMoriarty]

Well good, Tom, it sounds like we are in perfect agreement with all of the following . . .

1.  The dark ages represented a conscious rejection of the style and aesthetic of the great links courses by so-called experts who thought they could improve on golf courses through a formulaic and pseudo-scientific approach.

2.  The goal of this formulaic and pseudo-scientific approach was reward good shots and punish bad shots.

3.  The dark ages ended when designers rejected this formulaic and pseudo-scientific approach in favor of a return to the style and aesthetic of the great links courses.

4.  Some of the dark age features look a little like steeplechase jumps.

Finally we have common ground on at least these four points.  

[DMoriarty]

That's just beautiful, David Moriarty---you sure are the only one I've ever known to think or maintain something that preposterous about that early rudimentary golf course architecture that first existed when golf first left the Scottish linksland.  

Actually, Tom, there is me and then there are those writers of the time who described these courses, including those you mention.  

Behr's comment is entirely consistent with everything I have said.  

TEPaul said:

I've looked through every article the USGA has provided over the Internet. This architecture archive initiative is one of the things I'm doing now. In the last year or so I looked through everything AAF/LA has provided.

Great, then you know that there are many articles that contradict a number of positions you have taken on this thread and before.  

I am wondering if I could impose on you to explain how the couple of articles I cited square with your thoughts here?

Thanks in advance.

[TEPaul]

"Well good, Tom, it sounds like we are in perfect agreement with all of the following . . . "

"1.  The dark ages represented a conscious rejection of the style and aesthetic of the great links courses by so-called experts who thought they could improve on golf courses through a formulaic and pseudo-scientific approach."

No, that is not something I subscribe to at all. I subscribe to the conclusions of Max Behr and most of the others in golf architectural literature who maintained that early Dark Age architecture was merely the result of people building rudimentary golf course on sites unsuited for it using the only models they knew that could be alternatives to the necessities of golf. I don't know who that author is who wrote that early article you cited but obviously he was one of those that the likes of Darwin and Behr described as knowing no better. Again, I wouldn't expect that author to claim they were creating shit no matter what it was they were making.

"2.  The goal of this formulaic and pseudo-scientific approach was reward good shots and punish bad shots."

No question about that at all. This was the age of the "penal" school that preceded the "strategic" school that began the era of the Golden Age of architecture.

"3.  The dark ages ended when designers rejected this formulaic and pseudo-scientific approach in favor of a return to the style and aesthetic of the great links courses."

I've only been saying that for about six years on here now. It was the rejection of the rudimentary shit that those who knew no better had made which for the first time led them to examine what it was about the "natural" linksland that made it so ideally suited for golf----AND without really even the benefit of golf course architecture, by the way.

"4.  Some of the dark age features look a little like steeplechase jumps."

I didn't notice that Darwin said either "some" or "a little". Again, this is what he said; "'The laying out of courses used once to be a rather a rule-of-thumb business done by rather simple-minded and unimaginative people who did not go far beyond hills to drive over, hollows for putting greens and, generally speaking, holes formed on the model of a steeplechase course.'"


"Finally we have common ground on at least these four points."  

Well, isn't that nice to know after I've been saying precisely the same things for years now.

[DMoriarty]

"Well good, Tom, it sounds like we are in perfect agreement with all of the following . . . "

"1.  The dark ages represented a conscious rejection of the style and aesthetic of the great links courses by so-called experts who thought they could improve on golf courses through a formulaic and pseudo-scientific approach."

No, that is not something I subscribe to at all. I subscribe to the conclusions of Max Behr and most of the others in golf architectural literature who maintained that early Dark Age architecture was merely the result of people building rudimentary golf course on sites unsuited for it using the only models they knew that could be alternatives to the necessities of golf. I don't know who that author is who wrote that early article you cited but obviously he was one of those that the likes of Darwin and Behr described as knowing no better. Again, I wouldn't expect that author to claim they were creating shit no matter what it was they were making.

Tom this quote perfectly illustrates what I was saying in the parallel thread.  You have made a huge jump from discussing what these dark age designers actually consciously thought to discussing post hoc critiques of where they went wrong.

I agree with Behr on the issue.  These guys screwed up.  But saying they screwed up is a totally different thing than actually understanding what influenced them to screw up as much as they did.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom this quote perfectly illustrates what I was saying in the parallel thread.  You have made a huge jump from discussing what these dark age designers actually consciously thought to discussing post hoc critiques of where they went wrong."

David Moriarty:

It's just getting funnier and funnier reading the things you say on here. You really do sound like a student in law school casting around to make some argument by just filling the air with any counterpoint that pops into your head. All you seem to say is "I disagree" or "I object" while any judge may ask and any jury or courtroom may genuinely wonder what it is exactly that Mr Moriarty is objecting to.   You seem to almost inevitably become quite perturbed when the discussion at hand cannot be continuously controlled and led by you.  

Over the years on this site, David, many things have been discussed on this subject of the evolution of golf and architecture when it first migrated out of the linksland in Scotland. Call those years in the last half or the 19th century when the golf architecture first migrated out of Scotland into inland England and inland America the "Dark Ages" or "Victorian", or even an "abortion" (as one observer called it)---it was all the same thing---eg really rudimentary attempts to create a playing field for golf on sites, as Max Behr said, entirely unsuited to receive the game. This migration of golf architecture outside Scotland began an era of the laying out of golf courses on inland sites virtually before man-made architecture even existed. It really hadn't been necessary before since the Scottish linksland and a few other seaside sites in GB were ideally suited for golf virtually in their natural state.

I have said, like Darwin did many years before me, that the architecture of those early inland sites outside Scotland looked like steeplechase courses. I don't believe I've ever said what I thought those people actually consciously thought but you certainly have. Yesterday you said you thought they felt they were creating something that looked 'industrial' and you said they thought it was very sophisticated, advanced etc. I suppose you made that conclusion on the strength of word or two from a Mr Ryan (whoever he was )  in 1901 in an article you found in SEGL yesterday.      

"I agree with Behr on the issue."

I'm delighted you agree with Behr on this issue. As you perhaps by now know so do I and I have for years as I've said on here for years now. I have not said what I think those Dark Age erectors were actually thinking other than to say I agree with what Max Behr said he thought they were thinking. And Behr said a whole lot about that----undeniably more than anyone else in golf architecture's literature ever has.
 
"These guys screwed up."

Perhaps they did or perhaps as Behr and Darwin said they were simply people with no imagination for golf or golf architecture who tended to do things with it in a manner that was inherent to man laying out a field for one of his games of recreation. In other words, they just knew no better, and why would they really? Who before them had given them a model for MAN-MADE golf architecture to be placed on inland sites wholly unsuited for the game in a natural sense?

Steeplechasing was one of those recreations that prevalently preceeded the beginning of wholly man-made golf architecture on inland sites wholly unsuited for golf in a natural sense. Obviously that's why Darwin said those Dark Age courses looked like steeplechase courses, and just as obviously that's why Behr said those early geometric rudimentary courses were the result of the "game mind of man" that inherently tended to define and demark what he did with his playing fields. Behr gave the analogy of tennis, a playing field wholly demarked with straight and highly defined LINES.
 
"But saying they screwed up is a totally different thing than actually understanding what influenced them to screw up as much as they did."

Perhaps it is totally different but it is all part and parcel of this entire subject that we've been discussing in one way or another and from one perspective or another for years on here. I've mentioned that it was the reaction to and the rejection of this rudimentary ultra artificial looking golf architecture that prompted architects to look to the meaning of the natural linksland beginning around the turn of the century and following perhaps 20-25 years of the gradual increase of this unnatural architecture that preceded the turn of the century in England and America.

I got what I said from writing of the likes of Darwin, Hutchinson, Behr, Macdonald et al.

And don't forget the obvious here----that when golf first began to emigrate out of Scotland to inland sites in GB and America to sites wholly unsuited to recieve it (inland sites), as Behr said, golf course architecture really didn't even exist in the sense of the man-made. What little of it (the man-made) did exist in the Scottish linksland before golf began to first emigrate outside Scotland was also remarkably rudimentary and artificial looking.  

[ForkaB]

What little of it (the man-made) did exist in the Scottish linksland before golf began to first emigrate outside Scotland was also remarkably rudimentary and artificial looking.  

Tom

Could you give us an example?  One would do, but more would bolster your case.

[DMoriarty]

Tom,

Behr's theories on the workings of their minds are sure interesting and far be it from me to dissuade you from discussing Behr to your heart's content.  That being said and no offense meant, I personally will stick to learning about Behr by reading Behr, as opposed to your interpretations and applications of Behr.  

As for the topic at hand, the facts strongly suggest that these "dark age" guys thought they were advancing golf by consciously rejecting the links style and aesthetic, and by replacing this style and aesthetic with a formulaic and pseudo-scientific approach.  Nothing Behr says or you have said comes close to refuting this.  

Perhaps they did or perhaps as Behr and Darwin said they were simply people with no imagination for golf or golf architecture who tended to do things with it in a manner that was inherent to man laying out a field for one of his games of recreation. In other words, they just knew no better, and why would they really? Who before them had given them a model for MAN-MADE golf architecture to be placed on inland sites wholly unsuited for the game in a natural sense?

As I said before, this perspective is entirely unsupportable because those heading this movement were not backwoods America country bumpkins but Scottish Professionals with ample exposure to Scottish links.   Yet they rejected not only the look of the links courses but also the random and quirky placement of the features.   The links were the obvious place to look for guidance, but they rejected the familiar links.

Steeplechasing was one of those recreations that prevalently preceeded the beginning of wholly man-made golf architecture on inland sites wholly unsuited for golf in a natural sense. Obviously that's why Darwin said those Dark Age courses looked like steeplechase courses, and just as obviously that's why Behr said those early geometric rudimentary courses were the result of the "game mind of man" that inherently tended to define and demark what he did with his playing fields. Behr gave the analogy of tennis, a playing field wholly demarked with straight and highly defined LINES.

As I said before Tom, I'd have no qualms with accepting your steeplechase theory if it had any factual support.  After all, it does not contradict anything I am saying.  But without factual support it would be imprudent for me to agree with it.  

For example, Walter Travis described the transversing cop bunkers, or "huge embankments," as "hideous excrescences on the fair face of Nature."  He also called them "fortifications" and said they resembled "rifle pits."   He was correct of course in that they do resemble these things, but it would be too much to assume based on his words that they set out to imitate "fortifications" or "rifle pits," at least without additional factual support.  
 

Perhaps it is totally different but it is all part and parcel of this entire subject that we've been discussing in one way or another and from one perspective or another for years on here.

Yes but to switch the topics in the middle of an exchange makes it difficult to ever get any resolution.  

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

As I've said a number of times, I don't see those early Dark Age practioners rejecting the linksland. In my opinion, and apparently in Hutchinson, Darwin and Behr's opinion, as well as later historians such as Cornish and Whiten they were simply lacking in knowledge of golf architecture. As I've said many times, and Darwin supports they "laid out" these courses (basically just routed them) quickly and the rudimentary hazard features were probably the work of those inexperienced in architecture after those early Scot designers were gone. That's probably precisely why Darwin said generally those Dark Age holes looked like a steeplechase course. Of course you can maintain his remarks were "throw-away" but I do not agree.

You, of course, can certainly think whatever it is under the sun you want to think about them and the reasons they did what they did but that's my belief and I think I have some pretty good support in those I named.

I'm not going to repeat this again, so don't bother asking again.

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: TEPaul on Today at 06:00:18am
What little of it (the man-made) did exist in the Scottish linksland before golf began to first emigrate outside Scotland was also remarkably rudimentary and artificial looking.  
 
 

Tom

Could you give us an example?  One would do, but more would bolster your case."

Sure, Rich, I'd be glad to. Give me some time and I'll hunt up some old Scottish photos.

However, for starters, you can certainly include anything that used "sleepers" and that was a ton of bunkers and you can certainly include the 1st and 4th greens at Dornoch. It's pretty hard to get much more artificially squared off than those two.