Yee olde construction equipment

[Thomas Dai]

What can be constructed, not just in golf, can sometimes be a function of what equipment is available.


Have a look at this short steam shovel video and why the features on some courses are the way they are might become evident -


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QD_a09Hf0y8


Atb

[Tony Ristola]

Today you can achieve the same result with the roto-tilt buckets on an excavator.


Dig out the dirt the conventional way, and then flip the bucket to finish it off to get this effect.

[Ken Moum]

Serious question for the GCA historians.


How common were steam shovels vs. horse-drawn scrapers?


Because I've always assumed the scrapers were a major influence on what old courses look like.

[Thomas Dai]

Imagine the logistics involved in running a site on this basis. And not just coal/wood and water for the steam engines either.
If horse were involved whether for scraping and pulling and carting materials aspects like the fodder, housing and welfare of the horses to consider.
There is an argument to suggest that to properly understand a course of for example, the classic era, it is necessary to understand the construction methods used including the equipment available and also the maintenance regime after opening. Playing it with clubs and balls from the same era would likely also be beneficial.
atb

[Ken Moum]

Playing old courses with old equipment is enlightening.  I've played with hickory and wound balls on a Ross course where I was a member.


For me, it wasn't a choice to play the ground game,  it was the only option.

[David Harshbarger]

Playing old courses with old equipment is enlightening.  I've played with hickory and wound balls on a Ross course where I was a member.


For me, it wasn't a choice to play the ground game,  it was the only option.

Our 1925 course was lengthened in the 1950s. Until reading Paul Runyan’s book for Older Golfers (which despite the title is a fascinating instructional guide - pinch cut anyone?) where he lays out the typical driving distances of different classes of golfers, that it clicked that many of the course features only make sense when scaled to the equipment and capabilities of the 1950s.


Example: 7/16 play 390/420. 30 yards in front of the green there’s a 1 foot mound covered in fescue bisecting the fairway. Today, that mound is a non issue for better men (though it torments many women and seniors). Back in the 1950s that would be what a driver/4-iron then a driver/3 or 5 wood? Coming in with those clubs that feature makes sense.


This has helped me clarify my thinking about equipment and architecture in a simple formula: experience = equipment x layout.


The dependent variable in this formulation is experience. I think of that as similar to the idea of “the questions the course asks”. With the clubs of the day our course’s questions are tough: long irons and woods into par 3s, barely reachable par 5s, creeks in landing zones on a 3 and threatening 2nd shots on a par 5, tiny greens (sub 3000 sq ft) welcoming mid irons and longer.


Overall, the experience of playing our course was more demanding - and the players of that time appeared to want it and enjoy it!


Now, equipment is different. The course is mostly the way it was. And for most good players the course is kind of short (6000 yards) and many hazards are irrelevant.


Experience has suffered. Yes scores should be lower, but with todays equipment players are like Godzilla stomping around Tokyo: satisfying in some sense but ultimately silly.


I blame the equipment manufacturers and the governing bodies. They’ve played to the nearly universal desire to play better to change the scale of the game, and the governing bodies let them.


Now that the scale is off due to the equipment, the experience is what has suffered. It’s still a fine and interesting course (for what it is)but the experience, the demand to well play long irons and woods into the long 3s (170, 175, 185, 210), the rationally placed hazards, the tiny approach targets, is a shell of the challenge our forebearers chose to embrace.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Playing old courses with old equipment is enlightening.  I've played with hickory and wound balls on a Ross course where I was a member.

For me, it wasn't a choice to play the ground game,  it was the only option.

Our 1925 course was lengthened in the 1950s. Until reading Paul Runyan’s book for Older Golfers (which despite the title is a fascinating instructional guide - pinch cut anyone?) where he lays out the typical driving distances of different classes of golfers, that it clicked that many of the course features only make sense when scaled to the equipment and capabilities of the 1950s.

Example: 7/16 play 390/420. 30 yards in front of the green there’s a 1 foot mound covered in fescue bisecting the fairway. Today, that mound is a non issue for better men (though it torments many women and seniors). Back in the 1950s that would be what a driver/4-iron then a driver/3 or 5 wood? Coming in with those clubs that feature makes sense.

This has helped me clarify my thinking about equipment and architecture in a simple formula: experience = equipment x layout.

The dependent variable in this formulation is experience. I think of that as similar to the idea of “the questions the course asks”. With the clubs of the day our course’s questions are tough: long irons and woods into par 3s, barely reachable par 5s, creeks in landing zones on a 3 and threatening 2nd shots on a par 5, tiny greens (sub 3000 sq ft) welcoming mid irons and longer.

Overall, the experience of playing our course was more demanding - and the players of that time appeared to want it and enjoy it!

Now, equipment is different. The course is mostly the way it was. And for most good players the course is kind of short (6000 yards) and many hazards are irrelevant.

Experience has suffered. Yes scores should be lower, but with todays equipment players are like Godzilla stomping around Tokyo: satisfying in some sense but ultimately silly.

I blame the equipment manufacturers and the governing bodies. They’ve played to the nearly universal desire to play better to change the scale of the game, and the governing bodies let them.

Now that the scale is off due to the equipment, the experience is what has suffered. It’s still a fine and interesting course (for what it is)but the experience, the demand to well play long irons and woods into the long 3s (170, 175, 185, 210), the rationally placed hazards, the tiny approach targets, is a shell of the challenge our forebearers chose to embrace.

What you describe here is exactly what lead me to begin playing with Hickory clubs.

15 years back I went down the rabbit hole of reading the best of golf literature written, every time a book referenced another work I'd look that one up and read it too. The conclusion I came to was. If the best golf courses in the world were those built 100 years ago, and after a century of learning and developing we're unable to completely eclipse the genius and significance of those designs, there must be something fundamentally critical about how the game was played during that time that has lead to the longevity of those works.

While the books of the era can do a fantastic job of describing the game, It could not provide me the experience, So I bought my first short set of hickory clubs and set out to find out what about the game during the early part of the 20th century has carried forward to today.

To your point, when you combine the course design with the equipment it was designed for, the quality of the experience becomes significantly better. The challenge becomes more acute, but the reward becomes significant. Balance can be greater achieved and engagement in the course can become heightened.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Serious question for the GCA historians.


How common were steam shovels vs. horse-drawn scrapers?


Because I've always assumed the scrapers were a major influence on what old courses look like.

Ken,


I think you are right.  I recall the nickname of "Steamshovel Banks" after Raynor's protege but believe horse draw scapers were far more common.  I got a demonstration on how to work those scrapers,  and the instructor told us that if you hit a rock or the horse stopped, you would get thrown right into the horse's ass.......It's funny but those haven't been used for almost 80 years, but you can still run into a horse's ass when building a golf course.......

[Adam Lawrence]

Serious question for the GCA historians.


How common were steam shovels vs. horse-drawn scrapers?


Because I've always assumed the scrapers were a major influence on what old courses look like.

Ken,


I think you are right.  I recall the nickname of "Steamshovel Banks" after Raynor's protege but believe horse draw scapers were far more common.  I got a demonstration on how to work those scrapers,  and the instructor told us that if you hit a rock or the horse stopped, you would get thrown right into the horse's ass.......It's funny but those haven't been used for almost 80 years, but you can still run into a horse's ass when building a golf course.......

Actually they have. Paul Albanese used horse-drawn scrapers to effect a redesign at Christiana Creek in Indiana in the early 2000s. He wrote an article about it in one of the first issues of GCA.


It's not online on our site (we're a bit sketchy that far back) but it is on Paul's and Chris's:


http://golf-designs.com/2014/07/courses-for-horses-golf-course-architecture-july-2006/

[David Harshbarger]

Playing old courses with old equipment is enlightening.  I've played with hickory and wound balls on a Ross course where I was a member.

For me, it wasn't a choice to play the ground game,  it was the only option.

Our 1925 course was lengthened in the 1950s. Until reading Paul Runyan’s book for Older Golfers (which despite the title is a fascinating instructional guide - pinch cut anyone?) where he lays out the typical driving distances of different classes of golfers, that it clicked that many of the course features only make sense when scaled to the equipment and capabilities of the 1950s.

Example: 7/16 play 390/420. 30 yards in front of the green there’s a 1 foot mound covered in fescue bisecting the fairway. Today, that mound is a non issue for better men (though it torments many women and seniors). Back in the 1950s that would be what a driver/4-iron then a driver/3 or 5 wood? Coming in with those clubs that feature makes sense.

This has helped me clarify my thinking about equipment and architecture in a simple formula: experience = equipment x layout.

The dependent variable in this formulation is experience. I think of that as similar to the idea of “the questions the course asks”. With the clubs of the day our course’s questions are tough: long irons and woods into par 3s, barely reachable par 5s, creeks in landing zones on a 3 and threatening 2nd shots on a par 5, tiny greens (sub 3000 sq ft) welcoming mid irons and longer.

Overall, the experience of playing our course was more demanding - and the players of that time appeared to want it and enjoy it!

Now, equipment is different. The course is mostly the way it was. And for most good players the course is kind of short (6000 yards) and many hazards are irrelevant.

Experience has suffered. Yes scores should be lower, but with todays equipment players are like Godzilla stomping around Tokyo: satisfying in some sense but ultimately silly.

I blame the equipment manufacturers and the governing bodies. They’ve played to the nearly universal desire to play better to change the scale of the game, and the governing bodies let them.

Now that the scale is off due to the equipment, the experience is what has suffered. It’s still a fine and interesting course (for what it is)but the experience, the demand to well play long irons and woods into the long 3s (170, 175, 185, 210), the rationally placed hazards, the tiny approach targets, is a shell of the challenge our forebearers chose to embrace.

What you describe here is exactly what lead me to begin playing with Hickory clubs.

15 years back I went down the rabbit hole of reading the best of golf literature written, every time a book referenced another work I'd look that one up and read it too. The conclusion I came to was. If the best golf courses in the world were those built 100 years ago, and after a century of learning and developing we're unable to completely eclipse the genius and significance of those designs, there must be something fundamentally critical about how the game was played during that time that has lead to the longevity of those works.

While the books of the era can do a fantastic job of describing the game, It could not provide me the experience, So I bought my first short set of hickory clubs and set out to find out what about the game during the early part of the 20th century has carried forward to today.

To your point, when you combine the course design with the equipment it was designed for, the quality of the experience becomes significantly better. The challenge becomes more acute, but the reward becomes significant. Balance can be greater achieved and engagement in the course can become heightened.

Ben,


I think that is the right approach. I too have a hickory set and very much enjoy the scale of hickory on a course similarly scaled.


I really wish there was a standard for equipment that was to an appropriate historical scale but also supported modern manufacturing, materials, and game improvements.


As there isn’t, one of my ahas was that my course is scaled to the persimmon era.  The modern ball is a corruption but for a player like me any added distance just moves me up the skill ladder of that era without being out of scale. Nutting a 3W sure feels satisfying with persimmon.