[BCrosby]

Rich -

I've not seen much by Darwin that goes into detail about how this hole or that works. (Perhaps its just my luck of the draw. There's lots of Darwin I haven't read. But what I have read of Bernardo's stuff on gca has been disappointing.) Nor do I think HWW is very good at that detail work either, btw.

If the issue is influence, however, HWW wins out I think.

The difference is that Darwin was writing during decades when golf courses and golf architecture were every day topics in the golfing press. His was one voice (and a very eloquent voice) among many, especially during the GA.

HWW, writing in the darkest days of the Dark Ages, brought the topic back to the attention of the golf world after it had dropped out of sight for a couple of decades. At least in the US, he was a lonely voice for a time. Absent the interest stirred up by HWW, I wonder if Pete Dye and others would have been given the opportunities they got when they got them.

Bob

[Dan Moore]

I always think of Wind  as carrying the torch that Darwin lit.  The one aspect of Wind that I really admire was his paying attention to architecture.  I always thought that this was a weak area for Darwin.  This may sound strange given the fame of his British Golf ...., but that book never really gets into a lot of nitty gritty about why holes work - if you know what I mean.

Ciao  

That is a most interesting point and one with which I respectfully disagree.  Having played a handful of courses Darwin wrote about in Golf Courses of the British Isles (Rye, Littlestone and Deal in England and Portrush, RCD and Portmarnock in Ireland) I am struck by how he seems to capture the character or personality of each course.  I am even more fascinated by this because of the extent to which each course has changed since the time he wrote it, in most cases changed so dramatically that few of holes from Darwin's time still exist (less so with Deal and Portmarnock), yet he still captures the essential nature of what each course is all about.  

For example look at the two paragraphs about Rye (which is a completely different course today, post Simpson and Campbell compared to then), where he talks about the wind and playing from uneven stances, concluding with a line that says it all about Rye, even today "If they cannnot do it they must be content to take five far more often than they like."  I think how he described courses  says something about how the character or personality of great courses emanates from something more than the individual holes and that essence may be what he was trying to convey.  

[David Stamm]

This is a timely topic for me, as I have been receiving some titles by Wind and Darwin that I have ordered that I'm ashamed to say, didn't have in my collection. I can't comment on their influence until after reading the titles I have and will be getting, but suffice it to say that I'm quite confident that I will be impressed. The only titles I had were Darwin's Golf Courses of the British Isles, which is wonderful and the compilation of Winds', Following Through. I've just received Story of Amercian Golf, The Complete Golfer, Golf Between Two Wars, 30 years of Championship Golf, Darwin on Golf and a really neat little book by Hutchinson, Hints on Golf. I'm still waiting on Darwin's book on Braid and also Charles Price's American Golfer, which is the collection of articles from the magazine of the same name. I'm all set for summer for some great reading!

[Rich Goodale]

Good points, Bob, but I tend to agree with Dan more (or is that moore...?).  Bernardo wrote from the point of view of the player, while Herbie wrote from the point of view of the observer of other players.

If we're talking about GCA, I think whoever started the Golf digest top 100 (originally hardest 100) had more influence than either Darwin or Wind.  If we're talking about golf per se, I'd nominate Jenkins or even Drum.  Let's face it, the average New Yorker reader in the 50s and 60s hardly ever played golf and probably ignored Wind's articles.  To the average golfer of those days, the last place they would look to get some information on golf was the New Yorker.  Maybe his SI stuff reached the masses, but I wonder how much real influence there was.  I was there in those days, and don't remember much of what he said being of any interest or relevance to me.

Rich

[Tony_Muldoon]

Bob from the blurb "..I have attempted to crystalize the main aspects of his fascinating life and his full-fledged genius".

Only 90 odd pages but a delight to read,his love for the subject shines through.  It's an expansion of a New Yorker piece from 1971 and my copy is from 81.  from memory in 1971 Wodehouse's reputation was at it's lowest ebb -we all took ourselves very seriously in England then.  In part I suspect we can ascribe the upward rise of that reputation to HWW and this piece for rekindling interest.

[Brad Klein]

Tom MacWood sent me an mail, the main of text of which I'm including here (with his permission):

To add to what you wrote Wind also produced The Story of American Golf, co-wrote the Encyclopedia of Golf (an often overlooked book)  and I believe he was involved with Shell's Wonderful World of Golf. What impresses me about Wind is his knowledge of history and the history of golf architecture. Yhe guy really did his homework.

That being said I think its difficult to measure who had more
influence. Its only natural that we would give the nod to Wind since he
was from our era, and he had a direct influence upon us. I think one
advantage Darwin had was exposure. For most of his career Wind wrote for the New Yorker, not exactly the magazine of choice for most
golfers. He also produced a limited number of essays, I believe I read
141, and of those I wonder how many were on golf as opposed to tennis and other sports? Darwin wrote for The Times and Country Life,
producing 2 articles a week for nearly 50 years - all golf. That is a
lot of articles, in two heavily read publications. Not to mentions his
other articles in misc golf magazines, Atlantic Monthly, Vanity Fair
etc. and his many books (The Golf Courses of the BI & History of Golf
in Britain to name two). All things considered Darwin undoubtedly
reached many more over a longer period.

Another other consideration, today most of our knowledge of both of
these guys comes from relatively recent anthologies or re-prints of
older anthologies. I suspect Wind was more influential in the 70s (when his collections were turned into books and his 2 part article of golf architecture appeared in Great Golf Courses of the World) than he was in the 50s and 60s. Along a similar line, IMO it's easy to get the wrong impression of Darwin's work (and his influence) by reading his
books/anthologies - they are mostly a collection of light-hearted
articles; rarely did he include articles relating to golf architecture
or more serious issues. The truth is Darwin wrote hundreds of articles
on golf architecture, architects and great golf courses. If you want to
learn about the architectural philosophy and personalities of
Macdonald, Colt, Hutchinson, Low, Abercromby, MacKenzie, Travis,
Alison, Fowler, Park, Simpson, Campbell, Hutchison, Paton, etc, etc
there is no better source than Darwin. Which brings up another
interesting contrast - Darwin was writing during the Golden Age while
Wind was writing during a less than stellar period. I'm not sure what
that says about their influence, perhaps nothing, but it should be
considered. I also wonder if there would have been a Wind without
Darwin.

Who had the larger impact is open to debate, but there is no debate
they were both hugely influential in their respective eras. I love 'em
both.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Brad

Ask Tom for his favorite examples from both of their influence!

Thanks
Mark

[Neil_Crafter]

Nice stuff from Tom MacWood.
In the research for our bibliography of Darwin's writings Pete Yagi and I have found over 50 different periodicals (magazines and newspapers) that he wrote for at different times over the course of his career, a number of which were American, including Golf Illustrated (US), Golf, the American Golfer, Vogue, Vanity Fair, the Atlantic monthly and the Sportsman, along with a number of US newspapers like the New York Times, the New York Herald, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, the Boston Globe, etc - a number of these through syndicated articles via the North American News Association (NANA). In addition we have found broadcast listings for relayed radio broadcasts of Open championships from Britain with commentary by Darwin. So in his day, Darwin's reach, as the acknowledged 'British Golf Expert', was far more significant, through a vastly wider range of outlets, that Wind's ever was. In addition, many of Darwin's books were published with a US edition so his sales in the US must have been quite good to warrant this. Wind himself acknowledges Darwin as the clear master.
cheers Neil

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()