1912 article on CBM and some other unnamed GCA

[Joe Bausch]

Of all the places to have an interesting story on early architecture of golf courses in the USA is this one from the Duluth News Tribune on May 5, 1912.  I find it very interesting... and it begs the question as to the identity of the 'other well known expert'.

[Kirk Gill]

Mr. Jones, welcome back. I hope that your third adventure regarding the Crystal Skulls has left you in good shape.

What's interesting about that article is, as you said yourself, who is the "expert?" The author has no problem whipping out MacDonald, Hutchinson, and Braid. I wonder why the reticence. This article has the look of what used to be like an AP or UPI piece - something that came across the wire and was published nationally, without specific attribution. I have no idea how they were transmitting stuff or distributing stuff like this in 1912. however, if the Duluth News Tribune published it on that date, it wouldn't surprise me to find that other newspapers published the same article, edited differently perhaps, on a similar date.

One wonders if the author himself was the expert in question !

[Rick Shefchik]

Kirk,

I agree that it reads like a wire service piece (and not a terribly well-written one, at that; I doubt that the phrase "make haste slowly" made a lot more sense 96 years ago than it does now.)

Having once worked for the Duluth News-Tribune, I can state with relative confidence that the publication never had a golf correspondent filing essays on golf course architecture from New York -- or Superior, Wis., for that matter. Said correspondent would have been long gone by the time I worked there, but at least a couple of my colleagues seemed old enough to have worked with the gentleman, had he existed.

[Jerry Kluger]

Interesting point #2 - in every case the putting green should be well guarded - I would have thought that the ground game was well accepted at that time.

[Adam Clayman]

Jerry, Why assume the two mutually exclusive. It mentions narrow openings, which allows for an accurate ground approach.

This stuff is great.

Interesting to see how formulaic thinking shaped the GCA landscape.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Love the phrase "GCA reduced to science"

Sounds to me like he was on a deadline, read everything written by CBM and a few others and basically copied it.

[Phil_the_Author]

The writer actually appears to be stealing from early issues of the American Golfer. There were many articles at that time written by a lot of designers and professionals arguing with each other over the proper philosophies of designing a golf course.

I believe he was quoting from Travis (I'll see if I can find the article).

[Mark Bourgeois]

The "well known expert" is James Braid.  I think this is from chapter 16 of James Braid's book, "Advanced Golf." The chapter is "The Planning of Golf Courses."  Published 1908.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mark,

That very well may be. Travis posted various articles from men such as Braid during those years under his byline as editor.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Nice spot Mark. 

It wouldbe interesting to have Braid's ideas laid out in a new thread?  Particularly if there more than stated above.


(I did think the article read as if Braid was being introduced after some of his ideas. More eveidnce of sloppy writing - about whick I know plenaty.)

[Jimbo]

Thanks for this.  These old articles are great.  To me, if for nothing else than the writing style.

"make haste slowly".

But also great for slivers of truth, such as the part about bunkers and wasted money and effort... This reference, the current state of bunker care, and the Tillie book "Gleanings from the Wayside" (a great page turner turned I was turned on to here) has me threatening myself to bore everyone here with a ramble on bunkers and how much of a waste premium care of these hazards are.

Thanks again!

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jim D

Festina lente.

The motto of Royal Hong Kong GC.

Mark

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

A wonderful piece and yet another example of why searching the archives of your local paper can be so fruitful.

I've found articles in the Hartford Courant archives that appear to be rewrites of stories in other papers, such as the New York Times. I would not be surprised if that was the case with this.

Thanks for posting.

Anthony

[TEPaul]

The gist of the thinking reflected in that article was that concept we sometimes call "shot testing" that was fairly synonymous with the idea and adage; "hitting every club in the bag."

That's where most of the best golf architecture was heading at this time----eg "balance", "variety", specfic kinds of "shot testing" at specific places on the course. Pine Valley was very much dedicatedly conceived of that way.

Golf architecture was getting pretty "strategic" albeit it in something of an applied "scientific" way. Some, such as Tillinghast, in his articles, referred to this kind of golf architecture around this time and later as "modern" golf architecture. He also wrote that American architects and American architecture had caught up to and was perhaps beginning to pass what was on the other side of the Atlantic.

[Jimbo]

TEPaul:

I totally missed the big picture of the article being so enamored of the writing style and, coincidentally, being so pissed about the occasional fried egg threatening to precipitate a $300,000 bunker renovation at my course at a time when we have much larger issues such as fuel, labor, equipment costs etc. rising so rapidly to consider.  All for a handful of players at a high round course with the best bunkers for 10's of miles around that happen to be flashed in an era of water restrictions.....sigh....

BUT, now that I have calmed down, if you would characterize those classic courses (Pine Valley, GCMC, etc.)  as "Strategic", what are the other classifications that could be used to identify all the other golf courses of the world?  What would some examples be? 

Pine Valley        Strategic
TOC                   ?
?                        Eye Candy
?                        Lot Seller
?                        Good old social club, golf secondary
TPC Sawgrass   ?


"Classification of Golf Course's" by TEPaul.  That would make a great "In My Opinion" piece.  Has anyone tried to do this in a systematic way? Would this kill the joy of discussion here? It would piss some people off, in a good Doak kind of way, but might just advance our understanding of architecture in the nerdiest and most delicious of ways. But maybe its been done; I'm not the most well-read on the subject if you cant tell.