Melvyn Morrow's 'Famous Links Not Designed ...' IMO piece is posted

[Ran Morrissett]

A new In My Opinion piece has arrived from England courtesy of Melvyn Morrow. Its title is the same as the article that inspired it: Famous Links That Were Not Designed, But Simply ‘Happened’”? That notion was enough to send Old Tom Morris’s great, great grandson into a lather.  Melvyn’s basic premise is that the Golden Age guys utilized the building blocks established by people like his great, great granddad and other pioneers. Melvin wants to know how we can lionize the architects who worked between WWI and WW2 and anoint them Golden while merely sniffing at the design work accomplished between 1870 to 1900?

In a few days we will be posting a course profile extolling the virtues of Prestwick. (As an aside, did you know that OTM played in his last Open – at the age of 75 ).  It might be easy to say that a green like Sea Headrig was just ‘there’ because the hand of man is not apparent. Yet, doing so is a grave discredit to its architect Tom Morris Sr. Same for for the iconic Alps hole which Old Tom envisaged and built. Routing the fairway through its own valley, having the audacity to place the green on the far side of a dune, formalizing a deep bunker in front, and capping it all off with a steeply pitched, shallow green – took talent, courage, vision and an inherent conviction in what constituted good golf. OTM possessed those attributes in spades. If what OTM did there isn’t the work of an architect, then what qualifies?!! 
 
Hence, I get Melvyn’s message. Just because a course like Brancaster or Prestwick that took shape in the twentieth century is blessed with natural features, doesn’t mean that a man didn’t instill the holes/courses with good golfing qualities. Yes, the architects had more money and equipment at their disposal between the two wars but a lot of that went toward building courses on land less suitable than where OTM and others worked pre-1900.
 
This IMO piece builds upon Melvyn’s June, 2008 missive entitled The Early Designers: The Real Golden Age, which in turn inspired Tom MacWood’s work: The Early Architects: Beyond Old Tom. Apart from these two essays, I haven’t seen where much credit gets bestowed upon the early pioneers. The notion that everything done within the Golden Age is fabulous and everything else less good is clearly too simplistic to carry weight.
 
The In My Opinion section is meant to be a place where different perspectives and theories are enunciated.  That’s exactly what Melvyn has done with his latest impassioned missive. Melvyn’s writings previously roused Tom M.; will someone else be so stimulated this time? Unlike the 1000th thread on Merion  , golf architecture between 1870 and 1900 remains fertile ground for exploration.
 
Best,

[Garland Bayley]

I guess CBM can't be the father of golf course architecture in the states, because all he did was copy links holes that weren't architected.

And Tom Doak is just an overpaid golf course critic, because all he does is find holes, so those holes can't be designed either.

[Terry Lavin]

Merion or Melvyn?  Oh my God, is this a Hobson's choice or a Sophie's choice?  Can I choose a more bitter pill and pray at John Galt's altar?  Oh, the humanity!  I'll read Melvyn. The End of Days is nigh.

[Ben Sims]

I guess this will do until your writeup of Wolf Point.   

[Niall C]

I can understand Melvyn's frustration regarding the assumption that gca prior to the golden age was devoid of interest and ideas. History has tended to be on the side of those that wrote it, which is maybe why Old Tom and others of the age don't get the same credit as golden age boys who left behind a written record.

That said, Brora was John Sutherland who designed 9 holes and later extended it to 18 holes before Braid completely altered it. Its possible Old Tom was there before him and look forward to seeing what Melvyn has by way of evidence.

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

One of the nicest aspects of GCA is access to material like this. A very nicely written and thought provoking piece. Well done Melvyn.

Some very nice apparently 'unaltered' Old Tom greens at Tain. The 15th comes immediately to mind.

All the best.

[DMoriarty]

I always appreciate Melvyn's perspective, and he makes some good points, but I don't generally agree with his take on this early time period.

Mainly, I don't think it makes sense to lump courses like Prestwick and The Old Course in with many of the hundreds of courses built during the golf boom in the very late 19th century. There was something like a "rectangular rampart school of thought" on both sides of the Atlantic, but this movement had little or nothing do with courses like Prestwick and TOC, which predated the movement by a long ways.

Melvyn seems to think these supposed Golden Age guys were rejecting/failing to acknowledge the great courses of old, but to me he has this backwards.  To my mind, the supposed Golden Age guys were trying to return to the roots of the game and to the techniques and principles underlying the old great courses.   In so doing, they rejected the "rectangular rampart school of thought" which came well after the great courses were already well established.

Granted, the article Melvyn is attacking makes for an easy target, but neither the article nor Melvyn's critique come close to capturing what was really ongoing.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Ran,

If the intent is to link to copies of the articles displayed in Melvyn's article, some are broken.

[Niall C]

Melvyn asked if I could post the following in response to David's post above.


David

 

You said “Granted, the article Melvyn is attacking makes for an easy target, but neither the article nor Melvyn's critique come close to capturing what was really on going.”

 

David, with respect, I am sorry but you missed the whole point, I am saying that you and others just do not know what was going on – you think it was a time of ‘rectangular rampart school of thought’, but you want to ignore all things from 1840-1880’s, while defining that which went on after the 1880’s – 1900 was of no real quality. Sorry but you are way off, just look at courses like Machrie, 1891, Brora 1891, Muirfield 1891, Bridge of Allan 1895, The New Course 1895, Elie 1896, King James VI 1897.Cruden Bay 1899 and Killermont 1904 to name just a few of Old Tom’s courses alone. Then what about your own NGLA 1895 I believe. None built based upon the rectangular rampart school of thought.

 

You have proven my point that you just do not understand what happened believing in the rubbish sprouted by the likes of Tom Simpson and a few others in his circle. Yet the facts do not agree, the histories do not agree, the people do not agree. How can Simpson condemn the early practices yet love courses like Cruden Bay. Why did his book ‘Design for Golf’ in 1952 look back and sing the virtues of Holes at course from Dornoch, Machrihanish, Cruden Bay, Prestwick, St Andrews TOC and Westward Ho, surprisingly all Old Tom Courses. His message is inconsistent, it detracts from what was and should have been credited as the real and only Golden Age og Golf & Golf Course Architecture.

 

Until this GCA.com and more so the architects and designers start to understand their depth of pedigree of their industry we will never get the game or courses that made the game so great, enjoyable and popular.

 

And yes we see great developments through this period with more designers step in many one or two course designers being home grown designers who feel confident in their own ability, yet the ‘Experts’ are called into comment on many of these designs and make suggestions and improvements - one course springs to mind re Old Tom – the ‘Wee’ Course at Blairgowrie on the Lansdowne Estate 1889.

 

This “the rectangular rampart school of thought” relates to a few inland courses and a couple of designers, it did not relate to what I call The real Golden Age of Golf AND Golf Course Architecture which was over the 1840-1900 starting with the work of Allan Robertson.

 

Kind regards

 

Melvyn

[Tony_Muldoon]

Thank you Melvyn. As ever wonderful interesting and stimulating research.  I am in general agreement that the new Golf Course Architects did have a regrettable tendency to promote themselves by disparaging what had been done before.  You ask why deny the past and I think it’s simply that, a belief that they had to promote themselves (and their greater expenses) as offering something new.   They were competing against Braid who operated more cheaply in the old fashioned manner and they wanted to sell a “more professional package”. That is not to say Braid didn’t produce fine work.  

Yet there is ample evidence in surviving holes and routings that the so called Golden Age architects were not the first talented folk working in this area. Your argument is best served when you document just how much work was done in specific cases and discussing those merits.  The fact is they really did have carte blanche when it came to selecting the land for their famous holes and much of their lesser work has been Improved/changed since.  You need to show examples that have stood the test of time to demonstrate their skills.  E.G The fact that the 18th green at St Andrews was entirely designed and built is proof of Old Tom’s talent in this area, I think you could do more to provide further specific evidence.  And I do not forget that  much of the Golden Age work has since been improved/changed.


Some of what you write I do take issue with.
EG
 “The knowledge specified i.e. seeds, grasses, manures, fertilisers, the physical and chemistry properties of various soil and the different methods of drainage were all known in the latter years of the 19th Century, they did not just burst upon the scene in the 20th Century.”

Who had this knowledge and can you  prove it?  it was inot until the 20th Century that the seed companies first realised that Golf was an attractive market. Until then they had looked for grass they could sell that would grow rich and lush, as fodder for livestock. Carter’s first got involved in 1903 and Sutton’s in 1909.   The growth in Golf led to a development in many trades and commercial selling of e.g.  worm killers, fertilisers and mechanical grass cutters. Yes the work was done before but it took a quantitate leap forward to meet the new demand.
Your case against seems to be based on merely refuting their more outrageous claims but without specifying hard much hard evidence to the contrary.  You may also be overselling what happened unless you can provide more proof. The Old Course and a very few others were perhaps a special case in the care and knowledge lavished upon it.  I would say the quality owed much to the best methods sparingly applied by a few people on land ideally suited to golf, where only a light touch in keeping with the economics of the times proved the most appropriate medicine. If the knowledge was there as you say why did the quality of the Old Course diminish around the turn Of the Century?

It is also worth noting that I’m delighted to play the courses of OTM, Braid AND Simpson.  You seem to take most issue with the latter but let us not forget he was a fine architect himself and it wasn’t him who wrote “Famous Links That Were Not Designed, But Simply ‘Happened’”.  He wrote beautifully and perceptively about the subject of GCA and I think it’s this writing that people will remember him for rather that the disparaging of those whom he owed a great deal to.  

I value your research shedding light onthe great work that survives from the period that interest you the most. I read here today that there’s a new book on North Berwick which I look forward to picking up this summer.   I wonder if it includes that Old Tom was one of four people involved with the redesign of parts of the course that that produced, amongst others, the Pit Hole?  I know this because of your research, more please.

Best wishes.  Tony



Why is the lik to your name different to the other article?

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/hunter-morrow-melvyn-famous-links-that-were-not-designed-but-simply-happened/   

[Tony_Muldoon]

Received the following from Melvyn together with a fabulous page (not reproduced below) on how Old Tom stabilised and seeded the area around the high hole.

Hi Tony
In answer to your questions
Thank you Melvyn. As ever wonderful interesting and stimulating research.  I am in general agreement that the new Golf Course Architects did have a regrettable tendency to promote themselves by disparaging what had been done before.  You ask why deny the past and I think it’s simply that, a belief that they had to promote themselves (and their greater expenses) as offering something new.   They were competing against Braid who operated more cheaply in the old fashioned manner and they wanted to sell a “more professional package”. That is not to say Braid didn’t produce fine work. 
My findings are that Braid is perhaps more the Golfers Designer than any of the others. He does not waste time and effort if he believes it’s a good Hole then he seeks no need to fix or alter it apart to accommodate the new ball so adjusts the Tees. I find that refreshing and clearly I believe from a golfers prospective. Its thanks for the most part that courses that underwent the knife (modifications) by Braid allows us to see more of the traditional Holes of the 19th Century. Braids new courses have I believe more golfer appeal than the likes of Colt, but that just my opinion. I do think that GCA has suffered in that many have a need to worship at the alters of other 20th Century Golden Age boys, when one wonders if they are actually worthy of all that praise. Now I am not saying they are poor designers, far from it but they just had the opportunity to develop courses thanks to the popularity of the game and the money that pumped into the game more so the courses. No need for criss cross Holes, no waiting to generate funds to secure more land to develop the course – look at Muirfield as a good example. Compared with the real Golden Age designers the 20th Century guys seemed to have been born with a golden spoon in their mouths which is the only reason, I believe to call it a Golden Age.   

Yet there is ample evidence in surviving holes and routings that the so called Golden Age architects were not the first talented folk working in this area. Your argument is best served when you document just how much work was done in specific cases and discussing those merits.  The fact is they really did have carte blanche when it came to selecting the land for their famous holes and much of their lesser work has been Improved/changed since.  You need to show examples that have stood the test of time to demonstrate their skills.  E.G The fact that the 18th green at St Andrews was entirely designed and built is proof of Old Tom’s talent in this area, I think you could do more to provide further specific evidence.  And I do not forget that  much of the Golden Age work has since been improved/changed.


Cart Blanche is far from what the 19th Century guys were given to work with. They were given small corners or sections of land leased or loaned by farmers or the Landed Gentry. These generally were only fit for grazing and most of that was for sheep. The constraints on the land created the mix match of the Number of Hole – yes some clubs wanted 9 some 18 to match St Andrews, but the land may at best offer only space for 6 (Kinross 6 Holes 1860; Ladybank total 6 Holes In & Out gave a round of 12 - date 1879 – then there is Prestwick 1851 12 Holes with the 6th Hole I believe cutting over 6 Holes  - 12th; 11th; 1st; 10th; 9th and 2nd). Even Prestwick was not given the opportunity for more land until 1882/3 and that was defined as a rather rich club. Yes many a course has since been re-modelled even Prestwick as I mentioned but 6 Green sites from Old Tom are still retained.

To give you the proof you need then look to the following courses Prestwick 1851, Earlsferry 1858, Royal North Devon (Westward Ho), St Andrews Old Course from 1865-1880’s, Leven 1865, Lundin 1865, Forfar 1871,  Carnoustie 1873, Royal Dornoch 1886, Montrose 1885 & 1888 Kinghorn 1887.  Then what about Royal County Down and Portrush 1889. As you can see more than a fair grouping of well know and quality course of their day which surely meets the requirements to prove their skill, in this case Old Tom Morris.

I think Cart Blanche was not the order of the day. They were given unfit and unfriendly land to build courses. Some courses you may record only lasted a couple of years before moving to better land once they established themselves, as examples you have Leslie and Crieff both moved to better locations as funds and land appeared.

I feel I have shown that the land was not necessary fit for purpose being cramped, and generally poor quality, again I bring your attention to Muirfield which was once described by Andrew Kirkaldy as “nothing but a damned water meadow”. The cause was because even The Honourable Company could not give Old Tom adequate space for a decent layout.

We create within our own minds scenarios that are taken from what we observe today, yet we do not allow our minds to adjust to the game of life dating from our forefathers yesterdays.   


In the above, I believe I have proven that we do not know the 19th Century as we think we do. Why does the industry not know these things, but wait, yes they do but seem for some reason to have forgotten. As for re seeding, TOC was a prime candidate for areas adjacent to Rusacks – Road Hole which was seed not turfed by Old Tom, but we must think with our Thinking Hat’s on. St Andrews and many other sites had only one course, not like today great choices of up to seven, so turf was the fastest way to repair and get the course back into working order. As for fertilisers the best is washed up on the West Sands after every storm. The Farmers would send down their cart to remove the seaweed from the shore line and dry it on what was there before the Bruce Embankment. It was because of these cart tracks over TOC that they built Grannie Clarks Wynd. So there was known of the abundance of fertiliser plus the effect of sheep grazing (cows were stopped due to damage to the course). As for the chemistry properties of the soil they knew that sand helped as did natural fertilisers (seaweed). Drainage was an issue in the early days with the water table and water in bunkers, this too was overcome by modifying the bunkers and adding wells to the Greens to assist water removal which was recycled for the Greens.

As for proving it, it’s in some of the old newspapers, it’s well recorded re the seaweed as its associated with damage to the course and hence the need for a road. As for Seed companies thinking of golf, wonder why and when that started, perhaps it was from the requests for grass seeds that made them interested. The point being I cannot tell you the source but I know as again the information was obtained from past articles.  As mentioned above grassing a course took time and money which was not the priority of the 19th Century designers, their brief was to get the course open ASAP and on average it took around 3 months to a year subject to site, budget and location noting that Cruden Bay started in 1894 but did not Open until 1899, Muirfield was some seven months in the making.   




Surely by reading my post you noticed that I listed a set of course pre 1880’s and after 1890’s.  I thought I also mentioned that even to this day templates are used from many of these older Holes such as The Road Hole and Redan, Alps etc. etc. Does that itself not convey proof and more importantly design or design intent refuting this concept of ‘rectangular rampart school of thought’. My proof is in the courses and to this day many of the original features are still there and admired.
From what date do you believe The Old Course became famous. Ditto North Berwick, Musselburgh, Prestwick. Was St Andrews a Championship course way back in the 1850’s; 1860’s 1870’s 1880’s 1890’s, in fact was she or any other course known as Championship courses in the 19th Century? Where they indeed special? Perhaps the fact that many Clubs wanted their courses to have 18 Holes ‘like St Andrews’ . St Andrews was not special, it was old but not special but then the Links was owned in part by St Andrews which allowed other activities like drying the sheets on the links on washing day. The Green or Golf course pre 1840 were few and not of great quality. Things started to come together in the 1850’s when the care for the course was becoming a serious consideration. Yes Old Tom through Prestwick, then moving back to St Andrews he started to develop The Old Course so from the time of Young Tommy in the early 1870’s to the late 1890’s the course record dropped by some 8 strokes not because of the equipment but because of the improved condition of the course. This is well documented if one just cares to search the articles from the late 1890’s. Old Tom not only visited to design, modify a course he also attended to help improve a course condition as the request of the clubs.
The Old Course went into decline thanks to the new ideas Hugh Hamilton introduced who took over from Old Tom in 1904. Old Tom in one of the Scotsman interviews warned Hamilton and yesterday I actually posted on Facebook two articles from 1911 & 12 on this very subject, my introductory words before attaching the articles was as follows :-
Old Tom warned the R&A and Hugh Hamilton that his procedures would hurts The Old Course St Andrews. This was made in 1904 just after the appointment of Hamilton when Old Tom was told about the upcoming killing of the worms and the intention of chemicals to be used on the turf.

Pooling of water on the Greens was a thing of the past under Old Tom, the course hardly suffered from excess rain however as many who know St Andrews and its later history know that The Old Course went through some 8 years of decline, only to start to regain itself by the time WW1 started.

Is there a lesson to be learnt or are we today passed that stage of Hamilton arrogance polluting the surrounding land and ultimately the sea as our chemicals seep off the land? I believe knowledge is accumulative so in my humble opinion we can learn from the past, if only some would consider our forefathers where our equals in so many things including GCA.

The articles I post were titled as follows Dundee Courier St Andrews Course Unplayable date 4th May 1911 and St Andrews Golf Course in Danger Leamington Spa Courier 10th May 1912. 
It is also worth noting that I’m delighted to play the courses of OTM, Braid AND Simpson.  You seem to take most issue with the latter but let us not forget he was a fine architect himself and it wasn’t him who wrote “Famous Links That Were Not Designed, But Simply ‘Happened’”.  He wrote beautifully and perceptively about the subject of GCA and I think it’s this writing that people will remember him for rather that the disparaging of those whom he owed a great deal to.
Simpson the Designer, is good I have no issues with his designs. What issues I have is how can an industry not understand or quite frankly know its own history. Not understand its pedigree means no one has studied the past, no one seems to care let alone want to know the full story behind their industry. Most stop at these so call golden boys, yet have we seen them producing anything new, much of what they offer is effectively the 19th Century design procedures but nothing really new. Yes they embraced more technology and equipment, but is that enough for us to call them the golden age guys – no think not, but yes they put a lot into print, yet they drew down an iron curtain over the 19th Century guys and more or less dismissed their efforts which was IMO The Golden Age of Golf And Golf Course Architecture. 

I value your research shedding light on the great work that survives from the period that interest you the most. I read here today that there’s a new book on North Berwick which I look forward to picking up this summer.   I wonder if it includes that Old Tom was one of four people involved with the redesign of parts of the course that that produced, amongst others, the Pit Hole?  I know this because of your research, more please.

As for North Berwick and Old Tom, this is one of those courses like the New Course St Andrews where Old Tom seems to have been aired brushed out of the design. Old Tom I believe designed the extension and re modified the course in December 1876 with the work starting in the New Year 1877 with Strath on site supervision. Old Tom attended site on more than one occasions prior to the opening and made further changes and suggestions. 
The credit has gone to Brodie & Whitecross for and I quote ‘”the operation in all their details have been directed by Messrs Brodie and Whitecross with a care and judgement which will be recognised by all who visited the ground”  Then “In placing the Holes these gentlemen have had the assistance of David Strath, who is now keeper of the North Berwick Green; and though his services, as well as some hints given by Tom Morris on a recent visit”. The reports are all similar which defines their work as that of Project Managed.
Tony, I hope I have given you most of the information you seek, if you think I have then would you post the above as my answer to your questions and concerns on GCA.com to continue the debate.
Kind regards
Melvyn
PS I do not know why my name has changed as my surname is still Morrow not Hunter Morrow.

[Jason Topp]

Thanks for the piece Melvyn!  It strikes me that a significant motivation behind many of the writings from golden age architects was for the purpose of advertising.  It is good to reminded of that motivation rather than considering their words as if they descended from on high.

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn's further reply is again interesting, but Melvyn focuses almost exclusively on links courses and on courses built before 1890.  Here are his mentions:  Prestwick 1851, Earlsferry 1858, Royal North Devon (Westward Ho), St Andrews Old Course from 1865-1880’s, Leven 1865, Lundin 1865, Forfar 1871,  Carnoustie 1873, Royal Dornoch 1886, Montrose 1885 & 1888 Kinghorn 1887.  Then what about Royal County Down and Portrush 1889.

But where are the examples of any of the golden age guys bashing these courses?  I can't think if many who were.  To the contrary, these courses were roundly praised as exemplars of what golf should be. Far from rejecting these courses, the golden age was attempting to RETURN golf to its roots.  Thus the best hole surveys.  Thus the model holes and supposed "templates."  Thus the effusive praise for the old course and other courses.   Thus the Old Course, Prestwick, and North Berwick were often held up as models of what a golf course should be. 

Inexplicably, Melvyn seems intent on treating criticism of a largely inland phenomenon as if it were undue criticism of his beloved links courses.  But the courses listed were never considered "rectangular rampart courses! Those courses were reportedly inland, and a product of the golf boom of approximately the last decade of the 19th century.  Reportedly, many hundreds of courses were built in inland England during the last decade of the 20th century.  Melvyn ignores this and instead focuses on the links courses, as if the criticism of some inland course featuring "rectangular ramparts" was equally meant to be criticism of The Old Course or Prestwick!

Here is an example of what one "Golden Age" architect thought of the courses Melvyn listed; excerpts from an article written by Charles Blair Macdonald in Outing Magazine in 1906, after he had returned from an extended visit to the great courses of the British Isles and France in preparation for his creation of NGLA. 

DURING the past few months I have listened to many heated and intelligent discussions as to the merits pro and con of the various great golfing greens, as well as to the merits of particular holes.
It seems to me the disputants were not so far apart as the heat of the argument might imply. The differences were more apparent than real. The basic principles they were together on. It was only when they came to "splitting hairs" that the fun began—a certain pot bunker or a certain hummock was alleged to be in the wrong place, or this or that hole was a few yards too short or too long—otherwise the hole was perfect. Further, it appeared to me that the combatants always pleaded for the hole they were most familiar with. Finally, I became convinced that any hole warranting warm or acrimonious discussion over a term of years must be "worth while," otherwise it would have been consigned to oblivion with less comment.
So far as I have been able to determine, no one course has the consensus of opinion as being preeminently the best. All agree generically on seaside courses. Undoubtedly St. Andrews has the greater number of advocates as being the Queen of Golf Links, though that greatest of golfers of the past decade, Vardon, decries St. Andrews as unfair; but then, Vardon has never been successful there.
Mr. J. L. Low somewhere says that most courses are too physical and mathematical, while only the best introduces as well the philosophical and strategical element. Doubtless there are many professionals who do not appreciate the subtle aspect of golf, and do not care for that which is temperamental in the game.
After St. Andrews, I think that Prestwick ran for second place, the chief criticism of Prestwick being the lack of length and number of blind holes.
After the above two courses opinion seemed to be pretty evenly divided between No. Berwick, Machrihanish, Westward Ho, Deal, Hoylake, Littleston, Brancaster and Sandwich. Each had its champions. I found it very popular to abuse Sandwich—surely there is no better soil or turf or more attractive undulations on any green—the fundamentals of a good golf course. True, the holes are too short, especially the first nine, the putting greens much too large, with no variety of hazard calling for accurate approaching; and besides all this, the majority of the holes are blind—a sad fault. I was told that the Royal St. Georges Green Committee were at loggerheads; it is to be hoped that they will soon agree, and make Sandwich what it has all the natural advantages of being, second to no course.
Hoylake was a disappointment to me. Twenty to thirty years ago I think the course, though shorter, was much better. The greens were infinitely finer, and the bent rushes and side hazards prevented playing "all over the lot." To-day the course is mediocre from the point of view of being a championship green—nothing exceptionally fine, nothing brilliant, nothing very bad; fair length of hole, fair putting greens, reasonable hazards, and the green generally appeared to me to be verging more toward an inland than a seaside course. I think Fornby has the possibilities of becoming a better course.
. . .
Studying the above qualities in detail, there can be but one opinion as to the nature of the soil the course should be built upon, as well as the contour of the surface of the green, running as this should in more or less gentle undulations as at St. Andrews, breaking in hillocks in a few places, more or less bold in certain parts as at Sandwich and No. Berwick. The three courses above mentioned fulfill the ideal in this respect. There can be no really first-class golf course without such material to work upon. Securing such a course is really more than half the battle
. . .
The courses of Great Britain abound in classic and notable holes, and one has only to study them and adopt their best and boldest features. Yet in most of the best holes there is always some little room for improvement.
. . .
The eleventh hole at St. Andrews, which four out of five golfers (a greater consensus of opinion than I have found regarding any other hole) concede to be if not the best, second to no short hole in existence, is berated vigorously by some able exponents of the game. At the last championship meeting at Hoylake, Mr. H. H. Hilton told me it would be a good hole if a cross bunker was put in and Strath closed. Heaven forbid!
To my mind, an ideal course should have at least six bold bunkers like the Alps at Prestwick, the ninth at Brancaster, Sahara or Maiden (I only approve of the Maiden as a bunker, not a hole) at Sandwich, and the sixteenth at Littleston. Such bold bunkers should be at the end of a two-shot hole or a very long carry from the tee.
Further, I believe the course would be improved by opening the fair green to one side or the other, giving short or timid players an opportunity to play around the hazard if so desired, but, of course, properly penalized by loss of distance for so playing.
Other than these bold bunkers I should have no hazards stretching directly across the course.
Let the hazard be in the center or to either side or graduated in distance from the hole across the course. A very great number should be pot bunkers, particularly to the side; bunkers in which one can take a full shot with a wooden club are a travesty—some such bunkers as they have at Sunningdale.
A burn is a most excellent hazard and is utilized with the greatest advantage at Prestwick and Leven.
. . .
The tendency to widen courses is much to be lamented. Forty-five to sixty yards is plenty wide enough. This is wider than St. Andrews used to be thirty years ago, when the course was better than it is now. I note that Mr. Deally, Mr. Lucas and Mr. Charles Hutchins in laying out the new course (that last word in golf) at Sandwich have kept a width of rather under than over fifty yards.
. . .
Before closing I wish to enumerate a few defects which unavoidably exist on some really good courses:
More than three blind holes are a defect and they should be at the end of a fine long shot only. Hills are a detriment. Mountain climbing is a sport in itself and has no place on a golf course. Trees in the course are a serious defect, and even when in close proximity prove a detriment. Out of bounds should be avoided if possible. Cops are an abomination. Glaring artificiality of any kind detracts from the fascination of the game.

Maconald discusses many of the same courses as does Melvyn, but far from rejecting these courses, Macdonald is turning to these courses to determine what golf architecture should be.  In the same article he lists out his eighteen ideal golf holes that ought to be used as models for golf designers, and with one exception (the Biarritz) they all stem from the seaside links courses. There are critical comments here and there, but for the most part Macdonald was looking to them as his model. 

So far as I can tell, Melvyn just doesn't seem to want to understand this aspect of the supposed "golden age."  It was at its core a renaissance. It rejected the inland "rectangular rampart" school but did so in the name of returning to the game's roots. 

[Dan Herrmann]

David - I fully agree with your last sentence.  It really was a renaissance, wasn't it.

Melvyn - thanks for the essay.  As usual (and this is a compliment), it was good reading and controversial.   We really need you to come over to the USA someday to see what we have.  No, it's not Old Tom Morris, but I really think you'd like a lot of what you'd see.

[Paul_Turner]

David is correct.  It was a criticism of inland architecture.

Horace Huchtison's  "British Golf Links" is the best photo source I know for that early period.  The inland courses that show construction like Eltham and Richmond show the rampart, steeplechase style whereas the links look pure lay of the land with the greens tending to be in natural hollows.

[Mike_Young]

I am posting this for Melvyn:

David
I too find it interesting that you always seem to examine the past not as it was through their eyes but always with the modern perspective. To that point I have to again respectively suggest that you have missed the point of both the original article and my comments.
For your information I was referring to the courses to show the quality of designs be they pre 1870’s; 80’s 0r 90’s. In those days Links course outnumbered inland, but that was not my point which was that the 19th Century Designers deserved the title of The Golden Age and not those from the early 20th Century. Again the whole article stems around the comment “Famous Links That Were Not Designed, But Simply ‘Happened’”?  Irrespective if the word ‘Links’ was referring to coastal courses golf or inland, the Golden Age should not be accredited to the early 20th Century period.
 
I have nothing against many of the other latter day saints of the so called 20th century golden age designers, apart from re-endorsing my belief that there was nothing Golden at all (or remotely Renaissance about it). I see no comparison re that period when compared to the 1850’s -1890’s. Please list the names (more than just one or two English Courses to prove your point that it was a school of thought) of the designers and the courses that qualify for the criticism of “the rectangular rampart school of thought” that actually constitute a school of thought. While doing that can you list those things that the 20th Century guys did that had not already been done by those from the 19th Century to justify the title Golden Age. As my argument is about The Golden Age dates and which group deserve the title.
 
I see Paul has mentioned Eltham GC (although I do not know the designer) which course circa 1923 was taken over by the oldest Club in England Blackheath GC and Richmond – a couple out of how many. I never said they did not exist I just said it was unfair to label a group of designers for the practices of a handful of courses. However not all inland designs can be defines as rectangular ramparts.
 
You see my findings do not agree with this comment which seems to have been born out of what seems to be poor research or just simple ignorance. Old Tom was one of the early designers who designed inland courses and I am not aware of him being a part of the “the rectangular rampart school of thought”, he was far from that.
 
No I have not ignored anything, I have tried to show that the 19th Century Design was very much on par with the so called 20th Century Golden Age, to the point that they had already considered many of the design features that I presume later was used to warrant calling that time period the Golden Age.
I have gone one stage further, I have called the 19th Century period the Golden Age of Golf & Golf Course Architecture and I am surprised at the ignorance of some 20th Century guys in respect of their industries golfing heritage.
 
To this day many still do not understand the peg method used by the early designers and why a rudimentary game was later played – at that time that game was never considered to be defined as an opening Match, because reports are clear that courses took some 6-12 weeks to design and build some taking a lot longer.
 
Now as for C B Macdonald, what happened to him after leaving St Andrews in the early 1870’s, did he stay in the golfing industry, did he design courses, did he even play much golf for the next 20 years? What was the date of his observations were they based upon his last visit i.e. 1906 or was he also remembering the games of the early 1870’s. What was the date he was basing his comments upon? I believe he reappeared on the golfing scene some 20 years later with the NGLA concept.
My whole point is not that the so called Golden Boys criticised the 19th Century guys, what I am saying is that they conveyed very little knowledge of what they really did and what they did say was rather questionable. Comments like “the rectangular rampart school of thought”, what a blinkered and rather ill-informed opinion that was when you look at what was achieved pre 1900 and I do include courses throughout GB. Regrettable that attitude still prevails to this day which is something I am trying to correct – the best way to do that is to stop calling the 1910-1930’s the Golden Age of Golf and give credit to the right people and period with the right title “The Golden Age of Golf & Golf Course Architecture”.
 
I suppose we need to examine the individual who first coined that phrase the ‘’Golden Age being in the 20th Century, because not only has he done himself a big disservice by showing his lack of golfing history and knowledge, but he has done the architects/designs of the 20th Century no favours either. My concern is how everyone else involved in the industry fell for it. I believe that proves just how little is known of that period of the games modern history and must surely calls into question many of the thoughts and comments on this site and others, if the basic facts are seemingly unknown to all the major players within the industry.
 
I am still surprised to see that hardly any one designer has entered this debate, perhaps that’s just goes to prove the point.
“Famous Links That Were Not Designed, But Simply ‘Happened’” is this the total sum of learning that has been achieved by the golfing industry after 113 years? Or does it explain a lot about today’s game, new courses and modern design practices. Perhaps I need to put in an Amen!
 
As with many things there are those who limit the design process for some reason or other but is that fair to label the two or three generations with that label. Inland course when first started where seen as copies of links courses, but remember money was still tight be it inland or costal, however the debate is about crediting the correct group with the title of being part of the Golden Age of Golf and GCA.       
 
PS Jonathan Mallard – what you noticed are not links they are highlights to speed up the search process. Click upon them and nothing will happen.
 

[DMoriarty]

Melvyn,

I am no expert on the history of golf in Great Britain, but based on my reading from the time period, I have to say that your understanding of the development of golf during the last decade of the 19th century leaves me rather dumbfounded.  While the number of links courses may have been greater than the number of inland courses up through the 1880's, it was widely reported that beginning around 1889 there was definite "golf boom" during which the number of "golfers" in the English speaking world increased hundreds-fold or perhaps thousands-fold, and the demand for golf courses increased accordingly.  It was also widely reported that many hundreds of inland courses were build during this time period from about 1889 on, and most of them were nothing like the courses you list.  So I don't think we are talking about "a handful of courses." For example, in the 3rd Golfing Annual (1889-1890) there were 277 clubs listed, and according to the introduction this represented "rapid strides" in the growth of the game!.  But in the 13th (1899-1900) Golfing Annual there were 2330 clubs, and 227 had been added in the last year alone.

Your neglect to address this "golf boom" and the consequent boom in the creation of shoddy inland courses creates a major hole in your analysis.  

As for your comments about Macdonald, you are well out of your element. Your disregard for him always makes me chuckle, as he was very much on your side in these matters, and was right there with the pioneers from your side of the pond. But then that is true of many of those for whom you likewise distain because they dared produce golf courses after your great relative had passed.  

To briefly answer your questions,  Macdonald was never in the "golf industry." He went to University in St. Andrews where he became fairly accomplished for someone who had just taken up the game, but he departed in the fall of 1874. There was no golf in the US at the time, but he made frequent extended trips overseas during the rest of the 1870's and 1880's - almost every year it seems - he was a member of the R&A and Royal Liverpool and spent an entire year playing out of Liverpool in the mid-1880's.  After failed earlier attempts he helped introduce golf to Chicago beginning in 1892, and shortly thereafter designed the first 18 hole course in the United States.  He continued playing at home and abroad throughout the 1890's, and then made a series of extended trips in the leading up up to his creation of NGLA.  His comments in 1906 were based on experience over many decades, but most recently on his extended trip with HJ Whigham over the previous winter and spring.

[Dan Herrmann]

Posting for Tom Paul:

I pretty much wholly agree with David Moriarty's Post #12, Paul Turner's Post #14 and David Moriarty's Post #16.
 
However, those thoughts in those posts are not necessarily original on Golfclubatlas.com---not that any of the participants said they were. The fact is there is a wealth of that information and that same opinion on threads on this website from others years ago. It is all somewhere in the back pages. I suppose the message is these very same subjects have been comprehensively discussed in the past and probably more articulately even though it seems to me #12 and #16 are very comprehensive and very good on the subject. Essentially it confirms for me how good Golfclubatlas's Discussion Group once was back then with so much less "noise" then it has today and before the website's DG became a commonplace matter of "argument for only argument's sake."
 
It also occurs to me that Melvyn Morrow and Moriarty and Turner are not exactly on the same "subject page" in their responses.

[BCrosby]

I had mised this thread.

I too agree with Moriarty's and Turner's takes.

Circa 1900 the golf world thought of golf courses as being of two basic types. There were traditional links courses such as the Old Course or Hoylake, courses believed to have arisen 'naturally' in the dune formations left by receding coastlines. The other type was the then new 'inland' courses, distinguished by the fact that they were the product of careful human planning. Their designs were marked by ramparts, cop bunkers, chocolate drops mounts and all the rest.

A useful way to think about the birth of strategic gca is that it arose out of two developments. First, there was great unhappiness with these Victorian inland courses. (There was a lot written about what it was that people didn't like about them, but that's best left for another time.) Second, there was a dawning appreciation that 'natural' links courses were not impenetrable mysteries, but rather embodied architectural principles that could be articulated and applied. That is, links courses were seen as a source of design inspiration for a very different kind of inland course. Links courses were not disparaged by the Golden Age archies. To the contrary, they saw links courses as the architectural mother-lode.

John Low, in articles that first appeared in 1901 and later in his book Concerning Golf (1903), was the first to articulate all that. Low's Cambridge buddies Colt and, later, B. Darwin may have been thinking along the same lines at the time, but Low was the first to publish such ideas. And not long afterwards, the school of strategic golf architecture took off and, basically, never looked back.

Bob  

[DMoriarty]

I do agree with Melvyn to the extent that he is pointing out that some of the old "natural" links courses were actually impacted, altered, and improved by the hand of man.  This is easy to forget and his is a good reminder.   Muirfield is a good example of a course that, reportedly, didn't start out as much but was greatly improved over the years. 

[Niall C]

David

In the case of Muirfield, not so much improved but redesigned a couple of times. A lot of good stuff in this thread.

Niall