Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?

« **on:** March 30, 2006, 01:51:03 PM »

Like Sean, I too have been going through the old magazines, looking at the photos and reading some of the articles. I am a long ways from all the way through the material, but a few preliminary Hypotheses are inescapable.

1)   There was indeed a “dark ages” of golf course architecture which was well under way in America by the turn of the 20th century.
2)   This “dark ages” approach to golf courses was by far the dominant approach to golf architecture at this time, even many of our most famous courses.
3)   Most of the evidence of the dark ages no longer exists—this was a chapter of golf course architecture that has been erased from history, likely by drastic revisions in later years, such as a dark ages.
4)   This dark ages approach was quite formulaic and industrial looking, not just in the shape of the features, but even moreso in the placement of the features.
5)   Perhaps the main guiding principle of this era of design was to punish poor play and reward good play.
6)   I have seen no evidence that this era of design evolved from some other activity like steeplechase, nor have I seen any evidence that this era was a product of the rudimentary efforts of those who did not know any better. To the contrary, this era seems to be a conscious rejection of those course principles found in the great seaside links courses. The reason being was that the Scottish courses were too random and arbitrary to consistently punish the week shot and reward the good shot.

From a 1901 article on called “Bunker Architecture,” by Joseph E.G. Ryan, from Golf, the official bulletin of the USGA.

Quote

. . . the paramount purpose of a bunker is to discourage and penalize indifferent play.

In Scotland, the generally accepted home of golf, the majority of the bunkers are natural. Occasionally, on account of a hazard which existed when the hole was laid out, it is necessary to play short from the tee, as, owing to its being a natural bunker, the conformation of the hole could not be changed very well. Tradition clings so closely to some of the Scotch links, particularly the older ones, that it would savor of a sacrilege to " deface " the courses by changing the hazards, and so prevent an institution of comparison between the way Harold Hilton plays them to-day and the manner in which young " Tarn " Morris negotiated them many years ago.

The article then goes on to note that while Scotland may have better turf (although according to article, not for long,) American courses excelled through bunker placement.

Quote

On the other hand, the hazards on the American courses make golfing more enjoyable than abroad; that is, good golf is encouraged and poor play penalized more thoroughly through the judicious arrangement of bunkers. Golf became popular in the United States so rapidly that the majority of the courses had to be selected more with a view to acreage than suitability, and for this reason artificial hazards had to be made. Generally five or six of the leading exponents of the game got together and discussed the proper positions for the hazards, setting forth arguments pro and con and eventually agreeing on their disposition. In this manner the best courses in the United States had the advantage of having their artificial bunkers properly placed, and the result is that a good golfer is rarely penalized, while a poor player is continually in trouble.

The article then delves into an incredible discussion about ideal dimensions and placement for bunkers, and contains such advice as . . .

Quote

The ordinary bunker has a trap or pit two and one-half feet deep, eighteen feet wide, and thirty feet long. The cop at the back of the trap should be three feet high in front with a sloping back, its thickness depending entirely on the quantity of earth or other filler at hand. The tops of the cops are sometimes rounded, but are oftener flat for about twelve inches from the front, and then they slope gradually to the fair green. The front of the cop should be built in steps-of-stairs fashion, each sod being cut in a strip fifteen inches long, six inches wide, and allowed a hold of four inches. In order to prevent players or caddies from climbing over the cops, a pathway should be cut through the centre in such a manner that the ball cannot roll through it. The entrance to this passageway is generally three or four feet to the right or left of the exit, and it is desirable to sod its sides, with a long All cops should be built on a sloping base and not perpendicular. . . .

As a rule, in a well-regulated eighteen hole course there are three holes of the following average distances: one 150 yards, one 340 yards, and one 500 yards long. Judging from the lay-out of some of the best golf courses in the United States, the most judicious arrangementof hazards for such holes follows:
Take a 150-yard hole, for instance, and if there are no natural hazards it is advisable to place two cop-bunkers 110yards, from the tee, side by side clear across the course. About one-fourth of the bunker in front should overlap one fourth of the other, leaving a path running sideways and not straight for the hole, to prevent balls rolling through. Each of these bunkers should cover one half of the width of the course. The trap should be twenty feet wide . . .

For variety, and in order to add to the picturesqueness of the course, mounds are sometimes erected to guard the green. They should be placed 285 yards from the tee, and built about six or eight feet in height, twelve feet wide, and extending -almost across the course. The end of one mound should overlap the other with a path between, running sideways. The the cop should be three feet from the ground. . . .
In order to catch a sliced or a pulled ball, an oblong or half-moon shaped bunker, without cops, two feet deep with sloping sodded sides, should be placed on each side of the putting-green, about five yards from its edges. . . .

For a hole 340 yards long the theoretical arrangement of artificial hazards would be: Place two bunkers, two feet deep, end for end eighty yards from the tee, with cops eighteen inches high to catch topped or foozled drives. On the right or left of the course, depending on its conformation, and 140 yards from the tee, it is generally desirable to place a long,
sunken bunker, running with the course, of any desired shape, the dimensions being, say, thirty-five feet long, fifteen feet wide, and three feet deep. . . .

. . .Build a cop in two sections about three to five feet high, with a shallow bunker in front extending across the course about fifty yards from the tee. On the right side of the course place a long bunker 150 yards from the tee, running lengthwise with the course, without a cop, to catch sliced balls. The trap should be thirty-five feet long, fifteen feet wide, and three feet eep. About 240 yards from the tee it would be advisable to place a cop-bunker twenty feet wide, three feet deep, and as long almost as the width of the course will permit. This bunker should be built in half-moon shape and have two paths running through it.

The article concludes that those building courses ought to hire one of the “experts” who apparently came up with this stuff, through “science:”

Quote

Promoters of minor golf clubs should be made fully cognizant of the importance of engaging experts to lay out artificial hazards, because of the probable and ofttimes permanent effect of badly arranged bunkers upon the game of the amateur, who may some day belong to a club with a scientifically laid-out course. Experts are open to the charge of being cranks, but they know the game most exhaustively, and apply science instead of sentiment to the adjustment of bunkers. To them every angle of the course is as much of an open book as are the angles of the billiard table to the world's greatest three-cushion players. Because of their supersensitive grasp of the situation they " know things," and express them intuitively in directing the man with the spade to begin operations. So it should appear to the golfer that the mission of the bunker is a wider and more comprehensive one than that of provoking profanity.

« **Reply #1 on:** March 30, 2006, 01:54:21 PM »

Some examples of the early courses in America, some of which are also in Sean’s excellent link . . .

Baltusrol 1909

Oakmont 911

Women’s USOpen at Shinnecock 1900

More Shinnecock

"Typical Shinnecock cop"

Brooklawn 1901

Unidentified Miami Cop

St. Augustine 1898

Ontwentsia 1899

St. Paul 1899

« **Reply #2 on:** March 30, 2006, 01:57:44 PM »

David,
I will get back to you on this stuff when I have a little more time this evening.

« **Reply #3 on:** March 30, 2006, 02:21:45 PM »

more . . .

Westchester 1899

Chicago 1900

Garden City 1900

Lakewood 1900

More Lakewood 1900, notice the cop on the right of the photo.

More Lakewood

Onwentsia

Richmond

Stockbridge, Mass

Albany 1901

Baltusrol 1901

Midlothian 1901

Pinehurst

Pot Bunker 1901

Scarsdale 1901

Thomasville GA 1901

Westchester 1901

More Westchester

Baltusrol Cop

Unidentified Cop

Drops

Homewood Cop

Midlothian

Tampa

Ontwentsia 1899

« **Reply #4 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:00:22 PM »

"4) This dark ages approach was quite formulaic and industrial looking, not just in the shape of the features, but even moreso in the placement of the features."

Industrial looking???

What the hell does that mean? Do you think that early architecture looked like a factory? Don't bother to answer if you do.

What you need to do is go back and read Max Behr's take on this rudimentary style and time and the real reasons for them. Maybe I'll post what he said about it for you so I can watch you disagree with him too.

Maybe I'll also post again what Bernard Darwin said about the reasons for that early style so you can disagree with him too or tell me what Tom MacWood did----eg that Bernard Darwin must have been joking.

Just incredible.

« **Reply #5 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:23:47 PM »

"6) I have seen no evidence that this era of design evolved from some other activity like steeplechase, nor have I seen any evidence that this era was a product of the rudimentary efforts of those who did not know any better. To the contrary, this era seems to be a conscious rejection of those course principles found in the great seaside links courses. The reason being was that the Scottish courses were too random and arbitrary to consistently punish the week shot and reward the good shot."

David Moriarty:

Have you seen the remark from Bernard Darwin about how much those early Dark Age courses and their rudimentary architecture looked like steeplechasing? Have you even seen a steeplechase course?

There is no question at all that the era of the "Dark Age" architecture was one of intended penality. It was called the "penal" school of architecture and it preceeded the "strategic" school of golf architecture that took it's inspiration from particularly TOC and from architects such as Park, Abercromby, Colt and Fowler all of whom knew TOC well, and all of whom plied the Heathlands with the world's first really good INLAND golf course architecture outside of Scotland.

You can read all about this evolution and the reasons for it in the Part One of Cornish and Whitten's book, "The Architects of Golf".

I'm still not sure why either you or Tom MacWood think you can redefine or alter the things they and just about everyone else of knowledge about architecture in the history of architecture's literature said about this evolution and the reasons for it.

"'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.'"
Bernard Darwin

How much more clear do you think that can get??

« **Reply #6 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:30:28 PM »

My response to your first post, about my No. 4.

I am sure you know what I mean when I describe these features as industrial. If not, look above for dozens of examples.

Further Tom, what about the USGA Bulletin article, written during the "dark ages?" It seems to completely contradict your position.

In sum, he is saying that except for the turf, the "dark ages" American courses were better and more fun than the links courses precisely because because of the formulaic bunkers and features.

Or how about the Junye 1900 article in Outing Magazine by Willie Tucker, where he gets into great detail in how to locate and build a golf course, including hiring an expert, agronomy, drainage, leasehold issues, grow-in, and layout. (This would seem to undercut your theory that these courses were created in as a simplistic, fly-by-night pursuit.) Tucker's says use natural hazards (like lakes, roads, and rock fences) if they are there, but otherwise he describes precisely how to use artificial hazards . . .

Golf is comparatively in its infancy in America, and time will gradually develop it, but for the average American golfer of the present day, and for the next five years, I think a bunker 135 to 140 yards’ carry is quite sufficient. After that time the younger element will be coming right along, and it may be practicable to extend the carries to 160 yards. . . . If in laying out your course considerable lengths are sometimes absolutely unavoidable, and there are no ponds or long grass or bad lies, and where a player who tops his ball is not penalized, then put a sand bunker or pit 135 yards from the tee, so as to catch a half-topped drive. Also put a sand-pit or bunker as near the green as possible. If the hole is 210 yards from the tees, put your bunker from twenty to twentyfive yards short of the green, according to whether your ground is dead or fast. . . .

The best course is where the holes run at these distances, 175 to 185 yards, 320 to 330 yards, 465 to 475 yards. If you have the opportunity of making a short sporty hole of 80 to 100 yards, with water or bunkers protecting the green, making the player pitch his shot on the green to stay there, it adds interest to the course. . . .

The photos he includes as sample hazards include two stone walls and a road ("A natural hazard at Westchester . . . ,") and some of the artificial mound hazards at Nassau.

« **Reply #7 on:** March 30, 2006, 05:51:18 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on March 30, 2006, 05:23:47 PM

Have you seen the remark from Bernard Darwin about how much those early Dark Age courses and their rudimentary architecture looked like steeplechasing? Have you even seen a steeplechase course?

Yes, Tom I have seen his remark, and with all due respect I think you are drastically overplaying what very well could have been a throw-away remark. Some of the features do look like something one might find on a steeplechase course, but this is a far cry from saying explaining the evolution of the golf course from links to the golden age. It seems like Darwin is attempting to be quite insulting and humorous here, and I dont know why we shouldn't consider the entire statement apocryphal.

But assume you are correct and that these features were designed after the steeplechase. This does not explain why so many early designers turned to steeplechase rather than to the great links courses of golf. It also doesnt explain why they rejected randomness, whim, and strategy for formulaic penal golf.

Quote

There is no question at all that the era of the "Dark Age" architecture was one of intended penality. It was called the "penal" school of architecture and it preceeded the "strategic" school of golf architecture that took it's inspiration from particularly TOC and from architects such as Park, Abercromby, Colt and Fowler all of whom knew TOC well, and all of whom plied the Heathlands with the world's first really good INLAND golf course architecture outside of Scotland.

I do not really disagree with this. My point is that "dark ages" penal architecture was a conscious and deliberate break from St. Andrews and the strategic and natural links courses.

So to be more precise, the dark ages represented a break from a naturalistic, strategic roots of golf, and the golden age represented a rejection of the dark ages and a return to those roots.

Quote

You can read all about this evolution and the reasons for it in the Part One of Cornish and Whitten's book, "The Architects of Golf".

Thanks for the suggestion but I've already read it.

Quote

I'm still not sure why either you or Tom MacWood think you can redefine or alter the things they and just about everyone else of knowledge about architecture in the history of architecture's literature said about this evolution and the reasons for it.

I wont speak for Tom MacWood, but I am not trying to redefine or alter anything. Rather I am trying to understand the evolution of the golf course. As good as the Cornish Whitten book is, it isnt perfect, and it may be that while they captured a large part of the history, they didnt quite get it all exactly right, at least at the level of detail which interests me.

Knock me if you want for saying so, but that is how history works, Tom. Constant review and research and a slow shaping of what is accepted as true and and what is not.

Tom, you still havent addressed the points of the article above.

« **Reply #8 on:** March 30, 2006, 06:23:22 PM »

"Yes, Tom I have seen his remark, and with all due respect I think you are drastically overplaying what very well could have been a throw-away remark."

David Moriarty:

A throw-away remark? A throw-away remark??

Well, isn't that convenient of you to say after he completely made my point and refuted yours?

With all due respect to you that is a rather pathetic "last ditch" remark to claim his statement was a throw-away remark.

Tom MacWood claims he was joking and you claim it may've been a throwaway remark??

Need I say more?

« **Reply #9 on:** March 30, 2006, 06:30:33 PM »

"Further Tom, what about the USGA Bulletin article, written during the "dark ages?" It seems to completely contradict your position."

How many more times do I need to answer that before you quit asking??

What do you expect someone in that era and before the onset of the first good golf course inland would have said about it---that they were basically creating shit??

I'm telling you what the best historians of golf architecture's evolution up to and through the Golden Age said about that early time. Do I need to remind you again of who THEY were?

« **Reply #10 on:** March 30, 2006, 06:37:08 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on March 30, 2006, 06:23:22 PM

Need I say more?

With all due respect, Tom . . . Yes. You need to say much more if you want to make a convincing case that Darwin really believed that Steeplechase courses had a major design influence on golf course architecture.

Don't get me wrong, it is an interesting notion but it is entirely underdeveloped and unsupported. It seems to me like he was just trying to be insulting, and also pointing out that, "generally speaking," these courses forced the golfer to go over the hazards, as opposed to giving the golfer options.

I dont see his comment as a Thesis statement explaining the evolution of golf course features.

But you may be right. Have you any other support besides this one comment? Are there many examples of steeplechase features which served a dual purpose as golf hazard? Were steeplechase jumps called "cops?" Were there any golf designers that also designed steeplechase courses?

If you care to present convincing facts, I am willing to be convinced.

« **Reply #11 on:** March 30, 2006, 06:37:18 PM »

"But assume you are correct and that these features were designed after the steeplechase. This does not explain why so many early designers turned to steeplechase rather than to the great links courses of golf. It also doesnt explain why they rejected randomness, whim, and strategy for formulaic penal golf."

Do I really need to go over the reasons for that AGAIN?? I've only been explaining that on here for about two years now. Why don't you just read Max Behr on this issue? In my opinion, he says it better than me despite his labrynthian writing style.

In my opinion, and I'm certain GeoffShac's too, the man was a genius on this stuff--he was amazingly prescient. We've both been reading him over and over for years now. One seems to get a little more from him each time.

« **Reply #12 on:** March 30, 2006, 06:41:25 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on March 30, 2006, 06:30:33 PM

How many more times do I need to answer that before you quit asking??

What do you expect someone in that era and before the onset of the first good golf course inland would have said about it---that they were basically creating shit??

I'm telling you what the best historians of golf architecture's evolution up to and through the Golden Age said about that early time. Do I need to remind you again of who THEY were?

With all due respect, Tom, it is precisely this perspective with which we should be concerned. That you and history later deem their work ugly and rudimentary is rather besides the point. They thought they were doing something sophisticated and attractive. They thought they were rejecting the style and aesthetic of the links and replacing it with something better. That you and I disagree with them is completely beside the point.

« **Reply #13 on:** March 30, 2006, 06:51:09 PM »

"But you may be right. Have you any other support besides this one comment? Are there many examples of steeplechase features which served a dual purpose as golf hazard? Were steeplechase jumps called "cops?" Were there any golf designers that also designed steeplechase courses?"

Darwin's words are good enough for me, and I have eyes---I see what many of those early geometric hazard features looked like and I live in a world of steeplechasing and have for about three decades. Believe me it definitely has not changed the look of its features since the 19th century. Are there many examples of steeplechase features which served a dual purpose as a golf hazard???

David Moriarty, this time you're kidding me right? Golf may have been rudimentary and rough in the last half of the 19th century but I seriously doubt even those people back then would ever think to play golf on a steeplechase course. I asked you if you've ever actually seen a steeplechase course in person, and so now I'll ask you if you've ever seen a steeplechase course after a steeplechase? Are you aware that horses have hoofs or hooves

and what they do to turf? Apparently not if you seriously are asking a quesiton like that.

"f you care to present convining facts, I am willing to be convinced."

I have presented facts whether you think so or not and the lasst thing I believe I'd like to do now is continue to try to convince you about anything. To me it's just not even remotely worth it. Sorry about that. It's just fine with me that you think whatever you want to think about golf course architecture, it's histories and evolution and the reasons for them.

There is definitely no good reason I can think of that you and I need to agree about anything.

« **Reply #14 on:** March 30, 2006, 08:36:57 PM »

Tom,

Pardon me for saying so, but I think you have twisted-up something quite important here.
--For years now, we have been discussing various influences on certain periods of golf course architecture.
-- And for years you have denied that the "dark ages" of architecture was a conscious rejection of the aesthetics and style of the links courses in favor of a more formulaic, mathematic, and pseudo-scientific approach.
-- But now you have fundamentally altered not only your position, but also the entire nature of the conversation. You now seem to be saying 'so what if they thought they were rejecting the styles and aesthetics of the links courses; so what if they thought they were replacing these styles and aesthetics with something superior, something formulaic and scientific; so what if saw their style as more advanced and better than the links courses. They were wrong! The dark age ourses weren't advanced or sophisticated or better!And because they were wrong we should disregard their influences; disregard their explicit rejection of the links style and aesthetic; disregard their notions of what made good architecture.

Noone is denying that they were wrong. But this has never been what this discussion was about. The discussion has always been about the specific influence of various periods of golf course architecture. To flatly reject their stated influences and explanations is in effect an abdication of the positions you have argued throughout this entire multi-year conversation.

So how about we try to get back to the discussion we have been having for years?

The designers of the dark ages . . . .
1)Explicitly rejected the links style and aesthetic;
2)Tried to replace randomness and quirk with formulaic layouts and a pseudo-scientific approach to the game.
3)Were ultimately rejected and replaced by a group who wanted to return to the style and aesthetic of the links-- the very style and aesthetic that the dark agers rejected.

That is why I keep asking you to address the two articles I cited-- they give insight into just why the dark ages came into being and what it was all about stylistically and aesthetically. For you to dismiss these commentators by simply saying they did not know better is entirely missing the point.
___________________

As for your steeplechase theory, I hope you don't mind me summarizing your answer to my question as follows: You have no actual factual support your conclusion other than this one snippet from Darwin, and your opinion that some of the hazards look like steeplechase jumps.

Needless to say, I am not yet convinced. I'm more than willing to take Darwin's word on this, but I disagree with you regarding the import of this single snippet.

« **Reply #15 on:** March 30, 2006, 09:08:51 PM »

Dave Moriarty,

Don't forget that many greens and tees were sand, and as such lent themselves to more rectangular appearances.

I don't know that I agree with your blanket categorization of early 20th century architecture as the "dark ages" in form and function.

I think maintainance practices, or lack of them, had an overwhelming impact on design.

I happen to love cop bunkers.

In addition, many mounds may have been functional, serving as debris recepticles or storage facilities made into architectural features.

I don't have the time to delve into this now, but hope to devote some time to it this weekend.

« **Reply #16 on:** March 31, 2006, 01:38:09 AM »

Patrick

Looking at the literature, it is pretty surprising just how prevalent the "dark age" approach was.

That being said, there are a couple of notable exceptions . . .

First, the designers did use natural features when the features were already there anyway and they could be fit into the course. And just about anything qualified as a "natural" feature, not just rivers lakes, bunkers, dunes, quarrys and pits, but also "natural" features such as roads and stone walls. That being said, when artificial features were needed, they pretty much followed the "dark age" approach in form and function.

An example of a mix of already existing natural features plus artifical "dark ages" features might have been Maidstone, which had ample natural dunes and bunkers, but also had five cop bunkers, according to one early article.

Second, there were a few commentators who weren't thrilled with the "dark ages" approach. One that you might be especially interested in was Walter Travis, who wrote an article called "Hazards" in 1902. While Travis is quite critical of TOC, he is also very critical of the American courses "from Portland to Oregon" which all "bear the same family resemblance as to suggest a common origin."

He described these courses as consisting of "the regular stereotyped patterns which tend largely to disfigure
so many of our courses. They are co-existent with the era of terraced putting-greens and built-up tees. Usually they are represented by huge embankments thrown up transversely the full width of the course, resembling rifle-pits, of uniform height throughout—hideous excrescences on the fair face of Nature."

He also describes the "regulation bunker" and notes that this bunker is placed repeatedly at predictable distances (80 to 130 yrds from the tee then again before the green.)

Notably, Travis may be an exception which helps prove the rule, for while Travis is more enlightened than most and is trying to move golf in a more interesting direction, he pretty much confirms the prevalent "dark ages" style of the era.

« **Reply #17 on:** March 31, 2006, 01:48:09 AM »

The thing that surprised me the most about going through SEGL was how the early courses were created by man over nature. There was no effort to make the courses harmonize with the land, they were very penal with the hazards being laid out in a standardized formula that was repeated throughout the course.

The one picture that is the most over the top that I have seen is the one of Pinehurst from 1901. I can count at least 50 piles of sand that the caption calls a hazard. I have no other info than this one picture of the hole, would love to see more.
What the hell were they thinking! This goes way beyond the person responsible for laying out the course not knowing how golf was played, or over what kind of arrangements. Other people(golfers)would have seen them building the hole and they played golf on it. Yeah, it might not have lasted for long, but they did put 50 plus piles of sand on a hole and called it a hazard. For me this is some evidence(albeit singular) that golf was going or was already in a different direction. It seems that Vardon even played the course in 1900 and he thought of it as one of the best in the south, sporty even.

The mounds are not set up in a random order they are very formal in appearance that must have been quite the sight from the tee! It is almost military in style trying to defend the hole like a Maginot Line.

I enlarged the picture of the hazard take a look...

http://homepage.mac.com/tullfescue/PhotoAlbum7.html

Tully

« **Reply #18 on:** March 31, 2006, 02:58:07 AM »

Dave the USGA archives are wonderful so much to discover.

http://www.usga.org/aboutus/museum/library/segl.html

This is from "British Golf Links" (published 1897) and it's the 4th at Dornoch.

I don't know who did it or how long it stayed there but I'm certain Ross would have seen it (Born 1873).

I will read your posts again over the weekend there’s a lot to take in. I'm troubled by a few articles proclaiming a rejection of what's gone before and the fact at the time there was an explosion in golf courses with a rush to create new ones and lengthen the old, when there were few 'architects' and no specialised builders.

Keep posting these research papers I think it's a fascinating time that is passed over very quickly by most histories.

« **Reply #19 on:** March 31, 2006, 04:43:51 AM »

David Moriarty:

In reply to your post #14 this is my response from the bunker 1900-1932 thread to the same questions in post #14 on this thread. Apparently you didn't notice them on the other thread;

"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 courses 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.'"

« **Reply #20 on:** March 31, 2006, 04:55:11 AM »

"-- But now you have fundamentally altered not only your position, but also the entire nature of the conversation. You now seem to be saying 'so what if they thought they were rejecting the styles and aesthetics of the links courses; so what if they thought they were replacing these styles and aesthetics with something superior, something formulaic and scientific; so what if saw their style as more advanced and better than the links courses. They were wrong! The dark age ourses weren't advanced or sophisticated or better!And because they were wrong we should disregard their influences; disregard their explicit rejection of the links style and aesthetic; disregard their notions of what made good architecture."

David Moriarty:

I have not altered anything I've said of this subject. Most of my discussion on this issue of Dark Age golf architecture was on "Arts and Crafts" threads anyway, something you've just said you don't want to discuss with me. That's fine, I see no need to discuss it with you either.

You're apparently attempting to quote me above. Those are not my words at all, every single one of them are yours. When you quote somebody, David, a pretty good rule of thumb is not to preface an ersatz quotation of someone else with your own words 'you seem to be saying'.

« **Reply #21 on:** March 31, 2006, 06:20:42 AM »

Dave

You've never left them, have you?

On another thread you wondered why I questioned the timeline of the "Golden Age". Well........our Beloved One places it at 1900-1937, and from what Sean and you and others have posted recently, there was a lot of "darkness" then too, even from some of our most adored dead guys. GCA (and even life) is often not as simple as it seems.....

« **Reply #22 on:** March 31, 2006, 08:17:10 AM »

Rich,
You're partially right.

"In general, the courses fall into one of four distinct architectural periods..... 1900-1937: For the first time, architects started to move and shape land to create hazards and add strategic interest. Such work started with the heathland courses outside of London and men like Charles Blair Macdonald brought it to America, where he coined the term 'golf architect' around 1910. Tom Simpson called the Roaring Twenties the 'Golden Age' of course design, and he was right."

« **Reply #23 on:** March 31, 2006, 03:12:15 PM »

Sean, I've edited your post slightly so as to address seperately what seems to be to be two distinct points.

Sean said:

Quote

Concerning your first premise. It has been my understanding that courses were thrown up quickly and sometimes by people that had never seen a links . . . It is difficult to for folks to reject a style of architecture if they haven't experienced it.

This is certainly the conventional wisdom and often repeated on this site, but I just don't think the historical record supports it. Plus their are a number of facts which cut directly against this.
1. Many of these courses were laid out by Scottish professionals who were quite familiar with links golf.
2. While these courses may have been built quickly, they were also designed meticulously, with bunkers placed in specific, formulaic placements and measurements.
3. If these truly were primitive and built by people who did not know better, then I would expect to see quite a bit of variation from location to location, especially in the States where these locations were quite spread out. But as Walter Travis notes, these formulaic features were replicated in course after course and all over the country-- from "Portland [Maine] to Oregon," as Travis said.
4. The literature of the time documents that this was not random acts of rudimentary design, but part of a specific style and aesthetic, the goal of which was to build an place bunkers in a pseudo-scientific and formulaic manner so as to punish the bad and reward the good.

Quote

I think much of what made up links were not strategic-it depended on what nature had to offer. Remember TOC was famously made strategic by the widening of the course first started by Robertson and completed by Old Tom sometime well into the 1880s-maybe later. TOC was then recognized as the king of strategy and I believe this is in fact when designers and critics alike began to fully understand and appreciate the principles of strategy. Even today much of what we admire about 19th century links holes is often not the strategy, but quirk, randomness and the simplicity of design.

Your point regarding strategy is well taken, but it wasnt just the (relatively new) strategic aspects of TOC that the "dark ages" rejected, but was also the "quirk, randomness, and simplicity" of design. There was little quirk, randomness, or simple about these "dark age" designs, not did they make any effort to emulate the naturalness of some of the links courses.
______________________

TEPaul said"

Quote

You're apparently attempting to quote me above. Those are not my words at all, every single one of them are yours. When you quote somebody, David, a pretty good rule of thumb is not to preface an ersatz quotation of someone else with your own words 'you seem to be saying'.

Do you mean like this, from below, which I have bolded but not otherwise altered?

Quote

-- But now you have fundamentally altered not only your position, but also the entire nature of the conversation. You now seem to be saying 'so what if they thought they were rejecting the . . . .

________
Rich,

Good point. I may have never left them.

from what I have read, I think America was a little later than Europe, but putting specific dates on the "dark ages" or any other stylistic movement is difficult, if not impossible. Not only that, but trying to nail down specific date probably leads to more misunderstanding then understanding.

________________________-
Sean Tully,

I agree with your impressions. This was not random, natural, or haphazard. It was specific, formal, and planned.

« **Reply #24 on:** March 31, 2006, 04:25:09 PM »

Quote from: DMoriarty on March 31, 2006, 03:12:15 PM

Sean, I've edited your post slightly so as to address seperately what seems to be to be two distinct points.

Sean said:
Quote
Concerning your first premise. It has been my understanding that courses were thrown up quickly and sometimes by people that had never seen a links . . . It is difficult to for folks to reject a style of architecture if they haven't experienced it.

This is certainly the conventional wisdom and often repeated on this site, but I just don't think the historical record supports it. Plus their are a number of facts which cut directly against this.
1. Many of these courses were laid out by Scottish professionals who were quite familiar with links golf.
2. While these courses may have been built quickly, they were also designed meticulously, with bunkers placed in specific, formulaic placements and measurements.
3. If these truly were primitive and built by people who did not know better, then I would expect to see quite a bit of variation from location to location, especially in the States where these locations were quite spread out. But as Walter Travis notes, these formulaic features were replicated in course after course and all over the country-- from "Portland [Maine] to Oregon," as Travis said.
4. The literature of the time documents that this was not random acts of rudimentary design, but part of a specific style and aesthetic, the goal of which was to build an place bunkers in a pseudo-scientific and formulaic manner so as to punish the bad and reward the good.

Quote
I think much of what made up links were not strategic-it depended on what nature had to offer. Remember TOC was famously made strategic by the widening of the course first started by Robertson and completed by Old Tom sometime well into the 1880s-maybe later. TOC was then recognized as the king of strategy and I believe this is in fact when designers and critics alike began to fully understand and appreciate the principles of strategy. Even today much of what we admire about 19th century links holes is often not the strategy, but quirk, randomness and the simplicity of design.

Your point regarding strategy is well taken, but it wasnt just the (relatively new) strategic aspects of TOC that the "dark ages" rejected, but was also the "quirk, randomness, and simplicity" of design. There was little quirk, randomness, or simple about these "dark age" designs, not did they make any effort to emulate the naturalness of some of the links courses.
______________________

TEPaul said"
Quote
You're apparently attempting to quote me above. Those are not my words at all, every single one of them are yours. When you quote somebody, David, a pretty good rule of thumb is not to preface an ersatz quotation of someone else with your own words 'you seem to be saying'.

Do you mean like this, from below, which I have bolded but not otherwise altered?
Quote
-- But now you have fundamentally altered not only your position, but also the entire nature of the conversation. You now seem to be saying 'so what if they thought they were rejecting the . . . .

________
Rich,

Good point. I may have never left them.

from what I have read, I think America was a little later than Europe, but putting specific dates on the "dark ages" or any other stylistic movement is difficult, if not impossible. Not only that, but trying to nail down specific date probably leads to more misunderstanding then understanding.

________________________-
Sean Tully,

I agree with your impressions. This was not random, natural, or haphazard. It was specific, formal, and planned.

Dave

The point I was trying to make was that the idea of strategy wasn't fully realized until the start of The Golden Age. I don't believe there was strategic model for dark agers to look back toward. Lets say for argument sake that TOC didn't become what we would consider a strategic masterpiece until 1890. That leaves just over 10 years before Park "discovers" a method to utilize more natural "TOC like" strategy and, importantly, on turf which more resembled links.

I don't think dark agers had enough time to properly formulate, learn, impliment, and assess their design concepts before they were rejected by a more modern and what turned out to be Golden Age wave of designers. Included in this new wave of design were the principles of randomness, quirk and simplicity of design taken from the old guard of 19th century links design. I think the idea of strategy is mainly born with the post Tom Morris version of TOC. These two largely separate sources of inspiration combined with the discovery of heathland turf were the driving forces for The Golden Age.

Of course its all theoretical bullshit, but bullshit flies all the time on this site.

Ciao

Sean

News:

DMoriarty

DMoriarty

ed_getka

DMoriarty

TEPaul

TEPaul

DMoriarty

DMoriarty

TEPaul

TEPaul

DMoriarty

TEPaul

DMoriarty

TEPaul

DMoriarty

Patrick_Mucci

DMoriarty

Sean_Tully

Tony_Muldoon

TEPaul

TEPaul

ForkaB

Jim_Kennedy

DMoriarty

Sean_A