[Tom_Doak]

"Now, while the [new] ball has marred many excellent holes, it has made just as many indifferent holes excellent.  The majority of greens committees have failed to realize this and have expended their energy in devising means to lengthen every hole.  It would be much better if they would shorten some, lengthen some and leave the others alone."

[Tim Copeland]

Jack Nicklaus

[Dan Kelly]

Again employing my famous Forensic Semantics (or is it Semantic Forensics):

I say "indifferent" and "marred" mark this architect as having done his (or, of course, her) work prior to 1950.

I will guess Mr. Hunter.

[Bill_McBride]

Dr. A. MacKenzie.

[Jeff_Mingay]

My gut tells me Dr. Mackenzie... if not, it's definitely a historical quote. Not contemporary.

[Tom_Doak]

Not Hunter or MacKenzie or Nicklaus.  

Here's another quote from the same architect:

"The only thing that I do now is to endeavor to make the hazards as natural as possible."

[JMorgan]

CBM

[JMorgan]

I'll take the stuffed rabbit.

[Dan Kelly]

Tillinghast.

[Adam Clayman]

Robertson, Alan

[Tim Copeland]

C.B. Macdonald

[Tom_Doak]

Dr. Morgan gave the correct answer -- Charles Blair Macdonald.

You all should have guessed that I would be reading "Scotland's Gift" this week.

Here's another quote that struck me:

"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 it was better than it is now."

[Dan Kelly]

You all should have guessed that I would be reading "Scotland's Gift" this week.

You're right. Silly me!

I was thinking you were probably reading one of Al Franken's books.

[Tim Copeland]

You all should have guessed that I would be reading "Scotland's Gift" this week.

nah...I had Tina Fey

[Bob Jenkins]

Tom,

Seeing your post above made me pull out my copy of "Scotland's Gift - Golf". On page 302 of my edition which is from the Classics of Golf, CBM said:

[Bob Jenkins]

carrying on, after hitting the wrong button,

Charles Blair Macdonald said " A golf architect should never endeavour to construct what is known as a "trick green"; otherwise he will be suspected of being a card sharp [yes, card "sharp", not "shark"]. Don't seek an original idea in building a golf course. John La Farge [whoever he was] somewhere has said if "an idea were an original one it is safe to say it would not be a good one."

I find this really fascinating. We on this site are in love with tradition but do you not strive to implement original ideas?

I would be interested in what you say.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Tom thank you for reminding me to go buy this great book. It should surprise any of us how timeless the fundamentals of the game really are.

[BCrosby]

Tom's CBM quotations are a reminder that one of the best things about the literature of the Golden Age is that back then they didn't talk about holes being "fair" or "unfair".

They used terminology that actually does descriptive work. For example, CBM talks about holes being interesting v. indifferent, or tricky v. straight forward, or simply harder v. easier.

It's refreshing and one of several reasons why it pays to reread their books.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Bob J:  Personally, I agree with you.

Macdonald's book is fascinating because evidently it was written in pieces over a long period of time, and he seems to contradict himself in several places.

His two different takes on the Eden hole cited above are one example; and while he makes the case for eschewing originality as you cite, there are also several spots where he proudly quotes Bernard Darwin and Horace Hutchinson for saying that the best holes at National are not the Redan and Eden but the holes which sprung from Macdonald's mind.  At one point he even boasts that some of the holes at National are "truly original".  (I would post the exact quotes but the book's at home, and I'm at the office.)

CBM was a fascinating and complicated guy, but lack of ego was not one of his problems.

[Bob Jenkins]

Tom,

Since your post last night, I have had a look at CBM's book again. You comment on his ego!

In my version of "Scotland's Gift: Golf", Herbert Warren Wind said:
   "A large, energetic man of marked intelligence an imagination, Macdonald had great ambition and an ego the size of the fourteenth hold on the Old Course at St Andrews. Since no other American had a background in golf that compared to his, he thought it only right that he be treated as the leader of the game's expansion. Although he did not attain the grandiose ambition and come to be regarded as the father of American golf, no one of his generation had a comparable influence on the development of the game in this country. . . . . "

There was more. Reading this again, I suspect you will have a fairly wide latitude at Old Macdonald. The idea of building a course in such a location with a goal of trying to give us the feel of a classic architect must be totally unique for someone in your profession. I know that I and I suspect a lot of others on this board cannot wait until 2010.

All the best!

[Jonathan Cummings]

Uncle George suggests in E of Golf that CBM's legendary ego was somewhat overblown.  JC

[Tom_Doak]

Jonathan:

Yes, but he is the one who overblew it!

George is probably right, though -- outside the golf arena.  Macdonald had many, many friends in important places.  He raised the money for National by getting sixty friends to contribute $1,000 each to "elevate the game in America", with no return on investment.  

You couldn't do that without having a bunch of people who really liked you as a person.

[John Kirk]

Here's another quote that struck me:

"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 it was better than it is now."

I disagree, and feel that a better number is 60 to 80 yards wide.  The ball goes a lot further than it did when CBM was playing and designing.

Signed,

Wide Corridor Guy

[Tom_Doak]

John:

Nothing exists in a vacuum -- to me, the ideal fairway width depends on what lies outside.  If it's Pine Valley waste areas, the fairways had better be pretty wide.  If it's Erin Hills lost-ball rough, the fairways almost can't be wide enough.  

But if the roughs are playable grass, clumpy but not too thick, then 80-yard wide fairways are a waste of money.  Few golf holes really demand that wide a disparity in the preferred angle of approach, and as long as you've got those covered by fairway, some playable rough close to one side is fine.

[George_Bahto]

John K: I am also a "wide corridor guy" but even though the ball flies further today, the ball bounded a long way then.

NGLA usually faced a drought in most summers and talking with some of the older guys out there, they told of balls bounding near 100 at National so perhaps it is about the same.

I doubt the roll of the would be that much on parkland courses.

Also most old courses did not have f'way irrigation for many years.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()