Is every writer's secret ambition for their writing to carry influence? (Well, Walker Percy said it was imprisonment, but that's another story!)

Isn't this why some writers cross the street into design? And would any in the business care what Tom Doak wrote in "The Confidential Guide" if they didn't fear the influence of his comments on clients and golfers?

Which brings me to two questions:

1. Was Herbert Wind the most influential golf writer ever? A few examples:

*After he called Oakmont "an ugly old brute" in 1962, the club planted 3,500 trees.

*"Amen Corner" remains in the lexicon of even the casual golf fan - astonishing when you think about it: no, really, think about it. Can you name a commonly-held nickname for a course, hole, or stretch of holes that can be attributed to a writer? ("Impregnable quadralateral" is the only contender that comes immediately to my mind, and I'm not sure anyone outside the hardcore fan knows it. Are "caning the loop" and "horrible horseshoe" vernacular, and even if not do they rise to the prominence of "Amen Corner"?)

*He deserves some credit for popularizing Dornoch.

Please add what have I missed!

2. What are other examples of a writer's *writing* (not a writer making recs in a design capacity or actually designing) influencing the course of action?

I love Darwin, but offhand I can't raise any memory of his writing carrying the influence of "Amen Corner" or tree planting, can you?

When Socrates spoke the people said, "How inspiring," but when Demosthenes spoke the people said, "Let us march!"

Mark

Mark
a neat question. I know just a little Wind and just a little Darwin, but I think I disagree with you.

I think 'influence' can take many forms, and that Wind's influence -- in terms of golf course architecture, if not on writing -- is of a more popular and ephermeral variety. Has anyone ever been inspired to take up gca or to design a magnificent course because Wind coined "Amen Corner"?

(as you know, based on the song by Mezz Mezzrow, a poor clarinettist, by the way, and IMHO not even quirky enough to be interesting, but popular amongst great jazz men because he was a key supplier of, let's say, an embellishment, to late night parties and jam sessions).

I would say that Darwin's influence, on the other hand, is deeper if more subtle. I think that as one of the first non-architects to write about gca, his beautifully-written articles on golf in general and on gca in particular conveyed a message deeper -- and more lasting -- than the words themselves, and that message went something like: "That a grandson of Charles Darwin and writer of such elegance and craft would chose to spend his life and creative talents discussing golf course architeture suggests that this craft, and the pastime of golf it supports, is worthy of attention, and worth the effort to learn about and appreciate its history and enduring principles".

That message never makes the papers, of course, and it's hard to quantify, but I think it has probably led many to a passion for gca, and led some -- through Darwin himself or his descendents -- to become architects themselves.

Just a guess, of course. And by the way, I don't mind Jim Nantz waxing poetic over the same shot of number 12 year after year; I think I enjoy it in fact, a lot. But "Amen Corner" is so pithy a phrase that it means not much at all, or at least doesn't convey any "meaning" much beyond the words themselves. And of course, the trees are gone at Oakmont.  

Peter

Peter,

Regarding Darwin, doesn't that make his career choice influential, rather than anything he actually wrote?

And to tie the loose ends, you're saying he was "pre-influenced" by the movie(s) "The Jazz Singer"?

Mark

Mark, since you ask, "Not to make this too personal -- and OT! -- how would you react if people hung on your every word and your writing became highly influential, despite not writing to influence?"

I would be very much afraid of anyone who "Hung on to my every word!"  

So what makes Wind's writing influential is that he had a capacity to reveal deeper understandings of the game in a way that moved the reader to want to continue reading, as well as it inspiring memorability; thus "Amen Corner" as a phrase and an eternal truth came into being with a few strokes of the pen.

That one was for my friend Brad!  
 

I promise that I am not trying to be difficult, but influential to whom?

I found him a source alone among reasonably modern writers to create prose that has no peer.  I always waited for my New Yorker to come .......  What a picture painter.

He influenced me to seek out more of his writings!

Writers influencing by education?

Brad Klein is currently a most influential writer as he sows the Johnny anti-tree seed.  

(and no, JK I am not sucking up.  I just don't. Nancy Reagan had profound influence on me.)

Wind is high in my pantheon of Golf writers and I would certainy like to read more of his stuff on other subjects.

I believe we talk about todays "four majors" because a journalist discussed them in an article about Palmer. HWW again?

Tony, wasn't that Bob Drum?

Jason, I have been searching high and low for that article! It's mentioned in Paul Daley's book, "The Sandbelt," sourced to The New Yorker. ("The 10 Greatest Courses in the World and Why They Are Great," or something like that.)

I think Paul got the reference second hand, as I believe it actually appeared in Sports Illustrated.

By chance, has anyone out there seen this article -- I very much would like to read it!

Mark

PS Jason, not a bad example...

Herb Wind also created the myth or saga of RTJ Sr. as the Open Doctor with his New Yorker profile in the summer of 1951. His two-part series on architecture in Nov.-Dec. 1966 Golf Digest did more to spawn an interest in the field than any thing ever written before or since. And also wrote (with Hogan) the best selling instructional book ever published.

Yes, he was unsurpassed in his influence, and certainly not for trying, as he was incredibly modest, disheveled in appearance and unassuming, even embarrased about being recognized. But he semed to have hit the mark with a few trenchant phrases and some incredibly astute analyses when no one else was paying any attention to that stuff. And it helped that he had two major fora for his views, The New Yorker (1947-54/1961-1988 or so), and SI (1954-1960). So he could write, knew the players and the people he was describing, had an unparalleled outlet, had no competition, and didn't worry about TV/radio/cable/Web out-doing him. By comparison, the only writer of any national reputation during his tenure was Dan Jenkins, who was more interested in turning cute phrases and stereotyping than in explaining in detail nuances of the game and where it was going and how it got there.

Good post Brad. I agree.

Wasn't Wind also one of writers for The World Atlas of Golf? A pivotal book for many of us.

Wind was also the editor of a number of Sports Illustrated books on golf instruction that were very good. There was a set of four, as I recall, that covered various aspects of the game.

Darwin is HWW's only rival, but HWW was more influencial. Darwin's stuff is much more meditative. More an internal dialogue between between himself and the game. As good as it is, it never found much of an American audience.

Bob
 

Jason, I have been searching high and low for that article! It's mentioned in Paul Daley's book, "The Sandbelt," sourced to The New Yorker. ("The 10 Greatest Courses in the World and Why They Are Great," or something like that.)

By chance, has anyone out there seen this article -- I very much would like to read it!

Mark

PS Jason, not a bad example...

Thanks - sorry I don't have a copy of it.  But I remembered that it was Wind that led to Watson at BB, etc., and sure enough they give credit where due.

The most influential paragraph in Wind's writing -- for me personally -- was in the foreword to Bill Davis / GOLF DIGEST's 1973 book on great golf courses (with Oakmont on the cover I think), where Wind proclaimed that if he could come back and start over again he would be a golf course architect.  He mused about the appeal of visiting interesting places and meeting interesting people and making interesting sums of money.  He was right on all counts!  

Getting back to the general subject, though, I think his biggest influence was getting people hooked on the history of golf and past championships on the same golf course -- painting the big picture and drawing you into the subject of architecture.

He didn't write nearly as much on the architectural merits of particular courses, at least that I have seen, although his piece for GOLF DIGEST on why Cypress Point and Seminole and Merion were his favorites was excellent.

Quote from: BCrosby on June 15, 2007, 07:01:58 AM

Darwin is HWW's only rival, but HWW was more influencial. Darwin's stuff is much more meditative. More an internal dialogue between between himself and the game. As good as it is, it never found much of an American audience.
Bob
 

I don't know who was more influential, but I can say that Darwin didn't just write meditative pieces.  He reported on golf and was THE go to man in England for tournament reports for many a year.  I don't think Darwin is getting quite the accolades he deserves for this sort of grind work.  To be honest, Darwin could do any sort of piece concerning golf.  From a British perspective, Darwin knew everybody and their brother in the business, he was around for the passing of British dominance in the game to American dominance and so had a very good understanding of tournament golf in both countries, he was fairly successful in the business of tournament golf, he could turn a phrase with the best of them and the man was intelligent.  

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

Ciao  

Sean

That last paragraph (particularly the last phrase) makes a very important point.  I believe strongly that "Why holes work" (or don't work) is the essence of of golf course architrecture.  You are right that Darwin wasn't particularly good at that, but I think you are wrong to think that Wind was better.  I just took a look at some of his stuff from "Following Through" and all I can see about architecture is a little bit of second hand information (some of it very wrong, some of it very non-GCA.com PC) and some nicely crafted prose.  Very little in terms of original observations or learned insights as to "Why holes work."  IMHO, Wind was a very good journalistic reporter, but not a particularly expressive observer.  Darwin was both.

Rich