Who designed the Old Course?

« **Reply #25 on:** October 12, 2006, 08:30:41 AM »

"The question remains were the whins deliberately destroyed between 1885 and 1900 or did they just die off (as Hutchinson implies). "

And may I ask what the real point of that question is?

It would be just incredible if you would just finally give us a straight answer about what it is you might be driving at here.

A straight answer may actually foster a very interesting discussion here. My guess would be you are trying to prove that this event---eg perhaps the deliberate destruction of the whins was a dedicated attempt to create strategic golf.

If that were the case, that alone would be an interesting subject regarding the evolution of golf and golf architecture and certainly the importance of its timelines.

But what if they only did it as a direct result of congestion and its consequent danger on TOC?

« **Reply #26 on:** October 12, 2006, 08:47:08 AM »

TE
Since the Old Course and its strategic qualities (largely due to its width and placement of hazards) inspired many of the golden age architects I'm curious when, why and how the width came about.

As I've said many times before I think we are just scratching the surface of our knowledge of golf architecture history.

"But what if they only did it as a direct result of congestion and its consequent danger on TOC?"

Whatever the reason...the truth will be interesting to discover. The more information we have the better our understanding will be of the events that followed.

« **Reply #27 on:** October 12, 2006, 09:01:00 AM »

Scottish Golf Course Vegetation 101:
To the uninitiated eye, the casual observer or the downright 'can't be bothered', there are three (3) VERY similar looking shrubby plants which tend to thrive in the conditions found on scottish golf courses.

1. GORSE (Ulex europaeus) - spiky, dark green foliage with yellow flowers.

2. WHIN (Genista anglica) - not so spiky, not so dark green foliage with yes, yellow flowers.

3. BROOM (Cytisus scoparius) - not very spiky at all green foliage with, yes, you guessed it, yellow flowers.

Here endeth today's Botany lesson.

FBD.

« **Reply #28 on:** October 12, 2006, 09:38:36 AM »

Martin - Good stuff. I had always wondered about the distinctions.

When I look out over the high, waving grasses bordering the fw at Muirfield, R. Aberdeen, etc., the tall grasses into which your (or at least my) ball settles and is soon lost forever, is that broom? Or just uncut fescue?

TEP/TMac

I would like to think that the wide playing corridors at TOC were the result of someone deciding that width would be a good thing. I have looked (casually, I confess) for evidence that such a person existed and have found none. I hope someone comes up with a candidate, but my guess is that TOC pretty much stumbled into much of its architectural greatness.

In a way, that makes a lot of sense. It's another example of the "Wisdom of Crowds". A great book, btw.

Bob

« **Reply #29 on:** October 12, 2006, 09:57:35 AM »

;)K....in laymans terms....it got wider to allow for two way traffic, and to create a larger playing field that was needed because the ball kept going farther, creating 'issues'......

« **Reply #30 on:** October 12, 2006, 10:30:12 AM »

Tom MacWood:

You're getting warmer. I've got to hie on out to Pittsburgh and Oakmont (or is it now Treelessmont) but I'll be back tomorrow night and I'll catch you then. Tata.

« **Reply #31 on:** October 12, 2006, 10:44:34 AM »

Martin:

Do you think the "Father" of all golf architecture, Horace Hutchinson, was informed by English Arts and Crafts proponent William Morris (who by the way probably knew nothing about golf or architecture) thusly?

"Look here, Horace, my good man, the time has definitely come to get rid of that F...ing Ulex Europaeus, Genista Anglica and Cytisius Scorpius and widen out that course up there in Scotland thereby ditching this putrid penal architecture which is dehumanizing to the little man and founding A/C strategic naturalized architecture and start to take this pastime to the point where it can become known as "Arts and Crafts Golf" instead of the "Golden Age" of golf architecture."

Gertrude Jekyll, who overheard this dictate by William Morris to Hutchinson, said:

"What gives WillieM? I thought you wanted me to turn golf and golf architecture into something like a "wild" English Arts and Crafts naturalized garden. How the F... can I do that, you communist putz, if you recommend they destroy all my Ulex, Genista and Cytisius up there in Scotland at The Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Alphonse?"

« **Reply #32 on:** October 12, 2006, 05:46:53 PM »

With respect to width, I have a great sketch of the 6th and 7th holes at GCGC from 1913.

It was one continuous fairway.

I'll send it to Mike Sweeney and see if he can post it.

« **Reply #33 on:** October 12, 2006, 07:25:39 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on October 12, 2006, 06:43:50 AM

I've never been to TOC

Tom

do you plan to visit TOC in the near future?

James B

« **Reply #34 on:** October 13, 2006, 07:56:39 AM »

Quote from: BCrosby on October 12, 2006, 09:38:36 AM

TEP/TMac

I would like to think that the wide playing corridors at TOC were the result of someone deciding that width would be a good thing. I have looked (casually, I confess) for evidence that such a person existed and have found none. I hope someone comes up with a candidate, but my guess is that TOC pretty much stumbled into much of its architectural greatness.

In a way, that makes a lot of sense. It's another example of the "Wisdom of Crowds". A great book, btw.

Bob

Bob
I agree with you...it appears to me it 'just growed' as MacKenzie wrote.

I do find the changes in 1905 interesting with John Low leading the movement. That was probably the first time a modern architectural or strategic approach was used when contemplating changes to the Old Course.

« **Reply #35 on:** October 13, 2006, 08:07:17 AM »

Tom

That latter statement of yours is not worthy of your ambitions. Consider yourself sent homeward tae think again.....

« **Reply #36 on:** October 13, 2006, 08:14:42 AM »

Rich
Did you cover the changes of 1905 in your St. Andrews book?

« **Reply #37 on:** October 13, 2006, 08:46:10 AM »

Tom Mac -

What was The Road Hole like before John Low's changes?

Related questions: When did the train shed come into play on the hole? Or did they (Low maybe?) move the hole around to bring the shed into play after the tracks were laid?

« **Reply #38 on:** October 13, 2006, 08:47:41 AM »

Not in any depth, Tom. As you will (or at least should) know, the right hand side of the course going out is by far the least interesting bit of that track. Whatever Low might have done there he did with stunning mediocrity. That area was and is just a buffer between the Old and New courses. When it was whins, nobody cared. When they built the New, somebody had to create another buffer. Maybe it was Low. Regardless, it's not something any self-respecting Old Dead Guy would want to put on his resume......

« **Reply #39 on:** October 13, 2006, 09:10:56 AM »

Quote from: Rich Goodale on October 13, 2006, 08:47:41 AM

Not in any depth, Tom...Whatever Low might have done there he did with stunning mediocrity.

Rich
Shame on you...perhaps we should both be sent to our rooms.

« **Reply #40 on:** October 13, 2006, 09:22:14 AM »

No, Tom. Shame on Low. If he (or whomever) had done something interesting I would have writen about it. He didn't, as far as I know.

« **Reply #41 on:** October 13, 2006, 09:27:40 AM »

Bob
I'm not sure. They altered the way the green transitioned to the road. They also altered the Eden green...creating a flatish shelf near the back (that dropped off abruptly to the River). They also widened the 12th fairway. They also planted some bunkers between the 6th and 13th and added fairway bunkers at the 9th. I'm still researching what exactly was done.

I'm not sure how Rich deems the work mediocre without knowing precisley what was done. I'm also not sure it is the job of an author documenting the architectural history of a golf course to subjectively decide that changes (fairly significant changes) are not worth documenting because in his opinion the work was mediocre.

« **Reply #42 on:** October 13, 2006, 09:45:57 AM »

Tom

In one brief paragraph you make two serious mistakes. Firstly, while "precisely" is an impossible standard, I do know roughly what was done. Secondly, my work was not nor was ever intended to be "documenting the architectural history" of the Old Course. It, along with the Dornoch and Carnoustie books, was intended to enhance one's experience of playing the course, not just reading about it. What on earth made you think otherwise? Finally, my opinion of course is my own, and nothing more. If you disagree with the mediocrity (or lack thereof) of the right side of holes 2-6 on the Old Course, please tells us why. Have you ever walked or played the course, BTW?

Bob

I think the train tracks (1852) and sheds were there long before Low was out of his nappies.

Rich

« **Reply #43 on:** October 13, 2006, 10:32:40 AM »

Rich
My mistake, I thought you covered the architectural history of those courses as part of your written commentary.

I've not played the Old course so I have no opinion of the quality of the work carried out at 2-6 or the other numerous changes that were made in 1905.

Despite whatever you think regarding the quality of that work those changes were very significant (illustrated by the strong debate at the time and the fact that most of those changes survive today and effect the way the course is played today).IMO anyone who writes about the Old Course's architectural history who doesn't cover those changes has dropped the ball.

But since you didn't write about the architectural evolution of the Old course you obviously didn't drop anything.

« **Reply #44 on:** October 13, 2006, 01:11:04 PM »

Tom

You need to read more closely. All I said was that "my work was not nor was ever "intended to be 'documenting the architectural history' of the Old Course." There are a couple of pages on how the course evolved over the 19th century ("History at a Gallop"--you'll know the reference.....). Having just re-read them for the first time in a long while I note that I discovered that one of things which happened post Playfair and pre-Low was the PLANTING of whins to the right of the expanded Old Course to stabilize the immature dunes in that area.

You should play the course and read the book. They will both amuse you.

If after the course you think the right hand side going out is anything but mediocre, I will be disappointed in your archtectural eye.....

« **Reply #45 on:** October 13, 2006, 01:31:31 PM »

After reading Dream Golf I'm convinced Tom Doak's great-great-great-grandfather "accidently" kicked over his lantern, burning the whins and creating the width.

Mike

« **Reply #46 on:** October 13, 2006, 07:33:56 PM »

Rich:

With a golf course as worldly significant as TOC every evolutionary change probably should be documented regardless of whatever anyone thinks the quality of it was or is.

However, I admire your willingness to make subjective judgements about the work of some of these old dead guys. I think we need to get beyond blind idolatry of those people and put all architecture into historical perspective. In other words, we don't necessarily need to be comparing the work of some of those old architects to the entire evolution of architecture. What we need to do more of is analyze where they were getting to in their own time and particularly how and why.

« **Reply #47 on:** October 13, 2006, 08:36:10 PM »

Sean
Rich is with you in not being a big fan of the Old Course...I wonder if that comes through in his book. You guys are in good company: Vardon, Snead and Hoch.

« **Reply #48 on:** October 14, 2006, 02:31:04 AM »

Sean, I totally agree with you regarding what the Links Trust has done to the Old Course, as well as the entire town of St. Andrews. When I was there in 96' you could tell that it was in the midst of mass commercialization. Still it didn't sway my opinion of what the Old Course means to not only Golf, but Golf Architecture.

I disagree with you regarding the front nine. If anything hole 2, 3, 4, & 6 might have a bit of repetitiveness for you, those particular holes are probably just as much worthy of study then the moree popular and demanding holes on the back. The features on those holes, the shapes, bumps, hollows and where the bunkers are either placed or appear are genuine and sometimes baffling and uncanny when it comes to play.

Realizing you've probably played a billion times more rounds ont he Old Gal, I can only try to remember that brilliance and look for it on our American courses, hoping it changes the same Much & Muchness that most of our designers are producing.

« **Reply #49 on:** October 14, 2006, 05:41:49 AM »

Quote from: Sean Arble on October 14, 2006, 02:02:33 AM

outrageous green fees which serve a purpose I can't understand

How are the green fees outrageous? Judging by the number of people who want to play the course and can't get on, they're actually charging below the market-price. They could probably charge £200 and get away with it.

News:

TEPaul

T_MacWood

Marty Bonnar

BCrosby

paul cowley

TEPaul

TEPaul

Patrick_Mucci

James Bennett

T_MacWood

ForkaB

T_MacWood

BCrosby

ForkaB

T_MacWood

ForkaB

T_MacWood

ForkaB

T_MacWood

ForkaB

Mike Hendren

TEPaul

T_MacWood

Tommy_Naccarato

Chris Kane