Sir Guy speaks

[Paul_Turner]

I'm not so sure about the common land argument.  England had plenty of common land too and the land access rights were as loose as Scotland's.  Land was pretty cheap, for the new clubs being built in the 1920s and 30s.

[Mike Hendren]

Article on artisans at Walton Heath:

http://www.travelandleisure.com/tlgolf/invoke.cfm?ObjectID=5481CA65-1888-48F4-818AFA98B15C685A

Mike

[BCrosby]

Royal St Georges (Sandwich) has an artisan club with its own little clubhouse. My understanding is that there are nominal dues and access to the course is available after 5:00 pm. Greens fees can be paid in kind by work on the course. The day I was there our caddies pointed out several "artisan" groups playing late in the day.

It seems to be an arrangement enjoyed by all.

Bob

[T_MacWood]

Campbell's proposal did not go beyond Great Britain.

"The United States is the richest country in the world. Canada will be out of the wood soon and is closely linked monetarily and industrially with America. South Africa, where golf has made tremendous strides, is also enjoying great prosperity.

This country is now one of the poorest countires with long period of austerities before it. It is therefore quite impossible for us to sustain golf at the same standard as America.

How America plays golf is a matter entirely for that continent. Equally how we play in these islands is a matter entirely for us..."

[ForkaB]

Bob Huntley

I'll have to disagree with you regarding "common ground."  As you will know, the Old Course was in private ownership from 1797 to 1894--a very important period in its (and golf's) development, and including the formative time CB McDonald spent at the University of St. Andrews.  Whilst the clubs and players had significant rights in those days, these were not due to municpal ownership of the land.

TEP

Land was cheap in the USA at the time when most of the great courses were built.  You should look into the history of Myopia some time--it was founded by a group of teenagers as a place to play games out of the scrutiny of their parents!

Also, as Paul Turner rightly states, the same can be said for courses South of the (Scottish) border.  One of the reasons the great courses there were built on heathland and linksland is that that land was cheap, and not really fit for any other purpose than golf.

[Sean_A]

I too find the artisan side of clubs fascinating.  I wonder how many golf clubs with a course were considered artisan clubs by their members?  

I am particularly interested in the village society of Brancaster.  Does anybody know where to find info?

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

"I'll have to disagree with you regarding "common ground."  As you will know, the Old Course was in private ownership from 1797 to 1894--a very important period in its (and golf's) development, and including the formative time CB McDonald spent at the University of St. Andrews.  Whilst the clubs and players had significant rights in those days, these were not due to municpal ownership of the land."

Rich;

Who actually "owned" the land the course (links--TOC) St Andrews is on (and others like it of that time) at some particular point is not the point here unless the ownership of that land during that time in some way altered the way that land was used in the context of "common" ground including the "democratic" playing of the game of golf on it. And it appears we can be pretty sure some ownership of that land between 1797 and whenever did not alter its use for golf and how it was democratically played at all.

That's the point. That's the unique point a man such as Macdonald (and many others before him, some of whom are quoted in his book) made about golf, it's unique "spirit" there and in Scotland as well as its unique "democracy".

If you have it, read the first chapter of Macdonald's book "Scotland's Gift Golf". That first chapter is just shot through with his own personal and highly detailed accounts (with supporting quotations from others long before him) of the ethos of golf there and for literally centuries before. The "democratic" spirit of the game appears total.

If you happen to think Macdonald and all those quoted by him are just telling false and tall tales about those unique characteistics of golf in Scotland during those times then so be it. I don't think that at all.

Those so-called "commons" (despite who may've actually owned them at some point) clearly inspired a "spirit" and "democracy" in early golf in Scotland that even Macdonald who loved it so much came to understand (to his chagrin I might add) was in many ways not transportable to other lands and other cultures. Macdonald concluded that that "spirit" of the game, probably largely including its spirit of democracy was just not transportable because other countries and cultures, particularly America just had none of that history with the game that Scotland did.

[ForkaB]

Tom

You are wrong.  Read up on the "Rabbit Wars" on the links of St. Andrews in the 1797-1821 period, if you wish to know some facts, rather than just off the top of your head speculations.  The Old Course was essentially ruined for golf during that period.

PS--when you do, tell us exactly how many acres of the Pimour Links were used for golf during that period? It would surprise most of the people on this board......

[TEPaul]

Rich:

We aren't talking about some period of "rabbit wars" here, we're talking about if there was some unique "democratic" spirit to the game of golf because of how it evolved in Scotland. The history of the "common" ground aspect of the linksland of Scotland is clearly intimately and historically wrapped up in that "democratic" spirit of the game there.

If you want to make some trivial and petty point about rabbits during a number of years in the broad scheme of things in the centuries long evolution of golf in Scotland just to make yourself look like you're aware of some arcane "facts" that had some massive influence to the contrary then go ahead and do it.

In the meantime you're implying Macdonald and all those who came before him and the time he was reporting his personal observations on were not the truth. They were there then Rich, and you most certainly were not no matter what you think of rabbits and their shennanigans or some shennanigans over them on the links for a couple of years.

The trouble with you is it seems when anyone reports from the respected and collected history of that time in Scotland you seem to take it as some type of personal effront that they may know something and report something that only you who lives there should be able to report. I don't think it works that way, particulary when you start denying perfectly respected written history in the process.

Are you calling Macdonald's book and the information in it, particularly the first chapter of it in the context of this point on this thread "off the top of my head"? Because if you are, I hardly need to say more.

[ForkaB]

Tom

It was thee who made the statement below, not CB or even me:

"Who actually "owned" the land the course (links--TOC) St Andrews is on (and others like it of that time) at some particular point is not the point here unless the ownership of that land during that time in some way altered the way that land was used in the context of "common" ground including the "democratic" playing of the game of golf on it. And it appears we can be pretty sure some ownership of that land between 1797 and whenever did not alter its use for golf and how it was democratically played at all."

Thee wert wrong.  The ownership during that important quarter of a century did in fact "alter its use for golf and how it was democratically played..."  This was 50-75 years before CB made his way to St. Andrews, so I don't fault him for not knowing that.  As for you, however, for shame!

The only things I ever try to "defend" on this site are the truth and the freedom of people such as you to say whatever you want, even if what you say is untruthful.  Hang in there, buckaroo, you'll eventually get the hang of it!

[TEPaul]

Rich:

If the so-called "Rabbit Wars" had some real effect on the spirit of "democracy" of golf in Scotland then let's see you attempt to prove that point. Or do you feel that simply mentioning that the "Rabbit Wars" happened makes that point?  

[ForkaB]

Tom

You actualy said:

".....unless the ownership of that land during that time in some way altered the way that land was used in the context of "common" ground including the "democratic" playing of the game of golf on it."

From the official history of the St. Andrews Golf Links:

"....the rabbits did what rabbits do best, and within a short time the links, including the golfing area, was a vast rabbit warren and practically ruined as a golf course."

Draw you own conclusions, if you so wish

[Tony_Muldoon]

Thus far we have a written history from the Father of a Knight of the Realm and the recolections of a man TE Paul has previously declared to be a first rate snob.  These writings date from a time when Droit de Signeur was still in existance in parts of GB & I.

CB McDonald was schooled in this stuff by his paternal grandfather a member of the R & A, so he should know his history, albeit from a certain perspective.

I remain unconvinced that golf was as democratic as is presented by these people.  I feel that compared to say carear oportunities it was probably more open than society in general, but golf has always been orgainsed like any other human activity.  Like minded folk organise together to protect themselves.

Occasionally exceptionally skilled performers from the lower ranks would partially break through and the upper eschellons would be happy to play with e.g. Tom Morris. But with the price of a feathery and the limited time available for the working man to play it could never have been as equal as presented.

[T_MacWood]

"I've noticed you've made a number of posts with only a number of Guy Campbell's quotations on them. Have you a point to make on any of his quotations?'

TE
I find his thoughts and ideas interesting....I thought I'd share them. As questions or misconceptions arose, I brought out another quote to clarify or elaborate his position.

Not only are his proposals interesting--understanding the context of when they were made--but they are also interesting when contrasted with the RTJ era that emmerged.

[Tags:]

Tags: