Early North American golf course architecture

[Philip Spogard]

Tom,

I have tried to ask you a couple of times:

What is your opinion on Old Tom Morris' work?

Is he not responsible for any gca as we know it?

Did he only do quick routings?

Was he "only" the greenkeeper?

[TEPaul]

Philip;

In the book "The Architects of Golf" there's a good general explanation of Old Tom Morris, the architects of his time, their architecture and somewhat of an explanation of Old Tom's architecture.

In Part One of Cornish and Whitten's massive book on the history of golf architecture there are twelve chapters tracking and explaing the entire history and evolution of golf course architecture. The second chapter is entitled "Old Tom and Others".

If you want answers to your questions on Old Tom Morris, his architecture and the influence of it, I suggest you read that chapter, at least.

Personally, I find little suspect about Cornish and Whitten's description of Old Tom Morris, his time, its architecture and its influence. The way they present it seems to me to be pretty unimpeachable.

There are some on this website, it seems to me, who for whatever reason from time to time think they can add information to that time for the purpose of reinterpreting that time, its facts, history and particularly its influences on the later evolution of architecture but I think we should be careful of how we view that. It looks to me like the early history of golf course architecture was pretty well and pretty comprehensively written. I doubt some hitherto unknown and  primary influence on it from that time or any other time will suddenly pop up at this point in golf architecture's evolution.

Perhaps our job on here as researchers and analysts is to delve a little deeper into some of the details of earlier times or just bring some of those well-worn old architectural history books, periodicals, articles, photographs etc back into the light. Personally, I don't think any of us should be looking to reinterpret the history and evolution of golf course architecturte in some attempt to show we may've found some primary influence on it that noone ever knew before existed.  

To me that kind of thing gets into historical revisionism and often unnecessary glorification of people and their times.

[T_MacWood]

Phillip
Old Tom Morris was a beloved golf figure, universally admired and repected by everyone assocatiated with the game. One can not criticized  a person for not being head of his time. Old Tom was laying out courses during the Stone Age--rectangular gun-platform greens, crossing holes and straight line ditches referred to as bunkers.

IMO he gets too much credit for his architectural accomplishments. He benefits from significant changes to his work by subsequent superior architects and he is given credit for work that existed long before he arived on the scene (he did a lot of consolidating). On the other hand, he no doubt found and devised a number of excellent natural holes, precisely which holes he deserves credit for is difficult to say.

After reading Sean A.'s and Rich's comments, you would think he designed the Old Course as well. I think it could be argued the most signifcant changes to TOC came during Alan Robertson's reign. Whoever's reign you want to analyze, neither one of these gentlemen made a change to TOC that was not dictated by the powers that be....which makes sense since they (Robertson and Morris) were more or less independent contractors.

From what I gather Morris was a top shelf greenkeeper. His advisory services were as much for greenkeeping as laying-out or consoldating golf courses. He was the from the wham-bam-thank-you-mam school of design, and charged very little. Like the other pro/clubmakers of his day, his main interest was in creating clientel for his golf equipment.

PS: You don't have to answer the questions I asked you before.

[Sean_A]

Tom

I in no way intended to imply that Old Tom was the designer of TOC.  My intention was to point out that many of the options or alternate routes a player has at TOC are down to the width of the course.  TOC is well known for its playability by all levels of golfers because it has generous playing zones.  The width and therefore what we largely recognize today as TOC is because Old Tom more or less doubled the width of fairways and greens.  Thus creating 18 holes (after creating separate greens for #1 & #17).  

This widening of the course eliminated much of the penal aspect of TOC and created strategic options for the player.  At the time he was clearing out whins and gorse, it was deemed very contoversal because the course became much easier to play.  However, certainly by the 1890s, TOC was recognized as the grandest test of the day and as a textbook on golf architecture.  

Ciao

Sean

[T_MacWood]

You read too much Kroger....you need to diversify.

[TEPaul]

Are Cornish and Whitten wrong in attributing to Allan Robertson the widening of TOC's fairways from their original 40 yard width as well as the creation of the double greens? They say he did this on the urging of St Andrews provost Sir Hugh Playfair and that he did it in 1848. Around this time they also say he created the famous Road Hole. Sounds to me as if widening out the fairways and perhaps bringing into play real strategy with natural bunkers inside fairway lines and certainly the creation of the famous double greens is one helluva lot of design and architecture for a previously all natural course like TOC.

Cornish and Whitten also describe Roberston as the golf's first greenkeeper, first golf professional and first designer. Wouldn't one think that a man who did all that at the so-called "Home of Golf" might be considered a fairly large influence on the art of golf architecture to come?

Is one of the problems here that Roberston apparently died rather prematurely at 44? Has Roberston's place in golf architecture been looked at too little because perhaps Old Tom Morris's place in architecture has been looked at too much?

Rich Goodale claims that since Old Tom was the greenkeeper of TOC for 38 years he was responsible for the "look" of the course which he claims hasn't changed much since.

But last time I heard greenkeeping and the maintenance of a golf course is definitely not the same thing as the design of a golf course. Again, on a golf course as old as TOC is which before say 1848 could be considered almost wholly "natural" it would seem the widening out of the fairways and the creation of double greens, including the creation of the Road Hole might be considered a pretty large percentage of the man-made design and architecture of TOC.

I realize Old Tom created the 18th hole but come on Rich tell us what else Old Tom was responsible for there in an architectural context, not in a maintenance context. Or perhaps you aren't that aware of the difference or that there is one.

I'm not disagreeing with you on Old Tom and his architectural influence or contribution, I'm just asking you, in an architectural context with Old Tom, "where's the beef?"

And I'd love an answer to my question to you previously;

What do you think Morris may've done differently as a greenkeeper for 38 years at TOC than Eb Steineger as a greenkeeper at PVGC for 56 years? And if it was similar do you think Steineger should be considered an important influence on golf architecture too? How about Joe Valentine for about 35 years at Merion and followed by his son Richie for some decades.

To tell you the truth I think Richie should get a ton of credit for influencing golf course architecture but maybe as a redesigner. Here's why;

Significant Merion Member to Richie:
"Richie, I don't like automobile headlights from Golf Club Rd near #14 green hitting me in the eyes when I'm trying to enjoy a drink on the patio."

Richie to significant Merion member:
"No problem at all sir, I'll take care of it immediately."

And the next day some pretty cool mounds exsited around #14 green so headlights on Golf Club Rd would not disturb the drinking enjoyment of a significant member. Would you call that architecturally strategic, tactical, aesthetic or something else? Whatever it was it sure wasn't maintenance Rich!  

[Sean_A]

Tom P.

It is interesting that Cornish and Whitten give Robertson the credit for widening the fairways and greens and Kroger and Hamilton give credit to Old Tom.  

Hamilton, in his Golf: Scotland's Game, suggests that Old Tom widened fairways.  Kroger believes that maps point out that TOC was not yet fully widened by as late as 1879 (long after Roberetson was dead, 1859) because the line of play "was still directly over the major bunkers".  However, the map he provides is not conclusive as far as I can tell.  Though, the missing right hand bunkers going out does suggest that the course was net yet "finished" as we know it.  

I certainly don't know who is responsible for sure, but, if I was going to bet, I would bet on Hamilton.  This guy is very meticulous with research and well known for it.  In addition, his book is very focused on the subject at hand.

Kroger cites Cornish and Whitten in his book, but curiously comes to a different conclusion concerning Old Tom.  Additionally, C&W cite Old Tom as "at the top of recognized links designers in the last half of the nineteenth century", but make no mention of what Old Tom did architecturally at TOC.  This may have no significance at all, but given the scope of their work (The Golf Course was a massive project) and the intent (a quick reference, rather than great detail), it is very possible that C&W are incorrect.  

Perhaps somebody else could shed some light on the situation.  

Ciao

Sean

[TEPaul]

Sean:

In something of the size and scope of Cornish & Whitten's "The Architects of Golf" obviously there're going to be mistakes simply because of the nature of who they had to depend on for information. Maybe someone was wrong about Roberston widening TOC and creating double greens around 1848 and about Sir Hugh Playfair and his part in getting Robertson to do it but I have a hard time believing C&W would've just made something like that up on their own out of thin air.  

The curious thing is some of you keep claiming that Old Tom did so much architecturally at TOC but other than #18 no one seems to be able to explain what it is he did do architecturally.

[TEPaul]

"It would be wonderful if somebody had old photos/maps to post."

Sean:

In 1848 I doubt there were many golf course photos or golf course maps. Something is fishy here. Who is this dude Sir Hugh Playfair, apparently a provost of St Andrews and did he actually get Robertson to widen the course while he was on that mission to spiff up the town? What's the possibility that Old Tom Morris was just sort of a tourist ploy? He kinda looked the part of the avuncular old father of golf but maybe they just drummed him up out of Central Casting to promote tourism. His day job when there were no tourists around could've been just some manual laborer on the maintance crew who doubled as a club repairman in the back of the pro shop. At night he probably slopped suds in one of the local beer joints. You never know about some of the stuff the Scots try to come up with. They once even claimed they invented the hula hoop for God's sake, until Philadelphia's Chubby Checker did the necessary research and proved them wrong.

[T_MacWood]

With all due respect to Kroger and Hamilton, by far the most comprehensive and impressive research is found in Alastair Johnston's Chronicles of Golf. The widening began during Robertson time...when they first began to cut two holes (expanding what would become double greens and adding the three solo greens). It is also clear that Robertson and Morris did not act proactively, the decisions came from above--the committee, captain, et al.

[Philip Spogard]

To me it is somewhat funny, that Robinsons changes to TOC is accepted as valid when almost everything Old Tom Morris has contributed to TOC - and other courses - seems to be answered with a question in return!?

I think TEPaul and Tom Mac are grasping for straws. In my opinion do not underestimate Old Tom Morris and his views upon gca. If you guys sat down with e.g. Mackenzie for a year or two wouldn't there be a possibility that it would change your view on gca? Even though you did not mention it in a book?

OTM is creditted with a lot of excellent routings and designs. Please don't try to question it to much - AND if you do, please back it up with documentation. I think it is quite concerning that Tom Mac answers every question with a question - without answering any himself. Please try to document why you think OTM is not responsible for anything regarding to gca when most litterature on the subject sugest otherwise. If you demand documentation - at least provide some for you own statements!  

[TEPaul]

PhilipS:

Your last post is pretty disappointing. His name is Robertson, not Robinson. We're not exactly questioning Old Tom Morris's bona fides as a truly significant man in early golf---there's no real question about that. What we are questioning is what specifically his influence was on actual golf course architecture. Was he, for instance, innovative in some architectural way that later architects were influenced by and emulated? Were any of the things he contributed to architecture significant and influential to what others did after him? If he did do any of those things or was influential in that way then why can't those who say he was point out to us specifically what that was? I'm sorry, but for someone to say something like he was the greenkeeper at TOC for 38 years and was therefore responsible for its "look" does not really cut it for me as a significant architectural influence. The golf courses he laid out?? Tell us something about them that remains that's architecturally influential (other than TOC's #18). If any of you can do that I promise I will seriously listen and consider his influence on architecture.

So let's hear it---other than the unconvincing generalities that've been heretofore mentioned. The thing you don't seem to get, PhilipS, is just because a man like Tom Morris was famous in early golf doesn't necessarily mean he had talent that was influential in golf course architecture.

[T_MacWood]

Phillip
I admire your efforts to ask questions and to learn about the history of golf architecture...my advice to you is to keep an open mind and do your own digging. If you are truly interested in the history of golf architecture, you will find over time that whatever you believe today may not be what you believe tomorrow. In fact, I will guarantee it will not be.

Do you want to touch my monkey?

[Kyle Harris]

Philip,

Your dedication is certainly admirable. May I recommend you take a look at some of the excellent In My Opinion pieces on this site?

I lurked here for a little over a year reading the discussions and reading those articles before I started posted and it helped immensely. These guys know their stuff, that's for sure.  

[Philip Spogard]

TEPaul,

The "Robinson" was a slip of tongue. Sorry.

I will look more into OTM and we might take up the discussion later on. I will try to keep an open mind   I really respect your opinion which might very well be entirely true. I just believe OTM, being who he was, COULD have been very aware of what he did.

Enjoy your sunday,

Philip

[TEPaul]

"I will look more into OTM and we might take up the discussion later on"

Philip:

I hope you do. I hope we all do. There's not much more I can do because I simply don't have any more resource material other than what's right here in my house, and I'm not very good at searching the Internet which probably isn't that useful with something like this anyway. And I've never even been to TOC. Some contributing on here obviously have some good and specific books on the subject. But I encourage you to read the first few chapters of Cornish and Whitten anyway on this subject of Robertson, the Dunns, Old Tom Morris and some of the other very early architects for the simple reason that what they say certainly seems to be a logical chronology and explanation of those men and what was going on back then in golf course architecture. I have no idea where they got their information but I sometimes take real exception to some on here who just float various scenarios, assumptions and conclusions of their own with nothing much to actually support it that runs sometimes totally contrary to much of the written history of this time.

In my opinion, these early guys like Robertson and Morris at TOC are very important to know as much about as possible for the simple reason they were the few who were at the beginning of it all--eg basically the very beginning of the sort of formalized practicing of man-made architecture---the actual construction of elements of courses that were other than actually natrual.

Looking back at them and even the rudimenatary architectural things they were beginning to do to me is a bit like standing in the old section of Rome and looking at the layers of civilizations that almost seem to be the nexus of myth and reality, if you know what I mean.

Keep digging and questioning and analyzing Philip, that's what this website is so good at. And I do agree with you that when these discussions are carried on on here it's better to answer questions with answers rather than just with another question, even if those answers are as simple as "I just don't know".  

[T_MacWood]

"...Robertson info is still inconclusive and too vague. "

What is vague about the info in Johnston's book? The widening began during Robertson's time.

Johnston owns every book ever written on the game, including every book dealing with St. Andrews and quotes from just about all of them. Its not vague in the least.

It is also clear--to anyone who has read the book--that changes to the course, including the widening, were initiated above. You can look at all the maps you want, it will not change that fact.

The widening occured for practical reasons, not because of a profound architectural or strategic intuition. And from what I understand some of it occured naturally, the whins began dying off for whatever reason....it was quite disturbing to the old timers. I'm not sure if it was due to the heavy play or some other reason.

I don't want to burst your bubble, but your romantic view of OTM the great architect is not based in reality.

PS: I've heard about it, but I haven't seen that new book. I met a man who was researching and writing a similar book, but was beaten to the punch by these other gents.

[BCrosby]

David Joy would seem to agree with Tom Mac and TEP on this. His view is that the widening was not a design goal in itself. Rather it was a consequence of the back and forth routing and, with golf's increased popularity mid-1800's, a desire to provide better access for galleries during Opens and other important matches.

Think of TOC as the first stadium course.

Bob

[BCrosby]

Sean -

Agreed. The irony runs pretty deep.

You have to smile a wry smile indeed when it hits you that the width of TOC, one of the features that makes TOC so great and one of the most important features in great architecture generally, was a by-product of changes made for other reasons.

Another case where the truth is more interesting than fiction.

Bob

[T_MacWood]

I never said Old Tom was great architect.  I said that perhaps Old Tom was more influential on American architecture than CB Mac was.  I abviously don't know the answer, but neither do you.  We are stating opinions Tom.  Don't get too caught up in facts, because few have been presented.  In any case, I find the question of who was  responsible for the look of TOC much more interesting.  

Ciao

Sean

We do know the answer....he wasn't. His biggest influence was in what not to do. You don't know the difference between the National Golf Links and Shinnecock Hills, but you do know Old Tom was the major influence on American golf architecture?

I'm not sure of the exact measurements of the widening, but it really doesn't matter. The widening was not done for reasons relating to strategy or architecture and Robertson and Morris did not act independently.

I know you are dying to credit Old Tom the architectural genius for St. Andrews, but I'm affraid you'll have to look elsewhere. Good luck.

[ForkaB]

Tom Jarrett's book "St. Andrews Golf Links:  The first 600 Years," says the following:

"Tom Morris....had no part in the origins of the double green.  He was, however, closely involved in the subsequent development of the Old Course--widening the fairways and the strategic planning of the new layout.

The concept of the double greens was probably the brainchild of Sir Hugh Lyon Playfair...."

I will take the word of Jarrett, historian, life long resident of St. Andrews, former Captain of the New Gofl Club and former Trustee of the St Andrews Links over anybody else mentioned or posting on this thread--including me!

[T_MacWood]

I will take the word of Jarrett, historian, life long resident of St. Andrews, former Captain of the New Gofl Club and former Trustee of the St Andrews Links over anybody else mentioned or posting on this thread--including me!

Rich
I'll let you determine which of the many historians over the years are worth considering and which are not (including yourself)...I'm sure you know better than I, or anyone else for that matter. I guess you do consider yourself a historian afterall. With all due repect, you probably shouldn't put all your eggs in Jarrett's basket (which may have been your mistake at Dornoch)...you ought to give Johnston a read, very impressive research IMO. And from what I understand the new book Sean mentioned might be the definitive book on St. Andrews.

It is clear to me the widening was done for practical reasons. And Robertson and Morris did not act independently...the various committees at St. Andrews called the shots. There was some deliberate thinning of the whins, but they also lost a lot the whins from natural causes (to the dispointment of many old timers).

Sean
I agree with you...this is a discusion group. Which is what we are doing.

[Mike_Cirba]

Sir Hugh Playfair was an indefatigable rogue and scurrilous scoundrel and there is no way I can accept that he was the father of golf design in North America, double greens or not!  

[ForkaB]

Mike

Would it help you to know that Sir Hugh was also the eminence gris behind the Arts and Crafts movement?

[T_MacWood]

From what I understand, Rich is in the process of making the case that it was actually Old Tom's dog (Bandit) who was THE major influence of early American golf architecture. Bandit used to hide in the whins causing the Old man much difficulty, so one day Old Tom decided to smoke Bandit out, tourching all the whins....and the rest is history.

According to Rich, Bandit was also responsible for the first dogleg ("Bandit's Bend" at Musselburgh) and the design of 'Perfection' at North Berwick which was originally in the shape of a fire hydrant.

Bandit eventually left St. Andrews, hooking up with visiting scientist and his son.

Praise Hadji.