News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2006, 04:25:11 PM »
"TEPaul said"
Quote:
You're apparently attempting to quote me above. Those are not my words at all, every single one of them are yours. When you quote somebody, David, a pretty good rule of thumb is not to preface an ersatz quotation of someone else with your own words 'you seem to be saying'.
 

Do you mean like this, from below, which I have bolded but not otherwise altered?  

Quote:
-- But now you have fundamentally altered not only your position, but also the entire nature of the conversation.  You now seem to be saying 'so what if they thought they were rejecting the . . . ."


Yes, just like that. The remark below isn't my words either---they are yours---again.  ;)
 
« Last Edit: March 31, 2006, 04:27:06 PM by TEPaul »

RJ_Daley

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2006, 06:29:24 PM »
Dave and Tom, all I can say is you two have provided one hell of a discussion on both threads, thanks for the monumental efforts.

I'm leaning towards the notion that the "Dark ages" were a symptom of a time when there was great arrogance about the powers and dominion people had over nature, due to the burgeoning industrial-technology age.  Sort of like 'manifest destiny', they didn't give a crap about the aesthetics or the impact on the land, only the technicalities of the game to be mastered.

I think the builders of these monstrosity golf courses did it because they could.  They did know what great golf links looked like.  But, at first they didn't bother to emmulate them. They were more concerned about manufacturing a field of play for their skill set based game, and didn't give a crap about the aesthetics.  They built these formulaic geometric designs out of arrogance and disrespect for nature, not ignorance of what natural links ought to be like.  Most all of them knew how to play the game at the highest level of their times.  But, they didn't have a respect for the cradle of the game in terms of the symbiotic relationship it has with nature and the ground.  When they did add something to a natural links, they put in ugly sleepers, and such because they didn't have an aesthetic awareness of the relationship of the game and the ground, or couldn't be bothered.  They just cared about the penal nature of obstacles to overcome in order to win the match and demonstrate their skills, not the ultimate and total experience of the golfer.

After man went throught the initial phase of arrogance and dominion over the land that the game is played upon, the more aesthetic ethic of the total experience and respect for the land and golfer reasserted itself, as a natural progression of things.  

That is my limitted thoughts that come from your fine thread.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2006, 06:31:37 PM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

TEPaul

Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2006, 07:58:41 PM »
RJ

There's little question that the Victorian Era in England and the entire AGE of the 19th & early 20th century industrial revolution in GB and America was a time of hubris, complex dynamics and all kinds of new possibilities never before known in almost all fields---business, social issues, art, religion, philosophy etc, not to mention the extraordinary connection to almost everywhere railroads were providing in these industrial countries.

Golf obviously benefited from some of those things, particularly business (greater prosperity for a far greater number due to the prosperity of the Industrial revolution) and the far easier transport of railroads.

Arrogance, hubris, the "fin de siecle", if you will, was surely evident but I still just do not see anything much to support the fact that the earliest inland golf architecture in England and America---eg that era from perhaps 1875 to 1910 known as the "Dark Ages" was anything other than the first scratchings of wholly man-made architecture on sites simply not suited for golf (as Behr kept mentioning). The fact that so many of those inland Dark Age course clubs did not even understand the necessity for good golf of really good ground both topographically and vis-a-vis soil conditions is incredibly indicative of the lack of understanding of those early inland examples.

Those rudimentary geometric features that Darwin described as looking like steeplechasing was the result of the unsophisiticated mind as it pertained to the necessity of naturalism for golf on raw sites and certainly in the vein of manufactured architecture which, again, we must realize had never before happened. As C&W mentioned about Old Tom and some of his early Scottish "lay-out" compatriots we probably should hold them that responsible for most of the pathetic attempts at architecture on many of those early Dark Age inland courses for the simple reason that they never stayed there more than a day or two anyway.

This first emigration outside of Scotland was the first attempt at real man-made architecture. We shouldn't forget that. The first attempts!! Can we logically expect those very first attempts inland on those unsuitable sites to be sophisticated or even arrogant or some form of rejection of the almost wholly natural wonderful golf courses of the Scottish linkslands?

I don't think so. What it really was is extremely simplistic AND unsophisticated, as the likes of golf's best observers of that time, Hutchinson, Darwin, Behr and Macdonald said it was.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2006, 08:01:23 PM by TEPaul »

Paul_Turner

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2006, 10:30:14 PM »
It would be interesting to find out how much these rudimentary course cost to be built.
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

TEPaul

Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #29 on: April 01, 2006, 05:43:37 AM »
Paul:

Good point, and one I was going to make but forgot to.

As Darwin mentioned the "layout" designer generally rushed around hurriedly with locals chasing after him staking a tee, a landing area and a green site (generally in some hollow) nine or eighteen times and was then back on the train and out of there with probably a few pounds of a design fee in his pocket.

As for the architectural features of that kind of rudimentary Dark Age course----afterall how much does it cost to demark a tee space on the ground, make about 36 pits and berms 3ft high, 30ft long and 18ft wide, all at exact intervals and a square space for a green on the ground, all to be erected later by cheap labor? I'd say not very much.

How in the world anyone could call that advanced and sophisticated golf architecture, or even that those creating it would call it that is beyond me.  ;)

Bernard Darwin labeled these kinds of early and simple inland courses as what they were---hurried rudimentary inland layouts on land and soil unsuited for golf and the work of simple-minded people that generally looked like a steeplechase course.

In his descriptions of this kind of Dark Age course Darwin was obviously not joking or offering a "throw-away" remark---he was, as always, the excellent golf and golf architecture observer.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #30 on: April 01, 2006, 06:21:19 PM »
TEPaul,
"Avanced and sophisticated architecture" costs money. Maybe these first courses were done simply because the folks who were having them built didn't think it would be prudent to waste a lot of cash on a sport that was in it's infancy here in the U.S..
I don't think it's a stretch to believe that frugal (a familiar word here in New England) clubs looked at it this way. Wasn't golf just another diversion, along with croquet, badminton, tennis, shooting and polo?
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #31 on: April 01, 2006, 07:20:01 PM »
JimK:

Perhaps cost was a factor in the last half of the 19th century, but logically I would think with most of those so-called Dark Age courses done in that early era it was probably simply a lack of expectation and a lack of knowledge. what else would they have done anyway on those inland sites? We shouldn't forget that in that early era golf architecture as we know it really didn't even exist yet. Who did a golf course on an inland site that in any way attempted to mimic nature before Park jr and Sunningdale and Huntercombe? No one did and that's precisely why Park jr has always been given credit for doing the first good golf course architecture in inland England in the Heathlands.

Again, who had ever thought to imitate nature until that point? No one had. That's why this notion that those rudimentary inland courses of the Dark Age of architecture was some general rejection of the linksland is unsupportable.

Bill_McBride

  • Total Karma: 1
Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #32 on: April 01, 2006, 07:47:09 PM »
Patrick, I was just at Pinehurst for three regrettably non-golfing days of business.  I did have time to walk a few holes at #2, what incredibly difficult greens!  There are a ton of pictures on the walls throughout the Carolina Inn of the old days at Pinehurst, where the greens were sand until into the '30's.  And most of those were quite symmetrical, mostly round.

ed_getka

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2006, 07:51:46 PM »
huge embankments thrown up transversely the full width of the course, resembling rifle-pits, of uniform height throughout—hideous excrescences on the fair face of Nature."



That has to be one of my favorite putdowns ever. Old Mr. Travis sure could turn a phrase.
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Adam_F_Collins

Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2006, 11:12:42 PM »
It's funny, the more I see of the supposed 'dark ages' of GCA, the more I feel like it may have been the most exciting time in the history of Golf. They didn't have many "standards" or models or really any conventions to draw upon beyond the links. In a way, (and I may be stoned to death for this) images from the 'dark ages' are often the most surprising, innovative and interesting images of all.

Using the term 'Dark ages' has a similar effect to the periods in history most often referred to as 'dark' - In our preoccupation for how wrong they were, we seem to dismiss it, and learn little of what might have been accomplished there.

GCA has evolved into a spectrum with, on one end, 'realism' or 'minimalism' which attempts to minimize the disruption of the natural landscape and to blend its constructions into the earth as to appear as if it were always there. On the other end would be located a more 'abstract' art of stylized bunker shapes and hazards; 'unnatural', 'contrived' gardens which have a distinctly manmade appearance. However, few of those architects on the 'abstract' end, ever really pushed the art to the limit - Muirhead was most likely one of the few who tried. I'd say Dye is another, to a lesser degree.

Who knows where golf might go, if we weren't such puritans? I may be among those who fear that frontier, but it is interesting to consider.

DMoriarty

Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #35 on: April 02, 2006, 12:14:59 AM »
Dave

The point I was trying to make was that the idea of strategy wasn't fully realized until the start of The Golden Age.  I don't believe there was strategic model for dark agers to look back toward.  Lets say for argument sake that TOC didn't become what we would consider a strategic masterpiece until 1890.  That leaves just over 10 years before Park "discovers" a method to utilize more natural "TOC like" strategy and, importantly, on turf which more resembled links.

Sean,  

I'll take your word for it regarding TOC and the links courses.  Unfortunately, I really don't know much about them much less their history.  Still though, there was much to learn from the early links-- naturalness, whimsy, randomness, quirk, luck, etc.-- yet they not only turned their back on all of this, tried to minimize these whimsy, randomness, quirk, and luck in order to make the game fair-- punish the bad shot and reward the good.  

Quote
I don't think dark agers had enough time to properly formulate, learn, impliment, and assess their design concepts before they were rejected by a more modern and what turned out to be Golden Age wave of designers.  

I think you may be underestimating the prevalence and reach of this style.  As Walter Travis notes in 1902, this style dominated golf in the United States from "Portland [Maine] to Oregon.  And we are not talking about a few "dark ages" courses, but perhaps hundreds.  

DMoriarty

Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #36 on: April 02, 2006, 12:35:50 AM »
This first emigration outside of Scotland was the first attempt at real man-made architecture. We shouldn't forget that. The first attempts!! Can we logically expect those very first attempts inland on those unsuitable sites to be sophisticated or even arrogant or some form of rejection of the almost wholly natural wonderful golf courses of the Scottish linkslands?

I don't think so. What it really was is extremely simplistic AND unsophisticated, as the likes of golf's best observers of that time, Hutchinson, Darwin, Behr and Macdonald said it was.

Yet they were arrogant about their rejection of the links model, and they thought they were being sophisticated in their designs as well.  Nothing the listed authors write contradicts this.

Moreover, the writers of the time tell us they were rejecting the linksland, and tell us that the bunkering and features made the "dark ages courses" superior.  So how can we assume anything else.   To ignore what they have told us and instead substitute our own unsupported, post hoc judgment is fallacious.

Likewise, this notion that a lack of money lead to the "dark ages" features is likewise unreasonable and without factual support.   It is certainly more expensive to build 30, 40 or 50 yard cop bunkers, one or two on each hole, than it is to leave the land alone or sprinkle a few random features here or there.  And many of the clubs we are talking about were monied clubs who could afford to spend more than a little and did.   Does anyone seriously contend that a club like Baltusrol built over a dozen cops because they were trying to save money?  

The amazing thing about this conversation is that many would rather speculate about the way they they think things might have been rather than actually taking a look at the evidence of how things were.  We've no need to speculate about this stuff, because the historical record is now readily accessible.  Thanks USGA!

I've seen no evidence that the features of this era were a result of frugality.   If anything, many of them look like rather large and expensive earth work projects (see the Pinehurst mounds for example.)

Here is a shot of Nassau Country Club from 1909. with their modest clubhouse in the background.  At this time the course was 15 yrs. old.  

« Last Edit: April 02, 2006, 01:50:35 AM by DMoriarty »

Sean_Tully

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #37 on: April 02, 2006, 03:04:59 AM »
The following is from the Guide to American golf by A.H. Findlay. I could not find a date in the book but the last date referenced was 1897 so this is pretty early. The entire book lays out the rules of the game and some thoughts on laying out a course, hints on playing the game, etc.  It seems inevitable that this was used by any number of people as a guideline for their taking up the game and building there own golf course. Funny that there is a reference to steeple chase, but it is not attached to the cop bunker, but a hedge made from branches and is frowned upon.  If you read this and the other articles that I put in a previous thread it shows a very defined description of how to layout a course and build bunkers. The first two articles are very interesting and as you read them you see the thought moving towards allowing nature into the design of bunkers.
http://homepage.mac.com/tullfescue/PhotoAlbum11.html


Where nature, by some oversight, has forgotten to provide
hazards or bunkers, they should be built by man. The best
are made by building a pile of earth work, about waist high
and with sloping sides. The sod should be carefully removed
from the place where the bank is to be constructed, and the
earth thrown up in front of the excavation until a mound of
the right height is formed. Shape the earth so that the sod
may be replaced on the bank thus formed, for this adds
greatly to the appearance of the bunkers and preserves its
shape and outline. The trench behind the mound should be
filled with loose sand, if possible, as to get the ball out of sand
requires a peculiar stroke, unlike any other in golf, and there-
fore adding to the variety of the game, and it is less unpleasant
to play a ball out of sand than out of the mud that is sure to
collect in such a place in wet weather. This bunker may be
either in a straight line across the course, or in a zig-zag pat-
tern like the lines of a fortification. Hazards may be also made
by building hedges of branches, such as are used as hurdles in
steeple-chasing, but these are not so satisfactory, as the ball is
apt to be lost in them or creep into such a nook as to be un-
playable. Wooden hurdles with sloping sides are also open to
objection, as the ball often strikes there and bounds over on
the other side.

2nd part...
This is a perfect description of golf that dominated in America in 1903 when the Oxford and Cambridge Golfing Society’s made a tour of our best courses at the time.  This first page gets to the point of our whole discussion. This is only the first page to three-page article that only gets better when they refer to CGC and some other courses in the East. I have always wanted to see Myopia Hunt Club from the first pictures that I saw of the course, and this article is even greater impetus for me to see the course.

You have to love the intro, I’m sure they had a lot of fun on their trip. In a side note, a member of the OCGS was a young man named C.H. Alison, I wonder if he ever wrote anything about his thoughts on his trip?!!!


Some Reflection Upon American Golf Courses By J. A. T. Bramston
USGA Bulletin November 1903

WHEN our ancestors gave dinner-parties in the hard drinking days, it was customary to put their best wine on the table at an early stage in the meal, the poorer quality being retained until the taste and discrimination of the guests had been somewhat blunted by their potations. This method was adopted by those who had charge of the arrangements of the Oxford and Cambridge Golfing Society's tour. For there is little doubt, at any rate in the minds of the English players, that the best course on which they played was that of the Myopia Hunt Club in Massachusetts. The reason why this course proved so popular was because it presented many of the characteristics of the British links. The holes are made to fit into the natural lie of the ground, and the ground is not tortured and twisted so as to afford holes of the supposed ideal lengths. Moreover, natural hazards are made use of and brought into play wherever possible, and the greens are not banked up and made true with a spirit level, but are left naturally rolling and undulating. All this is admirable, and it proves what a great advance has been made in the American conception of a good golf course, Elsewhere the courses show many proofs that the spirit of mathematics has been abroad. The hole, it has been assumed, must be a definite number of yards in length, and when that distance has been measured off, the green is manufactured irrespective of position, surroundings, and the natural play of the ground. It is easy to see how this method has arisen. It is a direct corollary of the American thoroughness. Some authority gave out that the holes should be of certain varying lengths, and this dictum has been followed out in the absolute letter, without regard for the greater plasticity of treatment demanded of the spirit. But, after all, the origin is more or less immaterial. It is the result which is important. And the result is a number of courses of a very similar nature, which call for the same strokes time after time. There is nothing to make the player exert himself, to draw him out, and compel him to use his judgment. In a word, there is a great lack of interesting shots. Now this plea for interesting shots is not in the least confined to the American courses. The English links (as opposed to the Scotch) have in many cases the same characteristics as those across the Atlantic, arising also from the sudden spring that the game made into popularity. Only this happened in England some fifteen years ago, whereas in America it was more recent. The courses were laid out by a few men whose ideas upon golf were materially the same, and, unfortunately for the game, these were not the best ideas. The result was a crop of holes varying between 300 and 400 yards, with a narrow bunker across the course to catch a miss hit drive and another of the same type in front of the green to entrap a foozled second. But it must be patent that the amount of skill requisite to surmount these obstacles is infinitesimal, and the interest which they arouse really non-existent.

Thanks to the USGA for making this info available on the internet.

Sean_A

  • Total Karma: 4
Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #38 on: April 02, 2006, 04:58:24 AM »
Dave

The point I was trying to make was that the idea of strategy wasn't fully realized until the start of The Golden Age.  I don't believe there was strategic model for dark agers to look back toward.  Lets say for argument sake that TOC didn't become what we would consider a strategic masterpiece until 1890.  That leaves just over 10 years before Park "discovers" a method to utilize more natural "TOC like" strategy and, importantly, on turf which more resembled links.

Sean,  

I'll take your word for it regarding TOC and the links courses.  Unfortunately, I really don't know much about them much less their history.  Still though, there was much to learn from the early links-- naturalness, whimsy, randomness, quirk, luck, etc.-- yet they not only turned their back on all of this, tried to minimize these whimsy, randomness, quirk, and luck in order to make the game fair-- punish the bad shot and reward the good.  

Quote
I don't think dark agers had enough time to properly formulate, learn, impliment, and assess their design concepts before they were rejected by a more modern and what turned out to be Golden Age wave of designers.  

I think you may be underestimating the prevalence and reach of this style.  As Walter Travis notes in 1902, this style dominated golf in the United States from "Portland [Maine] to Oregon.  And we are not talking about a few "dark ages" courses, but perhaps hundreds.  

I guess all of my rable is really leading up to the idea that the so-called "dark ages" existed from the begining of golf until roughly 1900-05.  There are really three elements which make the Golden Age golden.  1. Design with strategy in mind.  2. Utilizing land that was similar to links conditions.  3. The effort to "build" courses which imitated nature.

I don't think there were courses existing before the "completion" of TOC that were obvious models for dark agers to look back toward.  Examples of holes that incorporated all three of the Golden Age principles were not common even on links.  Why else would nearly every links have been radically changed after the completion of TOC?  The improved balls can account for added length in design, but nothing else.  

Granted, the US was probably 15 years behind the UK in developing Golden Age designs.  In that period and previously many Brits came to the States to make their fortune.  I am not convinced that a lot of these "pros" would have been well versed in what we today would consider good design simply because there were few Golden Age courses about to learn from.  I have no doubt that what you say about arrogance and building superior courses is true for some.  Why not?  Architecture was and remains a subjective field.  However, I am not sure this indicates any rule of thumb.

Ciao

Sean
New plays planned for 2025: Ludlow, Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

DMoriarty

Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #39 on: April 02, 2006, 08:23:55 AM »
What follows is an index to courses in the US and Canada from 1899.  The authors acknowledge that the list is incomplete.






« Last Edit: April 02, 2006, 08:24:27 AM by DMoriarty »

TEPaul

Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #40 on: April 02, 2006, 09:32:02 AM »
SeanT:

Thanks for posting the 1903 USGA Bulletin article by J.A.T. Bramston.

That article appears to be an excellent description of not only the state of early geometric so-called Dark Age architecture (perhaps coined by the likes of Macdonald) but also the apparent reasons for it.

I read that article a few montha ago but rereading it I see much in that article that very closely parallels what Max Behr was to write about later regarding the necessity of 'Nature's part' in both golf and golf architecture, and why that was not preserved when golf first migrated out of the Scottish linksland. At that time (1903) Behr was probably an underclassman at Yale and aware of Bramston's article and others like it. Behr was also one of the nation's best amateurs (as well as an excellent tennis player) and probably fairly close to those of the early USGA.

Behr wrote often of the inclination in early golf and its early architecture of the use of what he called 'the game mind of man'. What he meant by that is Man's inherent inclination to define or precisely demark the lines and boundaries of many of his recreational games such as tennis, football, baseball. In this sense the inclination to incessantly measure things in that early Dark Age architecture (the exact dimensions of hazard features, other man-made features as well as the foumulaic length of holes) as mentioned in Bramston's article would seem to be the result of the same motivation.

It is interesting how steeplechasing is mentioned again (that sport's jumping obstacles were exactly defined and measured) as well as the basic model of mathematical military fortifications as they might apply to or look something like the exact dimensions of the hazard features of those geometric early courses.

I think Behr's later description of the inherent "game mind of man" to precisely define and measure his playing fields is an excellent one. As Behr mentioned, this is Man's inherent inclination in most all his "games" (and probably in most things he builds and constructs), as opposed to what Behr terms as "sport" (the necessary inclusion of Nature herself in the contest). This inherent inclination to define, measure and demark produced the playing field of tennis, football, baseball etc, as well as apparently the makeup of early geometric golf courses. It seems this was simply the inherent thing to do with no previous man-made model for golf architecture, with no previous experience in the building of golf courses etc.

Consequently, I would even more seriously doubt that those early geometric, defined, measured, demarked golf courses of the so-called "Dark Ages" were any more a rejection of the natural linksland courses than the playing field of tennis, football, baseball, steeplechasing or even military fortification, all of which preceded golf architecture, were a rejection of something useful in its natural state in such pursuits.

Again, as Behr mentioned, that inherent inclination in many of his sporting recreations is simply the "game mind" of Man, which is little more than his inclination to define, demark and measure.

Doing these things (defining, demarking and measuring) were obviously not just idle endeavors to this inherent inclination of Man---he clearly did it to more completely and closely isolate skill so that it alone could be seen to be the determinant in the outcome of the particular contest.

However, as Behr also said, this was the unfortunate misunderstanding or lack of knowledge on the part of those early erectors of the so-called "Dark Age" courses inland and outside Scotland----eg they took the letter out but not the spirit and essence of the Scottish linksland sport which was the overiding use of Nature herself unaltered and unsullied by the hand of Man.

This is what they did not understand until the onset of "Golden Age" some 2-3 decades later when golf architects first began to turn back to the natural linksland model and more closely examine it perhaps even out of total disgust for what had transpired in the very first early scratchings of man-made architecture on sites outside Scotland and naturally unsuited for the sport of golf.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2006, 09:38:51 AM by TEPaul »

RJ_Daley

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #41 on: April 02, 2006, 05:40:48 PM »
In continuing to consider the methods and motives of those who built the dark age courses, I believe we have to look at the crossections of society at that time.  We have to examine who these movers and shakers were that rapidly brought the game to the American soil.  

Not that the dark ages of the formulaic and geometric didn't also invade England's soil after the games first apearances in England like Royal North Devon and other links.  But once the move out from the links ocurred we did in fact see the construction/manufacture of those same ugly courses there in non-links like ground.  

But, who was responsible for promoting the growth of golf at this burgeoning era of the game?  I think it was the the captains of industry and commerce of the day.  I think the Brits may have wanted to take the letter of the game, the regulations and skill sets of the game from Scotland (where it was always more democratic and eqalitarian) and assign a more aristocratic nature for the gentrified folk that played and have access to the game in England.  Thus, they started "manufacturing" their courses on their own land, in the same mindset that one would expect from "movers and shakers" of a community of people that were used to the methods of the society to which they belonged.  They imposed their will to get it done, on my land,  my way or the highway.  Make it stern and penal!  

Their will picked up on the challenges of the skill set and the "game mind of man", as Tom refers to Behr's comments, and as he states they picked up on the letter of the game, without appreciating the "spirit".  So, with their mindset of dominion over the earth they imposed the rigors of the game by formula and regulation, rather than by the enchantment and harmony with nature of the original game in all of its quirks and uncertainties related to the random naturalness of the links land from which the game was born.  

Johnny Bramson's comments, contrasting the natural and more true to natural golf links ideals VS mathematical and torturous formulaic approaches that they encountered on their U.S. tour reveals what the best players knew - they just didn't find it in the new world of courses built by that same class of movers and shakers on this side of the pond.

In fact, I think that most of the class of people that were developing golf clubs and golfing societies on this side of the Atlantic were Anglophiles.  They were more apt to have encountered the game on trips to England, or if they played in Scotland, they played with English people of commerce and wealth and adapted to the anglo view of things.

Then, look at 'who' pointed out in various inspired writings the hideousness of the formulaic/geometric, dark age golf course designs.  Those commentators were often people that would have naturally reacted to the class distinctions that progressive thinkers were making in opposition to the "robber barrons" and wealth society that were doing all manner of activities to rape the land and garner its resources for their immediate private use and gratification without regard to nature, conservation, or legacy to our successors.  It wasn't just the construction of golf courses, it was much more.

Hunter, Darwin, Behr, Hutchinson, were men that I suspect would not have been sympathetic to the methods and motives or politics of the class of people that were predominantly spreading the game at that time (1890s-20s)  Perhaps their critical comments on the new class of manufactured golf courses was also indicative of their desire to point out the developers methods and motives that were leading to values that were contrary to origins of the game.
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

TEPaul

Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #42 on: April 02, 2006, 10:24:09 PM »
RJ;

Interesting post. I think I understand what you're driving at.

RJ_Daley

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #43 on: April 02, 2006, 11:30:35 PM »
Good, because I probably don't! ::) ;D
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

TEPaul

Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #44 on: April 02, 2006, 11:54:10 PM »
I was afraid of that and consequently worded my post carefully.  ;)

RJ_Daley

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #45 on: April 03, 2006, 12:28:15 AM »
I hereby disclaim everything I have ever said up until now, except those areas where history may prove I was right! :P ::) ;D
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

TEPaul

Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #46 on: April 03, 2006, 09:03:52 AM »
"Hunter, Darwin, Behr, Hutchinson, were men that I suspect would not have been sympathetic to the methods and motives or politics of the class of people that were predominantly spreading the game at that time (1890s-20s)  Perhaps their critical comments on the new class of manufactured golf courses was also indicative of their desire to point out the developers methods and motives that were leading to values that were contrary to origins of the game."

RJ:

An interesting assumption there.

Hunter may've been opposed in some ways to that class and their domination of early golf clubs in the US. Hunter had been of a decided socialist bent but then he was also married to a very rich Connecticut aristocrat. ;)

I wouldn't really know about Darwin but perhaps he followed his Country Life predecessor Horace Hutchinson and was totally influenced by William Morris and the Arts and Crafts Movement. Morris, by the way, was an English political socialist and nigh onto a communist.

As for Max---well who the hell knows about a guy like that? He could've been anything. In the end he created his own over-all philosophy that was based on his own creation of numerology.

But there was one guy among them who supported the aristocrats and their philosophy in earlier golf about totally---eg a card carrying elitist----Charles Blair Macdonald!  ;)  

RJ_Daley

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #47 on: April 03, 2006, 10:20:05 AM »
Tom, as for CB, it would seem that way.  One also would think that MacKenzie was not too sympathetic to any socialist causes from his comments.  I wonder if MacKenzie and Hunter ever had it out?

And yet, this was also the time of Teddy Roosevelt and the Trust Busters, Muckrakers, and Bull Moose, etc.  Reading TRs comments on environmental issues and odes to a vigorous lifestyle, I am inclined to think that he would have gotten on with the Good Dr. quite well.  Even though TR played a little golf but warned Taft that it was a game for sissies.  

But, while I'm no literary expert, nor historian, when reading various passages by the great golf writers, I am put in the frame of mind that comes when I read things written by Roosevelt, and I think that sort of mindset influenced the great golf writers attitudes in that era when it came to describing things in nature, including recreational pursuits in the outdoors, like golf and the fields it is played upon.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2006, 10:21:36 AM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Sean_Tully

  • Total Karma: 0
Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #48 on: June 28, 2006, 09:51:17 PM »
Back to the dark ages!



....
Darwin's words are good enough for me, and I have eyes---I see what many of those early geometric hazard features looked like and I live in a world of steeplechasing and have for about three decades. Believe me it definitely has not changed the look of its features since the 19th century. Are there many examples of steeplechase features which served a dual purpose as a golf hazard???  

David Moriarty, this time you're kidding me right? Golf may have been rudimentary and rough in the last half of the 19th century but I seriously doubt even those people back then would ever think to play golf on a steeplechase course. I asked you if you've ever actually seen a steeplechase course in person, and so now I'll ask you if you've ever seen a steeplechase course after a steeplechase? Are you aware that horses have hoofs or hooves ;) and what they do to turf? Apparently not if you seriously are asking a quesiton like that.

"f you care to present convining facts,  I am willing to be convinced."
....


I could not resist after I saw the following taken from the Golfers Green Book of 1901.


THE Newspaper Golf Club of Chicago was organized in
October, 1899, and incorporated the following month.
From that time until May, 1901, its clubhouse
and grounds were situated in Oak Park at West
Madison street and Carpenter avenue. The officers of the club
during the first year of its corporate existence were: John
D. Sherman, president; Edward G. Westlake and Worthing-
ton Wright, vice-presidents; William H. Freeman, treasurer, and
Joseph E. G. Ryan, secretary. During the fall of 1900 a nine-hole
course was laid out on the infield of the Harlem race track and
early this spring the Newspaper Golf Club leased it for a term of
five years and commenced play in May. While the ground is flat, it contains enough hazards to make play very interesting, the obstructions consisting chiefly of steeplechase jumps, swampy
ground outside of the line of play, and a pond going to the third hole.
The score card, with the name, distance and bogey of each hole, appears on a following page.


Too top off this little bit of information a respectable architect of his time laid out the course and he has ties to Chicago Golf Club!




The course was laid out by...













James Foulis

ForkaB

Re:Dare I Return to the Dark Ages?
« Reply #49 on: June 29, 2006, 02:28:24 AM »
There is a theory that "Jockie's" Burn on Carnoustie (the one which guards the 3rd green was named because it was a water jump on an old race course rather than in honour of some guy named Jock.