Capability Brown vs Gertrude Jekyll

[TEPaul]

"Ward
They were all influenced by links courses...which is the point of the A&C theory........All three wrote about blending their work with nature."

Wow, if that doesn't just take the cake.

They sure did write about blending their work with nature, and they all wrote not just about Nature but the natural golf course model of the linksland, particularly TOC. TOC and the linksland model was mentioned by just about everyone of them and in writing.

This is what I've been telling Tom MacWood for over a year---eg it was the linksland model that powerfully and primarily influenced the Golden Age beginning inland in the English Heathlands.

Now Tom MacWood seems to have completely conceded my point and completely endorsed my year long contention, but now he's actually labelling my point the point of the A/C theory?!?  

Wow, that's a pretty neat trick in specious reasoning. In a classic debate format that would be akin to completely conceding my point but relabelling my point his point.

Unbelievable. I think I have just seen "postivism" taken to an unimaginable extreme!  

But it does appear he's finally come around to conceding my point that the linksland and particularly TOC really was the most powerful influence on the Golden Age of golf course architecture.

And with that, I pretty much rest my case.  

 

[T_MacWood]

TE
It appears you are having trouble digesting the idea that the A&C movement promoted home grown, naturally evolved, vernacular designs as models.

For some reason you believe the links model and the A&C movements ideas about vernacular design are mutually exclusive...that is where your problem lies...one of them anyway.

[TEPaul]

"TE
It appears you are having trouble digesting the idea that the A&C movement promoted home grown, naturally evolved, vernacular designs as models.
For some reason you believe the links model and the A&C movements ideas about vernacular design are mutually exclusive...that is where your problem lies...one of them anyway."

Tom MacWood:

Oh no it doesn't and that you just keep saying that to me simply shows just how lame that response has gotten or how either obtuse or obdurate you really are on this subject.

The term "postivism" to describe the way you rationalize this subject, or perhaps any subject you fail to analyze correctly is a very good term for you and it seems to get better every day as you keep responding with the same remark and response as the one above.

I think the Scottish linksland, TOC, and its kind would be sort of amused by the way you seem to suggest that it actually took someone like a William Morris and his "Arts and Crafts" movement and his ancillary proponents like a Gertrude Jekll of the latter part of the 19th century who had nothing whatsover to do with golf or golf architecture to inform the world of golf and golf architecture what that linksland model was in a naturalistic sense and that the naturalistic model of the linksland and TOC had been there as that model for literally hundreds of years before Morris or his A/C movement were even born.

And not just that but it appears you are now even trying to rationalize (positivism) that it took the A/C movement to first inform the entire world of art of any kind about the aspect and uses of naturalism in their art forms.

I think some most of the world's art history experts would be a bit more than a little surprised by that assumption and conclusion coming from the man in the Ivory Tower in Ohio who never takes his head out of old periodicals.  

[wsmorrison]

"...the A&C movement promoted home grown, naturally evolved, vernacular designs as models."

Tom MacWood,

Weren't there home grown, naturally evolved, vernacular designs used as models before the A&C movement?  Of course there were.  Now, if so, why do you insist that contemporary and subsequent models are necessarily so directly linked to the A&C movement?  Isn't it possible that there was some influence that could be minor and not major?  Why is it necessarily so that the influence of links courses has to be tied to the A&C movement?  If it is, as you say, then the proof has to be better than you are currently providing.

I don't read much about the subject matter, so please don't belittle me.  I admit as much.  To tell you the truth, this thread and others before it are turning me off to the subject matter.  I am coming more from a perspective of reasoning cause and effect.  I don't see where you've made that connection.  

[T_MacWood]

I think the Scottish linksland, TOC, and its kind would be sort of amused by the way you seem to suggest that it actually took someone like a William Morris and his "Arts and Crafts" movement and his ancillary proponents like a Gertrude Jekll of the latter part of the 19th century who had nothing whatsover to do with golf or golf architecture to inform the world of golf and golf architecture what that linksland model was in a naturalistic sense and that the naturalistic model of the linksland and TOC had been there as that  model for literally hundreds of years before Morris or his A/C movement were even born.

TE
You can look at golf architecture in some kind of cultural vacuum if you wish.

What does the age of the Old course and other links have to do with the reasons why the Victorian golf architects chose not use it as their model and why the heathland boys did?

Thats like saying since Greece and Rome existed centuries before the men who promoted Classicism in the 18th C. (or those involved in the Gothic revival in the 19th C) really had no effect. You really have a peculiar way of looking at history.

[T_MacWood]

"...the A&C movement promoted home grown, naturally evolved, vernacular designs as models."

Tom MacWood,

Weren't there home grown, naturally evolved, vernacular designs used as models before the A&C movement?  Of course there were.  Now, if so, why do you insist that contemporary and subsequent models are necessarily so directly linked to the A&C movement?  

Yes. I don't understand your question.

I just don't see why the classic era golf architecture has to be viewed within the A&C movement but rather with some overlap only.

I'm trying to explore the reasons why the revolution in golf architecture took place at the turn of the century in London.

Isn't it possible that there was some influence that could be minor and not major?  Why is it necessarily so that the influence of links courses has to be tied to the A&C movement?

Of course its possible...anything is possible. History is in many ways historians best guess of what happened based upon the information they've gathered. Often are understanding evolves as more information comes out or as the information is analzed in a different light.

Based upon the information I have gathered about those early years of golf architecture, the ideas and attitudes of the men inolved, their enviroment culturally, ecocomically and geographically it is my opinion that the A&C movment was a catalyst.

If it is, as you say, then the proof has to be better than you are currently providing.

I don't read much about the subject matter, so please don't belittle me.  I admit as much.  To tell you the truth, this thread and others before it are turning me off to the subject matter.  I am coming more from a perspective of reasoning cause and effect.  I don't see where you've made that connection.

Thats fine...perhaps as you look at this period more closely you will either agree or come up with an alternative explanation.

I don't blame you for being turned off, I don't think there has been a subject on GCA that has been probed, prodded and picked at more - dead horse syndrom. Ironically it all started when it was learned I was writing an essay on Crump.

Speaking of belittling what do you make of TE's last post?

[TEPaul]

"Tom MacWood,
Weren't there home grown, naturally evolved, vernacular designs used as models before the A&C movement?  Of course there were.  Now, if so, why do you insist that contemporary and subsequent models are necessarily so directly linked to the A&C movement?"

Wayne:

My point precisely. That Tom MacWood seems oblivious to that patently obvious fact or unable to admit it has become really unbelievable---so much so, in fact, that I would expect it to begin to really effect the crediblity of much of what it being discussed on this website in this vein and on this subject in particular. It could even become embarrassing in how irrational some on here can be when they categorically refuse to concede a point and admit to what anyone can see is obvious.

[TEPaul]

"Speaking of belittling what do you make of TE's last post?"

Tom MacWood:

To belittle your point is to belittle you??

Now that's interesting, and I must admit is what I always figured about you. Perhaps that's precisely why you seem to find it nigh on impossible to admit to the obvious about the lack of a powerful influence of the A/C movement on the Golden Age of golf architecture or that the Golden Age should not be relabeled "Arts and Crafts Golf".

[T_MacWood]

TE
Don't worry I can take it...the comments about Ivory Towers in Ohio and never taking my nose out of old periodicals don't bother me, I'm used to them by now. I just thought it was a little ironic that Wayne would request that I not belittle him.

Its also ironic that there appears to be only one party involved in this back and forth between you and I that ever brings any specific information or research to the debate. You've got a lot of interesting theories and such, but little or no specific information.

I think we all be better off when your USGA inintiative becomes a reality.

[TEPaul]

"TE
You can look at golf architecture in some kind of cultural vacuum if you wish.
What does the age of the Old course and other links have to do with the reasons why the Victorian golf architects chose not use it as their model and why the heathland boys did?
Thats like saying since Greece and Rome existed centuries before the men who promoted Classicism in the 18th C. (or those involved in the Gothic revival in the 19th C) really had no effect. You really have a peculiar way of looking at history."

Because Tom, we really don't need to prove why that model wasn't used in those few decades before it was used, although in this case why it wasn't used in England in those years before it finally was used in the heathland most certainly has been proven to my satisfaction by particularly Max Behr and so many of the others of his era who wrote on the entire subject of golf architecture's evolution and the influences on it.

That may even be part of your problem when it comes to analyzing things of various times in history---eg you attempt to try to make someone basically prove a negative--ie why something that never happened actually never happened. If you think about it that's pretty hard to do and is frankly sort of counterproductive.

But in real sense when golf first migrated out of Scotland it really was operating and evolving in something of an artistic or design vaccum as it related to naturalism and the model of the linksland and TOC.

Again, Behr and others of his contemporaries and fellow writers explained pretty well why that happened and why it happened that way. Perhaps you should read all of Behr's articles again if you even ever have. I think you'd definitely learn some very valuable things from them on this entire subject. And so did Darwin when he mentioned the analogy and similarity of the look of those early Victorian courses to the look of a steeplechase course.

Too bad you assume he was joking and didn't mean it. I guess that's just part of your problem in understanding this subject.

[T_MacWood]

But in real sense when golf first migrated out of Scotland it really was operating and evolving in something of an artistic or design vaccum as it related to naturalism and the model of the linksland and TOC.

Why were those early golf architects operating in a vacuum and what caused the change?

[TEPaul]

"Why were those early golf architects operating in a vacuum and what caused the change?"

Tom:

Honestly I have answered those questions and in some real detail enough times on this website and even on this very thread in real detail, and so it really would help a whole lot if you just bothered to read what I've said or else try a bit harder to let it filter in.

Even Max Behr has answered all those questions and in some real detail in some of his arcticles. Have you read them and if so why did what he said in this vein and on this very subject fail to get through to you?

Even Darwin's remark about the similarity to the look of steeplechase courses with early Victorian golf archtiecture in England is most significant and also completely apropos to these questions you are asking AGAIN, so why is it you just sort of fail to acknowledge that reality?

I don't mind having these conversations and discussions with you but I am beginning to mind that you ask the same questions over and over and over again after I've answered them all numerous times.

Has this entire subject gotten to the point where you simply don't want to read opinions that don't support you point or that you simply refuse to acknowledge any of them because they don't support your assumptions and conclusiions?

It's certainly beginning to look that way to me and if so I see know real reason to continue to discuss it with you. But that most certainly is not going to stop my from pointing out where I think you are wrong on some of these subjects.

Basically, that's what this website should be about, in my opinion.

[T_MacWood]

TE
This from Max Behr’s ‘Art in Golf Architecture’:

“Nature was gracious and kind when it spread before our forefathers that peculiar and undulating ground known as the links land which the receding sea had left, as it were, especially designed as a playground for golf...The softness of sea air, the purity of vegetation, the distant horizon and the spring of turf under foot, all went to present a beguiling aspect of Nature in its vastness and in its simplicity. And the idea that man projected into these surroundings was as simple. To strike a little ball and consecrate the task by playing it into a little hole was as naive an enterprise, and yet as ominous, as the patient struggle of vegetation to conquer the white army of the booming deep among the dunes.
       
So lovable was this adventure that man was not content to pursue it apart in its natural habitation, but must needs transport it to situations unaccommodating to its playing. But to transport it he had to commit a sacrilege---he had to analyze it, tear it to pieces the more easily to pack it in his mind. And, in so doing, he did not realize that what he carried away with him was the letter only, and that he left behind something intangible, that property of unsullied nature, innocent beauty undefiled as yet by the hand of man.

It was inevitable that the first review of links land golf should have engendered a type of architecture which disclosed a conscious adhesion to a formal order of things. It was not to be expected that the mind would immediately seize the sensual appeal of native golf. Hence, it was not considered in the construction of our first inland courses. The natural architecture of links land, passed through the sieve of the mind, came out utilitarian in aspect and mathematical in form. The novice in landscape gardening cannot see the planting of trees otherwise than in rows, nor the lawn in front of his house otherwise than in a series of terraces. The conscious mind delights in the fitness of things, in the easily comprehensible, and thus dwells on the surface of phenomena.

Indeed, appearances are never transferable. They are always the product of certain relations which exist once, and are only appropriate to a certain condition. Hence, the impossibility of transferring the aspect of the links land. This had to be left behind. But that which in the links land appealed unconsciously to the golfer was the absence of the evidence of man's handiwork. He was in the presence of Nature unstained by artificiality.
         
The merit of this gradually came to be realized. Its recognition is revealed in the efforts now being made to achieve naturalness in the construction of the various features that go to make up a golf course. The straight line has well-nigh disappeared from out bunkers, tees and greens. They have acquired curves. Without a doubt this phase is more pleasing to the eye. But the arbitrary manner in which we continue to deal with these components makes them manifest an individuality apart from their surroundings. We have succeeded in prettifying them, but we remain under the delusion that what is pretty, or picturesque, is beautiful.

We have only to consider the fashion of bunkers that we have already passed through. Today we think we have accomplished something when we have spotted funny little plots of grass in their midst, or run ribbons of sand up their faces. All such pretentious and affected elaboration is attractive to the uncultivated eye. This craftsmanship comes to be credited with artistic significance. But the revelation that lies in the mists ahead is from that reveals true beauty. This we will achieve only when the features we must create are considered, not solely as ends in themselves, but as means of expressing authentic landscape form. It is structural integrity that we are seeking.”

It appears Max is saying the early architects saw golf architecture in a very formal, symmetrical, mathematic and orderly way. I would call that a classical approach or classical aesthetic, very similar to popular Victorian tastes.

He then goes on to say that eventually and gradually golf architects realized that those courses lacked naturalness and other qualities found on the links. He does not explain why this new approach or attitude came about. Maybe you see some explanation in there that I missed.

PS:I included the last couple of paragraphs because they have a striking similarity to what many A&C theorists and designers have written over the years – the importance of fitness of purpose.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom Mac,
I've read almost everything Max Behr has ever written; played probably four times as many golf courses of his then Tom Paul and I can tell you that your right on the mark--Again. Yes, we know the railroad had a lot of things to do with all courses both links and classic. So has the freeway, which has probably take more then a fair share of a great golf course or two or three or four. I fail to see what that has to do with the subject at hand other then how sites, especially sites on the main line of Philadelphia benefitted from them.  IN CALIFORNIA, the Red Car was an important part of public golf. This is why a great majority of these courses no longer exist--they were all on prime land.  And I can tell you this with all certainty--each one of them was inspired and built with the same verve of nature and craftsmanship that inspired the Greene Brothers. The same A/C inspiration which Tom Paul denounces simply because Tom Macwood has researched it accurately and succinctly--as far as Southern California is concerned.

[TEPaul]

Max Behr wrote in “Art in Golf Architecture”;

“So lovable was this adventure that man was not content to pursue it apart in its natural habitation, but must needs transport it to situations unaccommodating to its playing. But to transport it he had to commit a sacrilege---he had to analyze it, tear it to pieces the more easily to pack it in his mind. And, in so doing, he did not realize that what he carried away with him was the letter only, and that he left behind something intangible, that property of unsullied nature, innocent beauty undefiled as yet by the hand of man.

It was inevitable that the first review of links land golf should have engendered a type of architecture which disclosed a conscious adhesion to a formal order of things. It was not to be expected that the mind would immediately seize the sensual appeal of native golf. Hence, it was not considered in the construction of our first inland courses. The natural architecture of links land, passed through the sieve of the mind, came out utilitarian in aspect and mathematical in form.”

Tom MacWood said;

“It appears Max is saying the early architects saw golf architecture in a very formal, symmetrical, mathematic and orderly way. I would call that a classical approach or classical aesthetic, very similar to popular Victorian tastes.
He then goes on to say that eventually and gradually golf architects realized that those courses lacked naturalness and other qualities found on the links. He does not explain why this new approach or attitude came about. Maybe you see some explanation in there that I missed."

Tom MacWood:

You just said that you think the early architects saw golf architecture in a very formal, symmetrical, mathematical and orderly way. And you say you would call that a classical approach or classical aesthetic, very similar to popular Victorian tastes. OK, I understand your contention, I always have, and once again I almost totally disagree with it. And the following is why I disagree with your contention;

I most certainly do see some explanation in Max Behr’s article (that you just posted above) that I think you missed. I’ve said it a number of times on here but I guess you missed that too, so I’ll say it again..

The explanation in Behr’s article that I think you completely missed logically lies in the realities of that time in what was being required of golf architecture and architects of that time, what those requiring any semblance of golf architecture were willing to pay for it which as you can imagine relates directly to time involved. But more than that it more than logically lies in the fact of who Max Behr was referring to in that article.

For instance, look carefully at the very first line in Max Behr’s first paragraph above. “So lovable was this adventure that man was not content to pursue it apart in its natural habitation, but must needs (sic, needed?)  to transport it to situations unaccommodating to its playing…….”



Who do you think Behr was talking about and referring to when he mentioned ‘man’ in that sentence and in the context he was explaining?

Do you think it was only the Tom Dunns, Willie Parks, Old Tom Morrises et al of that early time just after golf first migrated out of Scotland?

And look a bit more carefully. He mentions that ‘man’ was not content to pursue the game apart in its natural habitation. Then he says that ‘MAN’ needed, at that time, to transport it (golf) to situations unaccommodating to its playing.

Ok, Tom, now just ask yourself who do you suppose it sounds like Behr was referring to—ie ‘man’?    

Does it sound like he was only referring to those original architects or “lay-out” specialist of that very early time after golf first migrated out of Scotland---eg the like of Willie and Jamie Dunn (of Musselburgh and Blackheath), Willie’s son Tom (Mussleburgh and later Wilmbledon), Charles Hunter (Prestwick), George Lowe (St  Annes-on-the-Sea), Tom and George Morris (St Andrews), Douglas and Mungo Park (Mussleburgh), Douglas Roland (Elie and later Malvern), Archie Simpson (Royal Aberdeen) and David Strath (North Berwick)??

Does it sound like those were the people he was referring to who were not content to pursue the adventure (golf) in its natural habitation?  How could it have been those early architects (named above) as the linksland WAS their natural habitation? It was their home, and by the way every single one of them had day job ss either a professional,greenskeeper, or teacher at the clubs mentioned behind their names  

Does it sound like he was referring to those early architects who needed to transport golf to situations unaccommodating to its playing?  How could it have been those early architects who needed to transport it elsewhere if they all came from the linksland of Scotland which was certainly not unaccommodating to its playing?

Where were they transporting the game to that was not their habitation if the game and they came from Scotland?  

So, who was Behr referring to who did not have Scotland as their habitation and who felt the need to transport it elsewhere? (I have the unsettling feeling you may not understand what I’m saying or you’ll just deny all of it on principle to defend your unsupportable point about the A/C Movement).

So it he wasn’t referring to the Scottish architects whose habitation Scotland and the linksland WAS, and if he wasn’t referring to those early Scottish architects who didn’t need to transport the game out of Scotland because Scotland is where they and their game CAME FROM, then then who was Behr referring to?

Well, Tom MacWood who else could they be?

Could they have been those people who wanted to transport the game to courses in their “habitations’ OUTSIDE Scotland?

Could they have been those people we sometimes refer to as “clients” of those early architects?

Since you are remarkably slow on the uptake, let me stop here to see if you’ve followed this so far. Have you? Can you see where this is going? Can you even remotely see WHO it was that Behr was referring to----ie "MAN'?

Of course there’s more, a lot more.

Later I’ll try to lead you through WHY it may not have been those early SCOTTISH linksman architects who were as responsible for that early Victorian architecture, those steeplechase looking courses, that crap, as you think they were!

If you have a hard time understanding what I'm saying here you or anyone else could just read pgs 14-19 of Cornish and Whitten.

Perhaps you think Geoff Cornish and Ron Whitten are mistaken about the truth of the history and evolution or golf course architecture too. While the first section of "The Architects of Golf" is not particularly in depth, why don't you tell us where and how you feel they're mistaken in what they've reported about those early architects and the architecture of the so-called Victorian Age, not to mention why you think they're wrong about why the healthland architecture of Park happened when it did and where it did?

[T_MacWood]

And look a bit more carefully. He mentions that ‘man’ was not content to pursue the game apart in its natural habitation. Then he says that ‘MAN’ needed, at that time, to transport it (golf) to situations unaccommodating to its playing.

Since you are remarkably slow on the uptake, let me stop here to see if you’ve followed this so far. Have you? Can you see where this is going? Can you even remotely see WHO it was that Behr was referring to----ie "MAN'?

TE
Perhaps you've been reading too much Behr and its affecting your reasoning abilities.

It appears you think Behr was referring to THE MAN as the person responsible for the geometric look of those courses…the clients. I don’t think so.

First of all the most generous reading of ‘man’ would read mankind or in this case golfkind…all men in golf both professional/architect/expert and the clients in the south.

Secondly and most importantly Behr knew – as does every person who knows anything about the history of golf – that those early inland courses were designed by the experts you just rattled off. “It was inevitable that the first review of links land golf should have engendered a type of architecture which disclosed a conscious adhesion to a formal order of things.” THE MAN or the client was not the expert who created that ‘type of architecture’….those first golf architects were....unless maybe.  

“Yes Old Tom I think the links courses are all well and good, but old man we have something better in mind down here…could you build something more along the lines of a steeplechase course. “  

I think you might be on to something.

Were the first inland clients men who were familar with links golf, and because of their love for links-golf wanted the game brought closer to home or were they complete novices that knew nothing of the game and dictated to the experts what kind of crude course they wanted?

Back to the original issue: I asked you what was the cause for the change in 1900….in the past you said it was the first time they had ventured into the heath. That unfortunately is not the case. So I asked you again and you said it was time and money. When I asked didn’t they have time and money before 1900….you did not answer.

Asked again, now your answer is, I’ve answered the question before in detail….and not only have I answered Max Behr has answered the question in detail.

I don’t believe Behr answered why the architects at the turn-of-the-century changed their approach, just that they did change their approach. And you haven’t given us answer since your first conclusion. What happend in 1900?

[TEPaul]

"I think you might be on to something.

"Were the first inland clients men who were familar with links golf, and because of their love for links-golf wanted the game brought closer to home or were they complete novices that knew nothing of the game and dictated to the experts what kind of crude course they wanted?"

Tom MacWood:

That is the very issue here in a nutshell, don't you think?

Just read Part One or the first 33 pages of C&W's "The Architects of Golf" again. Even though you have tried to make light of that book and the information in it as an accurate resource in the past (probably simply because I was offering information from it) can you really find anything wrong or inaccurate with their fundamental analysis of how golf architecture evolved in Scotland and then how it evolved when it first migrated out of Scotland into English inland sites?

They explain those original English inland sites after golf first migrated out of Scotland and for the next few decades were remarkably ill-suited to golf or architecture. This was all during those years before the Heathlands were discovered as the first desirable area inland and outside Scotland to build quality golf architecture?

Now try to imagine what golf was like back then and what architecture was like back then, when the game first migrated out of Scotland. Imagine how rudimentary it was.

What were those original clients from England asking those intiial architects/professinal golfers/club professionals/greendkeepers/clubmaker/teachers to do exactly?

Were they asking them to come down from Scotland and find them ideal sites and spend a couple of years on them (as Park Jr finally did at Sunningdale and Huntercombe in the English heathlands in 1900) or a couple of months or even a couple of weeks? Were they paying them to do that? Obviously not. Were they simply asking them to come down and "lay-out" a golf course on some open inland site or meadow with soil and land ill-suited to the purpose? It certainly sounds like that to me and that's the way C&W explain it. It's also the way Behr explains it.

What was being asked to "lay-out" a course even about back in that early day when golf first migrated out of Scotland? Do you know? Can you even imagine? Perhaps not, and if not it would certainly not surprise me, and it would also certianly explain why you are apparently almost totally misreading and miisinterpreting and misanalyzing this early era in golf architeture, particularly outside Scotland and in inland England.

But C&W can imagine it, and Max Behr can, and so can Darwin as he apparently saw it happen over and over again. For whatever reason would he have written that very remark that you have contained in your own essay on the "Arts and Crafts" movement and its influence on golf architecture if it were not true?

He explains clearly that those initial Scottish "jack-of-all trades" in gol"---eg the Dunns, Morrises and Parks and their like would come in on a train rush around for a few hours staking out a basic routing of tee-LZ-green site and be back on the train again before the end of the day in some cases. This is what a "lay-out" was Tom, whether you were aware of it or not. This is what they were payed a few pounds for before they were back on the train to somewhere else or back to their day jobs at the clubs that are listed behind their names. This is what a basic "stick routing" or "lay-out" was. It was extremely rudimentary, it was extremely quick and they weren't paid much of anything for it because they didn't do much or spend much time there. They obviously weren'a asked to. So what do you suppose the client would get?

You think Darwin was joking about this early method of initial inland "lay-out" architecture. I don't think he was joking at all. And that's obviously why he said that initial Victorian style  architecture in inland England looked remarkably similar to "steeplechase" courses.

Now, let's look at the actual architectural features that were put on those early inland "Victorian" courses.

There are numerous photographs of what they looked like. Wayne and others have produced a number of photographs of them on here. If you aren't aware of what Steeplechase obstacle features and steeplechase courses look like I will tell you since I live within a mile of the Radnor Hunt club that has a steeplechase course.

They were fence and brush or earthen berm jump obstacles with long rectangular pits generally filled with water but often with earth right in front of them.

The early cop or geometric hazards of that early inland Victorian architecture were almost identical to those steeplechase obstacles (the photos produced on here prove that) and in fact in some cases they probably were the actual steeplechase obstacles.

Did those early architects draw those features to be included as golf architectural features on those early inland Victorian courses? Apparently not as drawing in golf architecture had never been done at that point and probably wouldn't be until after 1900 or so.

Did those early "jack-of-all-trades" Scottish architects even remain there to design them and see them built? Well if we are to believe Bernard Darwin and his description of how those early inland Victorian courses were designed and built, apparently not unless those from those locales built them pretty damn fast, like during the same afternoon before the likes of Dunn or Morris or Park were back on the train to another site or back to their day job in Scotland.

Maybe you are beginning to get the picture now Tom. This is the way it was explained by those who wrote about it and I'd be interested to see you try to proof that they were wrong.

[TEPaul]

Now, let's look to see why and how land in the heathlands was first discovered to proved far more suitable to golf and golf architecture than anything that had come before it in inland England during that era that produced what we sometimes call "Victorian", or "geometric" or even "steeplechase" architecture and courses.

I doubt I could possibly put it any better, any more accurately and more succintly than C&W did in "The Architects of Golf" in the chaper entitled "The Heathland Quartet.

      "Dozens of sorry inland courses built on impervious clay soils convinced most golf purists that only the ancient links could provide golf. But a few course prospectors were unconvinced and kept searching for suitable inland terrain comparable to the best linksland. There search was fruitful, for at the turn of the century they unearthed the mother lode of fine golfing land less than fifty miles south and west of London.
        Here were the "heathlands" with well-drained, rock-free, sandy soil in gently undulating terrain. This was true golf country, and its discovery was a major step in the development of golf course architecture. Many of the world's greatest courses have since been created on land similar to the heaths, which, except for the presence of trees, is not unlike that of the links. The long delay in discovery of the heathlands, despite its proximity to London, is not difficult to understand. The heathlands were covered with an undergrowth of heather, rhododendrons, Scotch fir and pines. Only a fool, it seemed, would spend time building a golf course in such a wasteland when vast meadows were available for the purpose.
      The "fools" that did build courses in the heathlands became the most prominent golf architects of their day. Four names in particular stand out: Willie Park Jr., J.F. Abercromby, H.S. Colt and Herbert Fowler. Their prominence was due in part to their vision in recognizing the true potential of this unlikely terrain and in part to their ability to shape the land into splendid golf holes.
      And shape the land they did. Heather and other undergrowth were removed from most areas earmarked as playable. Many trees were cleared, although all four architects integrated trees into their designs (a practice unknown before their time) and thus created strategic and aesthetic assets not available to the old links. Earth was moved and contoured into green sites, tees and hazards. These men never moved earth when satisfactory contours could be found; but where nature was deficient, they were not reluctant to make alterations. The cleared areas were then prepared and seeded or sodded, and the architects took special interest in the types of grasses that were planted.
     All these tasks would seem to be modest undertakings in modern times, but in the early 1900s they called for new techniques in course construction. Considering the primitive state of construction equipment, the results achieved by these designers and builders was extraordinary.
    The first pioneering architect of this era was Willie Park Jr."


There are the answers to your questions, Tom MacWood. Can you disprove what's been said there? Can you really obviate those fundamental facts of the evolution of architecture and the most powerful influences on it and assign, in its place, some powerful influence on it to something else entirely? If so, let's see you try, again, because your five part essay entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf" which concludes that the most powerful influence on the Golden Age of Golf Course Architecture that began in the English heathlands should be the "Arts and Crafts" movement or philosophy or whatever else you choose to call it has by no means at all done that.

When Park Jr finally had the money and resources, the right land, and the necessary time to do Sunningdale (and Huntercombe) considered to be the first really good inland architecture outside Scotland do you really think he needed William Morris and his A/C Movement, or Gertrude Jekyll and her "wild" cottage garden, or Country Life Magazine or Horace Hutchinson to inform him how to do it??  

No, he did not. When the land, the resources and the time first became available to him at that time and in that place he obviously just drew on his talent and his understanding of his homeland's natural model----eg the Scottish linksland.

Does that answer your questions about why the first attempts of inland architecture were rudimentary, simple and Victorian even with the initial routing lay-outs of the likes of a Willie Park Jr? Does that answer your question about what happened in 1900? Are you getting the picture now, Tom MacWood?

[T_MacWood]

TE
You've got a few problems with your theory. The most active architects in the south were Tom Dunn, Willie Dunn (before going stateside), Peter Paxton and Douglas Rolland...there were others, but these were the most active by far. They did not hop on train back to Scotland after laying out a course...they lived in London.

And one of the interesting thing about these fellows they moved from job to job often. One of the reasons for that is the fact that they would many times take over the professional/greenkeeping reponsibilities at their most recent project. And when they didn't take over there were young Scot professionals to take the position. It wasn't as if these clubs were on their own...there were plenty of experts to go round.

Another point the first inland courses in Britain were founded by Scots: Wimbeldon, Blackheath, Oxford and Cambridge. And many of the other inland courses were either founded by golfers very familar (ie members of the R&A, Sandwich or Westward Ho! etc) with links golf or had membership made up of some Scots: Hastings & St. Leonard, Eltham, Royal Eastbourne, Huddersfiled, Tooting Bec, Coventry, Brighton & Hove, Romford, etc. This also true of Bairritz and Pau in France.

Another point of interest: what about the geometric designs found in Scotland, for example some of the features at Dornoch and Braids Hill?  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

No there's no problem with my theory, and as you obviously failed to realize, once again, it really isn't 'my theory' at all.

The real problems here are, first, with you and your ability to understand what someone is telling you, and the second the other problem is this odd penchant you have to just generalize beyond belief about so many things including things people say to you.

First of all, I've never said that all those early journeymen architects who came out of Scotland had talent and I've certanly never said that anything they ever did could be, would be, or, is, considered to be part of the "Golden Age" of golf architecure which most of us know denotes a pretty high level of golf architecture.

I certainly wouldn't call Tom Dunn a talented architect nor apparently did anyone else , nor probably the others you mentioned. And I wouldn't say they ever did anything in England that was considered very good, would you?

This is a large part of Ron Prichard's theory on some of the early architecture---eg that some of those designing it and building it were basically not very intelligent and very poorly educated and consequently had no real architectural talent. Apparently too many for some reason seem to think that just because they came from a particular place or time they must've all had talent. Apparently you must have thought I said that but I've never said anything remotely like that to you or anyone else.  

But this is not the case with Willie Park jr, and that is precisely why he has also been given so much credit by so many for what he did in the Heathlands and later.

Park Jr's creations at Sunningdale and Huntercombe in the English heathlands are considered by some to be the beginning of the Golden Age of Golf Architecture. I've never seen anyone put Tom Dunn or Rolland or Paxton in that category, have you?

But still, nothing you have said sheds any light on the fact that Park Jr somehow needed to be informed of what quality architecture was or how to create it by the A/C Movement or anyone connected to it when the heathland sites of Sunningdale and Huntercombe were discovered.

And that's the point here. Park Jr was a Scotsman from the Scottish linksland, and he had real talent in golf architecture and when given the place, the time, the resources to do something about it he used that talent and his understanding of the model of the linksland to do what he did in England in 1900 and beyond.

And that answers your questions of me but somehow I pretty much know you won't be figuring that out any time soon either.

[TEPaul]

"Another point of interest: what about the geometric designs found in Scotland, for example some of the features at Dornoch and Braids Hill?"

Tom MacWood:

This is of course a most interesting point and very true. It appears that most of the original man-made features in the linksland themselves were remarkable rudimentary and horribly artificial looking. What for instance are we to make of those very early "sleepered" bunker faces that initially appeared on many of the Scottish linksland courses around the very first scratchings of man-made architecture?

But now and again it appears they could show their talent if the occassion arose. For instance, Alan Robertson came up with a pretty interesting Road Hole green and Road Hole bunker which some purport may've been the first man-made architectural features ever done. And OTM must've just outdid himself when he created the 18th green at TOC.

One needs to appreciate just how rudimentary things were back then.

But the question is whatever could William Morris, the A/C movement, Horace Hutchins or any of the rest of all those grand A/C proponents who you say were all huddling around London or Country Life Magazine or whatever have ACTUALLY done to inform Willie Park Jr to design and make what he did at Sunningdale or Huntercombe in the healthlands.

Do you think maybe he took old Gerty Jekyll to bed and charmed her into showing him how to build a really natural bunker or green or something?  

I'd just like to see you make some direct connections, the way I have, if you are ever going to make your point about any kind of powerful influence from the A/C movement on GCA and the Golden Age.

 

[T_MacWood]

No there's no problem with my theory, and as you obviously failed to realize, once again, it really isn't 'my theory' at all.

TE
I'm sorry there are some problems with this theory of yours regarding the Victorian courses. This is a concise version of it: The naive English clients requested the Scot professionals to rush around and layour new courses, spending perhaps a few hour or a day before getting on the next train back to Scotland.

1st problem - the first English clients were Scots and were not naive

2nd problem - the pros were not on trains heading back to Scotland; they lived in the London area

3rd problem - there were courses in Scotland with Victorian features

4th problem - why did courses that were designed by resident pros (they oversaw the constuction throughout the process) turn out Victorian in nature? Examples: Bournemouth, Tooting Bec & Hanger Hill (Tom Dunn), Eastbourne & E. Berkshire (Peter Paxton), Hastings (Douglas Rolland).

5th problem - do you think the cop bunkers at Mid Surrey, Bournemouth or Cassiobury Park look anything like a steeplechase jump?

While I appreciate your imagination and creative way of analyzing these things I really don't think it is proper to associate the names of Max Behr and Bernard Darwin with your Steeplechase-Scottish Train Traveler theory. I've read quite a bit from these men on the subject and I've not read anything close to your vivid account in reply #120.

PS: Do you know where Darwin's comment comparing Victorian courses to a steeplchase course came from and when it was written?

[T_MacWood]

Now, let's look to see why and how land in the heathlands was first discovered to proved far more suitable to golf and golf architecture than anything that had come before it in inland England during that era that produced what we sometimes call "Victorian", or "geometric" or even "steeplechase" architecture and courses.

I doubt I could possibly put it any better, any more accurately and more succintly than C&W did in "The Architects of Golf" in the chaper entitled "The Heathland Quartet.

There are the answers to your questions, Tom MacWood. Can you disprove what's been said there? Can you really obviate those fundamental facts of the evolution of architecture and the most powerful influences on it and assign, in its place, some powerful influence on it to something else entirely? If so, let's see you try, again, because your five part essay entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf" which concludes that the most powerful influence on the Golden Age of Golf Course Architecture that began in the English heathlands should be the "Arts and Crafts" movement or philosophy or whatever else you choose to call it has by no means at all done that.

When Park Jr finally had the money and resources, the right land, and the necessary time to do Sunningdale (and Huntercombe) considered to be the first really good inland architecture outside Scotland do you really think he needed William Morris and his A/C Movement, or Gertrude Jekyll and her "wild" cottage garden, or Country Life Magazine or Horace Hutchinson to inform him how to do it??  

No, he did not. When the land, the resources and the time first became available to him at that time and in that place he obviously just drew on his talent and his understanding of his homeland's natural model----eg the Scottish linksland.

Does that answer your questions about why the first attempts of inland architecture were rudimentary, simple and Victorian even with the initial routing lay-outs of the likes of a Willie Park Jr? Does that answer your question about what happened in 1900? Are you getting the picture now, Tom MacWood?

First of all, like Behr's account, your quote doesn't explain why the courses at the turn-of-the-century were designed in a new way. It acknowledges the bad Victorian designs, it acknowledges the new wave designs, but it doesn't explain why these gentlemen chose to design in a new way.

What were the reasons or forces that brought about the revolution? And don't give me heathland.

And as I've told you before Huntercombe & Sunningdale were not the first courses built in a heath, and I'm not sure Huntercombe is technically  heathland. Isn't it downland? The first course carved through a pine forest was New Zealand, prior to 1900.

I like their account, but it is a little misleading. For example Abercromby did not come on to the scene until 1908 at Worplesdon (assisted by Park). MacKenizie had Alwoodely under his belt by 1907, not in the heathland but certainly an important design. Likewise Stoke Poges, not heathland but also important. No mention of Taylor & Lees at Mid-Surrey (not heathland either)...that course got as much attention and imitation as any.

It does not mention the redesign of Sunningdale and Ganton by Colt, the redesign of Mitcham by Mallaby-Deeley or the redesign of Woking by Paton & Low.

And where do the links designs of Princes, Brancaster and Rye come in?

You said Park finally got the money and resources at Sunningdale & Huntercombe...why? Wasn't there money and resources in London prior to 1900? Do you know who financed those two courses and their rationale?

PS: Have you read Guy Campbell's 'History of Golf in Britian' ?
 

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Those two last posts of yours aren't even worth responding to anymore. All the questions (and problems you cited) were answered in my previous five or so posts. All the answers to those quesitions are right there but you just ignore them and keep asking the same questions over and over again. Just reread my last five or so posts and if you can't understand those answers I can't do much more to help you.

Do us all a favor and read the first 23 to 33 pages of Cornish and Whitten's "The Architects of Golf" and then tell us all why or how their explanations about this subject are wrong or even misleading.

I'll tell you the primary reason they aren't wrong. It's because they don't attempt to ply revisionist history theories like you do with this A/C Movement influence stretch of yours.

All you've really done here is to try to float one of the themes of a movement you're fixated on for a particular reason that doesn't have much of anything to do with the evolution of golf architecture at that time---eg preservation and prevention of improper restoration----in the hopes that someone will believe you. I guess you thought you might make some kind of name for yourself as a golf archtiecture historian that way.

What you've done is sort of like throwing spaghetti against the wall to see if it will stick. It really is positivism----eg dream up some conclusion and then try to find facts and reasons to support it, while refusing to even listen to the accurate explanations of the true facts and analyses of what really did happen and why from golf architecture's previously recorded literature.

What Park pulled off in the heathland in 1900 and why probably isn't much different from what Macdonald pulled off on Long Island in 1907 and why---eg they got tired of looking at the crap that preceded what they did in 1900 and 1907 so those were the times and the places they decided to do something about it. Did Macdonald decide to go to London and hang around those A/C people you keep promoting for golf architectural inspiration? No, he went back to Scotland and copied some holes and some concepts from them and brought them back and built them in America. Crump and Wilson did the same thing from the linksland and the heathlands.

Every day on here reading some of the stuff you come up with makes me wonder what those guys you're writing about would think if they could read it. They'd probably laugh their asses off. I, on the other hand, try to rely on what they actually they did and said and wrote. It seems like you've tried to tell us you know now what they were thinking about and why better than they did back then.

It's unbelievable---funny really, but in my book it all boils down to some unfortunate revisionism of a valuable history and evolution.

[T_MacWood]

First of all, I've never said that all those early journeymen architects who came out of Scotland had talent and I've certanly never said that anything they ever did could be, would be, or, is, considered to be part of the "Golden Age" of golf architecure which most of us know denotes a pretty high level of golf architecture.

You wrote: "...during the same afternoon before the likes of Dunn or Morris or Park were back on the train to another site or back to their day job in Scotland." Implying that all these courses were a result of wam-bam-thank you-mam mentality...misleading.

I certainly wouldn't call Tom Dunn a talented architect nor apparently did anyone else , nor probably the others you mentioned. And I wouldn't say they ever did anything in England that was considered very good, would you?

He was the most prolific golf architect of that era (90s) and therefore a dominant force. No I wouldn't consider anything he did in the very good catagory. The only possible exceptions Hanger Hill, Broadstone and his redesign of Ganton. Worlington confuses me.

This is a large part of Ron Prichard's theory on some of the early architecture---eg that some of those designing it and building it were basically not very intelligent and very poorly educated and consequently had no real architectural talent. Apparently too many for some reason seem to think that just because they came from a particular place or time they must've all had talent. Apparently you must have thought I said that but I've never said anything remotely like that to you or anyone else.  

I'm not sure about that...lack of artistic talent perhaps, lack of intelligence, I don't know about that...limited education probably. Willie Park had no problem mixing with well healed society. I get the same inpression about Tom Dunn. Old Tom Morris must have been very charming as he was universally loved by everyone.

But this is not the case with Willie Park jr, and that is precisely why he has also been given so much credit by so many for what he did in the Heathlands and later.

No doubt he was bright and charismatic but mostly very ballsy.

Park Jr's creations at Sunningdale and Huntercombe in the English heathlands are considered by some to be the beginning of the Golden Age of Golf Architecture. I've never seen anyone put Tom Dunn or Rolland or Paxton in that category, have you?

I didn't put them in that catagory...I was responding to post #120 on Vistorian theory...ie Steeplechase theory.

But still, nothing you have said sheds any light on the fact that Park Jr somehow needed to be informed of what quality architecture was or how to create it by the A/C Movement or anyone connected to it when the heathland sites of Sunningdale and Huntercombe were discovered.

Something or someone influenced Park and the others to design (and redesign) courses in a new way. These men were not opperating in a vacuum.

And that's the point here. Park Jr was a Scotsman from the Scottish linksland, and he had real talent in golf architecture and when given the place, the time, the resources to do something about it he used that talent and his understanding of the model of the linksland to do what he did in England in 1900 and beyond.

There wasn't time and resources prior to 1900? Why not?

And that answers your questions of me but somehow I pretty much know you won't be figuring that out any time soon either.