The Progress of Golf Architecture – June 16th, 1925
Golf architecture involves far more than the laying out of a definite number of holes each of a virtually standardized length. That these lengths are standardized can hardly be questioned, even if the distances are only approximately equal and those decreed by what golfers think best. There is general agreement that the desirable total length of 18 holes should be between 6,000 and 6,500 yards. If one should judge from a large proportion of golf courses, the designer had no other end in view than that stated above, namely a course whose measurements approximate a standard. There is seldom any indication of originality, except of the freaky kind, and rarely any conception of landscape beauty. Apart from the relatively mathematical or mechanical features of golf course building, which any one can learn quickly, there lies the whole art, which will make or break the reputation of every golf architect. Only the sluggish mind of an easily satisfied public has blinded it to the hideousness of most of our golf courses. Sometimes the beauty of the surroundings helps to conceal the ugliness of the artificial work, though the lack of any harmony be only too obvious. Fortunately, perhaps, many architects make their artificial work concealed or half-concealed, such as blind bunkers. Otherwise its unloveliness would be too patent.
This may sound like the writing of one suffering a severe attack of indigestion. It is meant to be the expression of feeling of one who is saddened by the absence of landscape beauty in too much of the artificial constructions on golf courses. A sand bunker can be made a thing of beauty or a hideous gash. Fortunately, many of the latter are build “blind”. The artificial lines can be curves that fit in with those of the terrain, or they can be angular and jar every sense of harmony. After all, a golf architect worthy of the name must be an artist, painting his ideas on the face of Nature as his canvas. The painter retouches his work again and again. Too many architects make the mechanical plans and leave practically all else to the construction gang. Some indeed work on a cut-and-dried series of models, which are reproduced here, there, and yonder regardless of the terrain. When you see one course built by such an architect, you can recognize at once every other course he has built. This is true not in the sense that one can learn to recognize a Corot, or a Lansdowne, but true to actual mechanical details. There is merit in the idea that holes of proven reputation ought to be copied – especially if these replicas apply as to principles but not as to details. If however this idea is embalmed in a set of mechanical models, then there can obviously be no progress as long as these are followed, neither for the architect himself nor for his art. To be blunt, such an architect is sacrificing his art to present commercial gain.
Perhaps the architect is not so much to blame as is the golfing public. As long as there is no criticism, he may well believe that he is producing meritorious results. A few courses built in recent years are examples of splendid landscape architecture. The influence of these will doubtless stimulate golfers to demand better work from the architects. To build artistic curves will require more of an architect’s time than he takes at present. It can not be done, especially in its finishing stages, by a brief visit once a month or so. That is too much like a landscape artist hiring a journeyman painter to paint pictures for him. It can be done, of course, but the results are not inspiring.
Golf architects ought to be the leaders in promoting the progress of golf. They are not. Today many courses are being built by professional golf players that are as good as or better than those made by professional architects. Except for a few notable exceptions in the profession, the term architect can hardly be used at present as relating to golf architects. There are also a goodly number of amateurs who have done very beautiful work which can truly be called artistic. Every architect owes it both to himself and to the golfing world to strive toward perfection. We believe it will be more profitable to him to build fewer and better courses.
There is progress for the betterment of golf architecture, but it is very slow. It will continue to be slow as long as the artistic sense is sacrificed to immediate commercial gains.