[TEPaul]

Man, am I looking forward to reading this new IMO essay! Particularly the first section about the so-called early "amateur" architects or so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects like Leeds, Emmet, Fownes, Travis, Macdonald, Wilson, Crump et al, and not just as architects but why and how they did the things they did the way they generally did them. In other words, what were they reacting to and consequently what was inspiring them to do some of the great works and projects they did in the "long-term" manner they did them?

I believe that's an area and era that needs a far better treatment and understanding amongst golf architecture analysts than it has ever heretofore been given. It was one super-amazing era, that's for sure, and I think there's so much we today can learn from it if it's investigated and analyzed accurately in its historic context alone!

I hope the assumptions, premises and conclusions in this essay are good ones.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I look forward to reading it again when I have time. The backstory of Tom MacWood returning to gca.com will also be interesting if made known.  He has found a way to participate and avoid the infighting.

Can't help but notice that there is already a point of potential controversy in the piece:

"For many years Old Tom Morris was thought to be the architect of the New Course at St.Andrews however the R&A and Links Trust now recognizes Hall Blyth as its creator in 1895."

 

[Rich Goodale]

I look forward to reading it again when I have time. The backstory of Tom MacWood returning to gca.com will also be interesting if made known.  He has found a way to participate and avoid the infighting.

Can't help but notice that there is already a point of potential controversy in the piece:

"For many years Old Tom Morris was thought to be the architect of the New Course at St.Andrews however the R&A and Links Trust now recognizes Hall Blyth as its creator in 1895."

 

Nothing new about that one, Jeff.  It has been common knowledge (and recognised by the Links Trust) since at least 1995.

I'll tell you if I find anything new once I read the piece.

Rich

[Melvyn Morrow]

I must first of all congratulate Tom MacWood for what seems like a very interesting opinion. Its also appears well presented.

This is not the time to make any comments but to sit back and read in details your essay, however with all research it changes and develops as time goes on and more information surfaces. I am certain Tom has taken the subject forward.

What matters at the end of the day is that we get to the truth, because that should be our ultimate goal.  I think Tom’s new ‘In My Opinion’ essay is moving that way.

There are a couple of comments I would like to make,

The main one is that you have moved from your previous opinion on the Early Designers, perhaps not as far as to agreeing with me but certainly a major change of opinion. That’s refreshing and honest.
 
The second is the criteria by which we judge these Early Designers. They must be judged by the standards of their day, not from that of Simpsons or for that matter, our own period. On that basic I believe that the 19th Century was the Real Golden Age of Golf.

I sent an e-mail earlier today with the following comment based upon reports made by those that followed these Early Designers.

The other interesting point is why has so much of the early routing and holes remained (from the 19th Century). Reading some of their opinion on the early designers, I believe that history or original designers meant very little to the, so called, Golden Age Architects. They never suffered with small plots of land, tight budgets and limited facilities to change the landscape as the early guys. I believe Simpson’s comments come from pure arrogance and some considerable ignorance. He should have looked at the bunkers on the Old Course, but then why, to prove his own comments incorrect. The Golden Age, sorry, but bollocks, they had nearly everything handed to them on a plate, starting with large fees - their interest was not solely golf but money and reputation. Course budgets became rather large as golf was firmly on the Empire map for gentlemen world wide. The point I am trying to make is who invented the wheel? - The Europeans, the Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, etc, etc? It was one of the very Early Civilisations, too far back to remember, yet they set the fundamentals, the design criteria, the shape of things to come. For me that is what happened in golf between the 1840 & 1890’s. Without that initial input where would golf be today? Once someone cracked the atom, others followed making bigger and more destructive bombs, but without that initial input would there be an atomic bomb today? Those early geniuses, yes, the likes of Old Tom, without them there may never have been a T Simpson or H Hutchinson involved in golf.

Tom, you moved, but not yet far enough, perhaps in another year we maybe getting close to agreeing, well perhaps heading in that type of direction.

[Rich Goodale]

I've read through the piece and it is typically well researched and well-written.  There are a few minor errors and omissions, and like Melyvn I still would give more credit to the early days designers than does Tom, but I highly recommend it.  Well done, Tom.

[Ran Morrissett]

This in indeed a great piece!

In fact, I hate when people whine about the good old days of GolfClubAtlas.com – these ARE the good old days with GolfClubAtlas.com starting to hit its stride in provoking passionate debate. The center for such debating is YOU, the people kind enough to spend the time and energy developing well researched and laid-out In My Opinion pieces. GolfClubAtlas.com is thrilled to house lengthy works and to provide a platform free of the space constraints that hamper all other forms of media.
 
The most recent edition is another unique 13,500 plus word treatise from Tom MacWood, this one on the period of the 1890s that Tom comes to refer to with deference as ‘the developing age.’ In it, he breaks out the amateur golfers from the professional ones and seeks to give each their overdue credit as it relates to their involvement with particular golf course designs. For instance, ever hear of Harry Mallaby-Deeley? I hadn’t but he was the mastermind behind the much loved Princes before the Wars took their toll on it. According to Tom, the editor of the American magazine Golf called him “the finest amateur golf architect in the world’ in 1914. Titans like Darwin and Hutchinson once wrote in glowing terms on Princes but I never appreciated that it was considered the NGLA of its times - and that’s three years before NGLA opened!
 
In other cases, credit has been assigned to X over all these years when closer research from the periodicals of the day suggests otherwise. Take Cruden Bay for instance. Tom found this from Golf Illustrated in 1902: “Since its inception three years ago, Cruden Bay has rapidly asserted itself as one of the finest greens in the kingdom. On the occasion of the inaugural tournament, the professional competitors were loud in its praises, and Archie Simpson, of Aberdeen, was congratulated on what is undoubtedly his masterpiece.” What do you know about Willie Campbell? Who cares you ask? Well, he is the man who first laid out The Country Club and Myopia Hunt - and that was in 1894/5.
 
All this is great stuff and it is wonderful to begin to give some of these men their long overdue recognition as early pioneers that furthered the field of golf course architecture. You’ll also recognize plenty of people through the piece (men like Purves, Sutherland, and Park) but I dare say you’ll learn something new about them anyway. I also never knew of Mackenzie Ross’s role in Mildenhall, the extent of George Lowe’s reach and a host of other things like Charles Gibson and the quirky architecture that he embraced (in part he pushed holes closer to the sea at Lahinch in 1906).
 
Tom correctly concludes that a light just didn’t go on from the Dark Ages and VIOLA we were in The Golden Age of golf architecture. The 1890s were a crucial period where strides were made by both professional and amateur golfers that helped pave the way for more thoughtful design practices over the next several decades. Indeed, as a way of highlighting some of the exceptional work from this period, the first of many photographs in Tom’s work is of the Postage Stamp, a hole that was born in the 1890s courtesy of Willie Fernie. In his concluding thoughts, Tom also notes the frequency in which Musselburgh was the training ground for these architects as opposed to the always assumed default position of St. Andrews. Though a much loved name, the nine holes at Musselburgh no doubt warrant closer study from an architectural point of view.
 
The list of things to learn and savior goes on and on. Add this to Tom’s Arts & Crafts piece, his work on Alison, and other entries and it is quite an impressive body of work. The beauty is the information is now safely stored on this public web site and is in the free domain, where it will do the most good/have the greatest impact. Hopefully, not only will The Early Golf Architects: Beyond Old Tom inspire further thought on this period in architecture but also stimulate further research into the various periods of golf architecture in general.

As Tom has long contended, relative to other art forms, very little research on the history of golf course architecture has actually taken place.

Cheers,

[TEPaul]

"The second is the criteria by which we judge these Early Designers. They must be judged by the standards of their day, not from that of Simpsons or for that matter, our own period. On that basic I believe that the 19th Century was the Real Golden Age of Golf."


Melvyn:

That is something I so much believe in, almost above all else. However, I'm not so sure they must only be judged by the standards of their day, but for our part today I think we must very much try to understand them and what they did ONLY in the context of their day and not in the context of our day or any other day of which they were not a part because it had not arrived yet and they would neither know it nor see it.

And by this I also mean that it is for us to try to truly understand exactly what they had to work with (or didn't have to work with) and appreciate them in that context, at least. And also, it should not be lost on any of us that in an art form and expression like golf course architecture, perhaps like most other art forms, there really is the almost inevitable inclination as time goes on to get into various cycles which does entail looking back into the past for some meaning and inspiration for our present or future.

I think some portion of golf architecture today is looking back at them now more than in perhaps the last 75 or so years, and maybe even more than ever before, and when we do that it is not for us, as analysts, to find reasons why they did not do or could not do what they did do back then, it is only for us to try to understand and to appreciate better what they really did do in their own time with perhaps 1/100th of the resources, of all kinds, we have available to us today.

[Paul_Turner]

Only had a quick look through and it does looks to uncover a lot of new stuff, well done Tom.

I think the quality of the golf courses from pre 1900 basically boils down to whether the site was links or links like (Ganton).  The majority of non links, inland, courses looked pretty bad from the old pics I've seen.

You can still make out the scar in the ground from that Tom Dunn bunker monstrosity at Meyrick Park,  I think I have a pics somwhere and can post.

[Geoffrey Childs]

This in indeed a great piece!

In fact, I hate when people whine about the good old days of GolfClubAtlas.com – these ARE the good old days with GolfClubAtlas.com starting to hit its stride in provoking passionate debate. The center for such debating is YOU, the people kind enough to spend the time and energy developing well researched and laid-out In My Opinion pieces. GolfClubAtlas.com is thrilled to house lengthy works and to provide a platform free of the space constraints that hamper all other forms of media.
 Cheers,

Without commenting on Tom MacWood’s article except to say that IMHO he is good at collecting material but not so good at all in interpreting it. I should mention that I believe this is the end of the non-commercial era for GolfClubAtlas (The good old days Ran?)

With this article Ran has delved into solicitation of material for posting (I would not call it publication since there is no form of review process here on GCA) and PAYMENT for such articles using in part or whole the contributions of members.

Take this new turn of events for whatever you wish. Perhaps Ran will pay you for your ideas here as well.  You need only ask.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TWHLIW,

Your signature, before you removed it.. well, anyway-- grow up.

[TEPaul]

Grow up??

I can understand that some on here may not like that particular post but who can say it's immature?

If someone on here has some philosophical issue with or opinion of the way IMO essays are generated on this website I see no reason not to have them express it. Frankly, that seems very mature.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Expressing it is fine, and if someone, as you say, has a ...."philosophical issue with or opinion of the way IMO essays are generated on this website"  then they will just have to live with my opinion of them as being immature.

If they were a bit more mature, or had anything swinging, they'd probably use their own name.

[TEPaul]

Jim;

In my opinion, it's not so important for him to use his name on here but to use his name when he speaks to Ran Morrissett about his feelings, and I'm confident that's the case. Furthermore, if I or we write any IMO essay, for a review of how its written and presented, this is who I'll be going to first. This is a person who probably understands scholarship and how its best presented as well or better than anyone on this website. This website should always seek his advice, and it would be better off.

[Phil_the_Author]

THLIW,

I must take exception to your claim that, "I should mention that I believe this is the end of the non-commercial era for GolfClubAtlas (The good old days Ran?)... With this article Ran has delved into solicitation of material for posting (I would not call it publication since there is no form of review process here on GCA) and PAYMENT for such articles using in part or whole the contributions of members..."

What PROOF do you have that Ran solicited this article from Tom Macwood AND/OR PAID him for it?

Yes, Ran stated at the beginning of the year that he would be seeking articles of much greater length, depth and quality for the site and that he would be paying for them.

Again, where is your proof that ran did so in this case. I am not saying that there would be anything wrong with this; to the contrary, I think it is a terrific idea as the history of the game needs recording, saving and, most of all, understanding now. It takes serious research to do it and that, in turn, takes dedicated time, energy and MONETY to do so.

Are you also stating that he DIDN'T pay others who have published essays on the IMO section? If not, why not?

I am pushing you on this because you brought this up as a NEGATIVE thibng and did so in a highly unsubstantiated and cowardly way by hiding behind a made-up-name.

Be a man and stand up for your assertions. If they are correct accept the praise deserved, if they are not accept the criticism to follow...

 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
He wasn't being very high minded or scholarly when he 'anonymously' spoke his mind in this most public forum, especially when he could have done so by contacting Ran through IM, email, telephone, candygram, etc., etc..

...and furthermore, if he has a problem with Ran and his intent is to speak to him about it, why the hell do 'we' have to know about it?

What is the motive behind such actions, ego? 

[Tony_Muldoon]

I'll just concentrate on whats written in the piece.



Well done Tom, it seems amazing that it's taken until now for someone to delve more broadly into the roots of golf architecture on here.  Very valuable, the considerable effort you must have put into this is much appreciated.

I knew about most of them but I hadn't previously recognised Hall Blyth.

Tom was there such a thing as a "Wimbledon school"?

[Melvyn Morrow]

TEPaul

I agree that we should try to understand those early Designers
in today’s light, but we all need to judge them by the standards
of their day.

This was the age of Victorian Gothic, of new standard never tried before, a new sport opening up to the population at large. These guys were the leading lights of their day, so were their courses. These early pioneers are responsible for the birth of our modern game from a hand full of courses to more than a few thousand within a generation. They set the standard that we still follow to this day. The later designers not only followed in their footsteps but they utilised their methods, refining them as more land, money and equipment was made available in the early 20th Century.

I am please Tom MacWood has moving from his original opinion of these early Guys. But I expect when I have re-checked his article I may have a few questions.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
He wasn't being very high minded or scholarly when he 'anonymously' spoke his mind in this most public forum, especially when he could have done so by contacting Ran through IM, email, telephone, candygram, etc., etc..

...and furthermore, if he has a problem with Ran and his intent is to speak to him about it, why the hell do 'we' have to know about it?

What is the motive behind such actions, ego?"


Jim:

You should probably ask him, but if you want my opinion I believe he did speak to Ran by IM expressing his concerns, and I believe his concerns had nothing whatsoever to do with ego and pretty much everything to do with what he believes and is concerned about, and that is poor scholarship and the promotion and dissemination of it. 

Some of us have viewed a few of these essays on here as seemingly a wealth of research material, and we do understand that alone might very much impress some people. But in the end, the real value, in the opinions of some on here, is contained in what assumptions and premises and final conclusions they come to with that wealth of research information.

With this latest essay from Tom MacWood, after reading it today, it occurs to me that I must have missed something, or some things, because although I did learn about a number of lesser known architects of that time I'd never heard of or was not much familiar with, when I got to the conclusion of the essay, all I saw was a number of remarks and explanations of this time that have been on some of the posts of this website for years, and, in my opinion, better treated and explained this era.

Frankly, I think Part One of Cornish and Whitten's book treats this entire era much better and in more informative way for a reader, even if its fairly general. I've never found that much of anything to top it, even if it does not treat or even mention some of the lesser known architects from that time, only a few of the ones most all of us have heard of.

I'll read it again, looking for something of more overall substance. I hope it's there but it may not be. As some of us have said many times, it is not just a wealth of research we're looking for, it's how it's interpreted. As one of the long term participants on here who definitely is thoughtful, said once about some of these essays; "It's a lot of smoke, but where's the fire?"

I believe what Melvyn Morrow said on here and what Tom MacWood said himself in the very beginning of this new essay---eg I think he is in the process of learning how to reevaluate his understanding of what this era was all about in its time and place. I'm glad he's willing to keep learning and keep reconsidering. I think we all should do that about this era and any other. Both late 19th century AND early 20th century architecture both abroad and here really were some fascinating times with some fascinating men and characters.

From my perch today looking back on that time and those people I feel like most of them were basically trying to scratch the surfaces of a new and very much under-developed art form or expression, and some of them were scratching with everthing they could conjure up physically and intellectually. I think many of them cared so much they pretty much lived and died this stuff and maybe even for the likes of Crump and Wilson it actually killed them before they could even reach near to whatever their ultimate visions may've been.

[TEPaul]

I don't know Melvyn, for some reason I just don't feel that comfortable with some of the things you say about that era and those men, and I guess that's why I very much look forward to the future of discussing it on here with you. At the moment, I just can't put my finger on it, though. As for Old Tom, particularly, I'm not sure he's been treated by some of us today in a way like it really happened but I can't imagine that one could say he's been somehow minimized or disrespected. In the sweep across the entire history and evolution of golf course architecture, Old Tom Morris is pretty huge!

But if you got a time machine and went back and swept him up and dropped him into our era for a month or a year, how would he do?

Well, I have no idea, but I do know that's impossible and I do know that is absolutely not the point.

That's my point!

[Melvyn Morrow]

TEPaul

With the truth we can move forward. We can also learn, but we require an open mind to be able to absorb and examine the information.

The most important part of Tom MacWood essay in IMO file is that he would appear to have taken the first step. As you stated “e.g. I think he is in the process of learning how to reevaluate his understanding of what this era was all about in its time and place.”

That is a big step and I for one appreciate it. I don’t necessary concur with some of the content of his essay but for me he has moved the debate another step forward to hopefully understanding the Early Architects and Designers, and nearer the real truth.

As for Old Tom, well, we might find more courses that have a connection with him or less. The numbers are unimportant (unless you believe your course has a connection with him). What is important and understood by the Scot's is that Old Tom was a legend in his own life time, not a phenomenon created in the last 30 years. Numerous contemporaneous newspaper reports and photo exist of many visits proving his celebrity status from the 1890’s.
   
As for TWHLIW surprising post and attack on Ran, if I understand it correctly it’s his complaint that Ran has paid money for Tom MacWood’s essay. I don’t have a problem with that, if the contents is totally correct , but by the very nature of posting it in “IN MY OPINION” file it has potentially become another topic for debate – then why pay for that, if indeed he did.
       
However if payment has been made, I will be expecting a large donation from Mr MacWood, to be paid into The Old Tom Morris Centenary Monument Fund. This is about to open and is for a new bronze of Old Tom overlooking The Links from the Bruce Embankment at St Andrews with the full list of Open Champions around the base plinth. The idea is a gift to the people of St Andrews of a life size bronze of Old Tom (must be on public display) from all those involved with Golf and the Golfing World including all equipment manufacturers. After this it is hoped to develop the Old Tom Morris Golfing Trail for those who want to try something slightly different when they travel to the UK - Bill & Co please take note.
 

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

Thanks. Since the article that's the subject of this thread isn't exactly about Old Tom Morris, I guess I'll direct questions I have about him to you in some other way. As for how this article was generated by Ran Morrissett, that's not my concern at this time.

[BCrosby]

Tom MacWood -

A wonerful contribution. I enjoyed it enormously and learned a great deal. I don't want to think about the hours of research you must have poured into this.

Congratulations. Well done.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Once again, and as usual, that really is a lot of great research material, and again, congratulations on that. As for the end----the "conclusion" (and some of the apparent assumptions along the way) let me read it all again with the thought of how all you offered plays into that conclusion. Maybe I'm just dumb and I just keep missing something. I do notice you said again as you have so often that much of the real purpose here is that we all have to keep looking and searching and researching. Well, yeah, Duh, I think all of us who've been doing this over the years sure do know that. I think the real deal here is to always remember not to interpret too much into some of the pieces of material we find along the way just because we happen to find it. I just so much want to get us all to see those people and those eras as they saw it in their time and not necessarily the way some of us do today looking BACK at them across a century or more.

I believe you have a natural tendency in the way you look at history to cast it in something of a "what if" context---I'll never forget that time when we were speaking you mentioned that as you referred to the excellent history writer John McCullough. I appreciate that approach a lot but before one gets to that context I think it's far more important to try to establish as best we can what really HAPPENED back then and the way they looked at it all before we get into the "what ifs" about what could've been different in the future they'd never see or know.

The other thing that still sort of disturbs me that I still see some vestiges of in your recent essay (which I'd be glad to quote) and I see all kind of evidence of in David Moriarty's, is this notion that both of you seem to share that a guy like Hugh Wilson, as the best example, just couldn't have done what he and his committee did, even early on, WITHOUT bringing someone in to basically do it for him or them far more than the facts have ever indicated. (This seems to very much be the notion or the mindset of the two of you with a Wilson and Macdonald and also very much with a Crump and Colt).

To me that's just a basic misunderstanding of not just some of those men from that time, like a Wilson, it's also a misunderstanding of their world and their time, in my opinion.

[Tony_Muldoon]

One of the many interesting ideas this essay asks us is to question the role of the professional as the golf course designer from day one.  Today few on here should have much truck with the idea that the vast majority to famous player designed courses announced weekly have much to do with the name attached to them. The name is paid for publicity purposes and usually shows up for a few photo opportunities. The real work is done by others.

Tom MacWood asks us if this wasn’t always the case (perhaps to lesser extent)?  Have we given too much credit to these early names?



 
Tom Paul can I ask you to revise some of your opinions?

E.G.  that all anyone needs to know about golf design history is contained in the introduction to The Architects of GOLF by Cornish and Whitten.  While I agree it’s an excellent summary it is so far short of the whole story that to suggest that someone should keep on researching and then no matter what they discover the must refer back to the received history by C&W is one of the loonier ideas I’ve ever read on here.

In their introduction they write

“Old records indicate that most people turned to professionals like Allan Robertson to provide them with new golfing grounds.”  (pg 14)

Tom MacWood shows us that is a rather limited view of that time.  Are you ready to change your views?

[Kyle Harris]

Calling any era the Golden Age of Golf is crap... it implies the game's best days are behind us.

Similarly, the whole dark age of golf architecture and renaissance should be viewed in the same vein. Golf architecture hasn't even reached the point of being a craft or art - so long as there is very little actual true criticism within the field (I'm looking in your direction, ASGCA) outside of Doak's Confidential Guide.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()