[Thomas MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

That remark by Hutchinson (in 1897) seems to be remarkably on point regarding what I'm talking about----eg the first awareness (and search) for that kind of soil structure and makeup INLAND (that essentially matched the soil structure and makeup of linksland sites).

Are we now to understand that Sunningdale was not the first in INLAND England to strip heather and rhododendren off an inland site and replant it with seed? Is early Woking looking like the first or perhaps even some other course in the English heathlands? Or is Hutchinson's remark in 1897 simply evidence that this kind of thing was being actively looked for but that it's discovery (Sunningdale or Woking or wherever?) had just not first taken place at that time (1897)?

No, Sunningdale was not the first heathland course to strip the heather and such. It was however the first golf course to be completely sown by seed. New Zealand was another important design that predates Sunningdale, being the first course cut from a forest, and also heathland. Sod was layed at great expense. Bournemouth was another expensiver project, although not a heathland. There were golf courses prior to Woking built on heathland. Hutchinson in 1897 was first person to publicly promote the advantages of that type of site...that I am aware of.

Another factor often overlooked was the advantages of modern technology. Mechanized equipment was used to clear Walton Heath.

My interest in determing this kind of thing involves when this first happened, and where it first happened, but primarily WHY they began LOOKING for this kind of soil structure and makeup INLAND. Of course WHO was the first to start looking for it is most interesting too.

For all I know, at this point, is some of these early architects like the Dunns or the Parks or Morris or those interested in golf and architecture like a Hutchinson may've been aware of this reality for years (perhaps at any time during those decades of golf's first emigration out of Scotland in those 2-3 decades preceding the turn of the century) but that no one was willing to invest the money (plowing up sites and reseeding) that it required.

If English clients of that early time were only willing to pay those early architects enough to "layout" (a basic routing) over the course of a day or two before they were back on a train home or to some other 1-2 day "layout" project (as Bernard Darwin explained) then perhaps none of those early architects felt it was appropriate to explain that they needed to pay many thousands of pounds to plow up and reseed and reshape landforms into good man-made architectural features (not to mention how hard that would have been to do on impervious clay meadowland sites compared to sandy sites) IF THEY WANTED the type of golf and architecture and playability available on natural linksland sites and courses.

If this is all true, then the fact is none of us today have much right or reason to hold those early linksland architects accountable for the crap that was produced particularly inland in those decades leading up to the turn of the century. Not to mention that fact after a day or so to "layout' the course they probably weren't even around to get involved in some of the rudimentary features done after their departure!

This is some of what Cornish and Whitten had to say about that:

"In defense of Old Tom, he probably did as much as was required of any golf course designer of that time, and he produced layouts that were functional for the game he knew so well. The statement of Hutchinson in 1898 that the layout of a golf course was a "wonderfully easy business needing very little special training" was not naive. It reflected the prevailing attitude of the time."

But perhaps Hutichinson's remark when it came to some of those linksmen architects was somewhat naive. Perhaps they did know how to do things better if any clients wanted to invest the necessary time and money and what-all that meant.

C&W also said:

"Another of the early course designers, Tom Dunn, has been accused of lacking imagination. In retrospect, it seems reasonable to conclude that Dunn strove for the functional in an age before funds and techniques were available for creating imaginative features. His great contribution was in designing inexpensive layouts for the multitudes who were taking up the game."

If this was all accurately the case we may have no right or reason to assume those early linksmen architects did not really know what they were doing or could do----it may just have been a case of noone asking for it or being willing to pay for it and to take the time and effort to do what some of those early architects may've known it would take if those early inland clients wanted something better or something really good.

If someone walks into a automobile showroom and asks to buy a Pinto, is the salesman really going to try to sell them a Ferrari or a Rolls Royce?

Maybe it was of no real difference with those early linksland designers in those first decades when golf and architecture first emigrated out of Scotland.

A lot of interesting speculation there. You might be onto something with some of those theories. Its going to take some serious research and digging to prove or disprove some of those ideas, obviously beyond C&W.

I haven't seen anything to suggest Morris, Dunn and Park were promoting this type of site prior to Hutchinson in 1897. Handy golf was the theme of the day, as Sir Guy Campbell explained. Mure Fergusson, TA Roberts and Herbert Fowler were not satisfied with the handy golf courses in and around London....and they had access to money.

[TEPaul]

DanK:

Maybe these threads and a better understanding of all this will finally make some appreciate exactly what C&W did say in their Part One. For some reason some on here think one must over-load any subject with all kind of semi-extraneous research material to make it impressive or enlightening. C&W in their Part One didn't do that, but to me what they did say pretty much feels like they nailed the historical accuracy of this general subject anyway, and to me that's probably the most important thing of all.

[TEPaul]

"No, Sunningdale was not the first heathland course to strip the heather and such. It was however the first golf course to be completely sown by seed. New Zealand was another important design that predates Sunningdale, being the first course cut from a forest, and also heathland. Sod was layed at great expense."


Tom MacWood:

Sod was laid at great expense where?

[TEPaul]

"I haven't seen anything to suggest Morris, Dunn and Park were promoting this type of site prior to Hutchinson in 1897."


Tom MacWood:

Well, if one really thinks about it why would they? They didn't even come from England. My real purpose here is to try to figure out what-all they knew at any particular time. If people like Dunn and Morris and Park and some of the other peripatetic linksland designers in those early years and decades before the turn of the century were simply giving people (clients) in England what they were asking for and paying for in those early decades it pretty much casts all or some of those early linksmen designers in a pretty different light than some of them have been previously cast in before, particularly on here, don't you think? 

[Thomas MacWood]

Sod was used at New Zealand.

[TEPaul]

In other words, are you really prepared to state as a fact, that if a guy like Park Jr was given the opportunity, the time and the money to create a course like he did with Sunnydale or Huntercombe in say 1885 instead of around 1900 that he wouldn't have had much of any idea how to even do that and that all he would've been able to do is some geometric looking course with no seed requirement? If that's what you're saying I think it's probably you who need to do a ton more research to prove why you think that.

If you think all the answers to that can be found in your "Arts and Crafts" essay on here I feel I would  very strenuously disagree with that as I'm sure you're aware I have in the past, at least until some far more in-depth answers are found somewhere and somehow.

[TEPaul]

"Sod was used at New Zealand."


Sod from where? What kind of grass was it? That is most definitely not an insignificant question or answer.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

That remark by Hutchinson (in 1897) seems to be remarkably on point regarding what I'm talking about----eg the first awareness (and search) for that kind of soil structure and makeup INLAND (that essentially matched the soil structure and makeup of linksland sites).

My interest in determing this kind of thing involves when this first happened, and where it first happened, but primarily WHY they began LOOKING for this kind of soil structure and makeup INLAND. Of course WHO was the first to start looking for it is most interesting too.

For all I know, at this point, is some of these early architects like the Dunns or the Parks or Morris or those interested in golf and architecture like a Hutchinson may've been aware of this reality for years (perhaps at any time during those decades of golf's first emigration out of Scotland in those 2-3 decades preceding the turn of the century) but that no one was willing to invest the money (plowing up sites and reseeding) that it required.

TE
I was responding to your speculation above.

Dunn was by far the most prolific golf architect around London in the 1890s. He lived in England most of his life. His early years as a boy, and the years he was designing golf courses.

[TEPaul]

"Dunn was by far the most prolific golf architect around London in the 1890s. He lived in England most of his life. His early years as a boy, and the years he was designing golf courses."


I'm very aware of that but nevertheless Tom Dunn was logically extremely familiar with Scottish linksland architectural formations and features and probably soil type. He was the professional at North Berwick for a time and his Scottish wife was said to be the best woman player there was. Are you also saying he would've had no idea how to do a course that was much more a mimic of the linksland style and playbility if some clients in England actually asked him to do that.

Do any of us even understand what kind of golf and architectural style the early English inland golfers were asking for? I'm beginning to do that any of us even know that. Don't forget it was this early English inland "steeplechase" style that Darwin mentioned that was familiar to those people and not necessarily to a man of links heritage like Dunn or Park or Morris.

Perhaps just another good example of these men simply giving those people what they were asking for and willing to pay re time and investment.



"TE
I was responding to your speculation above."

At this point I think we are all still speculating, and certainly including you. To me logical speculation is the best way to uncover and find some really good avenues of inquiry.

[Thomas MacWood]

The turf was cut from rides running through the forest, and from other sites within the district. Laying sod to make greens was a pretty common practice in the 90s, building a golf course in a forest was not common.

[TEPaul]

"The turf was cut from rides running through the forest, and from other sites within the district. Laying sod to make greens was a pretty common practice in the 90s."


From rides running through the forest?

What does that mean? Could you show us where that information comes from?

Do you have any idea what kind of grass that was? Was it fescue or bent as found naturally on the "swards" of the Scottish linksland courses or was it just some indigenous "meadow" grass or perhaps "forest" grass   found on rides or some such thing? Or did a "running ride" mean something else back then? 

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
Maybe these threads and a better understanding of all this will finally make some appreciate exactly what C&W did say in their Part One. For some reason some on here think one must over-load any subject with all kind of semi-extraneous research material to make it impressive or enlightening. C&W in their Part One didn't do that, but to me what they did say pretty much feels like they nailed the historical accuracy of this general subject anyway, and to me that's probably the most important thing of all.

I'm a big fan of research material. It's entirely possible, but unlikely, C&W got everything correct. Even assuming they are perfect, we should not stop researching. History isn't an exact science, matter of fact, science isn't even an exact science. There is no need to be protective of C&W. Their work was great, but I don't believe they even think they need the last word on research.

I don't believe anyone ever nails historical accuracy.

Cheers,
Dan King

History has to be rewritten because history is the selection of those threads of causes or antecedents that we are interested in.
 --Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
A ride is a trail.

I'm sorry I don't know what type of grass it was.

Fergusson descibed it as the right kind of turf for a golf course, short and crisp, due to the wear and tear of traffic and the nibblings of our little friends in the forest, Mr. Rabbit and Mr. Deer.

Mure Fergusson wrote: "Given the existance of this turf and a certain amount of undulation in the ground, the formation of the course is merely a matter of engineering and money."

Money and engineering were evidently not an issue for Mure Fergusson and his good friend Mr. Locke-King.

I'm sorry but its time now for me to hit the ride.

[TEPaul]

"There is no need to be protective of C&W."


Dan:

I really don't understand why people are saying I'm being protective of C&W. Maybe it's because I've mentioned their Part One on here many times. That's simply because I've never seen anyone exactly refute those general things they said about that era and those early architects and particularly because of what they had to say about the soil structure and makeup of the heathlands as such a significant breakthrough for inland golf and architecture. 

Some of the things some on here say about what others mention can get pretty bizarre. More than once Tom MacWood who's back on here now used to mention on here that C&W is all I've ever read. I wonder where he comes up with an idea like that as I've certainly never met him or ever discussed with him what-all I've read over the years. The truth is I've probably read more about agronomic realities back in that day than he ever has by a factor of ten. At least in his recent essay on here he said the agronomy of that era was something he's never been very familiar with or its important nexus with the development of architecture.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

What do any contemporaneous accounts that you're aware of have to say about the over-all quaility (architecturally, agronomically and playability-wise) of Fergusson's New Zealand golf course?  Was it ever spoken about in the context of some "breakthrough" in heathland or inland golf and architecture as Sunningdale and Huntercombe were 5-7 years later? And if not, why do you suppose that was?


I believe it's also pretty important to find out what type of grass that was they were digging sod plots out of the forest "rides." I think we need to find out if it was some form of fescue or bent. Or at least we need to find out if whatever it was it had any long term endurance in golf, and if not why not.

[Tony_Muldoon]

It wasn't WPII's idea to build a golf course at Sunningdale, it was the Roberts brothers, and the housing potential was a major factor. The house builders of London discovered the benefits of well drained soil before the golf course-makers.

Tom would you like to clarify what you mean here? My thinking is that these heathlands were not valuable farming land and therefore cheap.  Hence they were attractive to house speculators and The London Necropolis Company (Woking).

Tony
No doubt the speculators sought cheap land, but before the speculators there were individuals who moved out into those areas and built homes, and the main attraction for the architects was well drained land. Mr. T. Roberts built a house out there before he decided to take the dive.

I remember reading somewhere that there is a sandy ridge that runs through that part of England, perhaps there are two ridges, I don't recall. You probably know more about that than I. But anyway from what I understood the areas along those ridges is where the development concertrated. I think one of the ridges runs through Surrey and Berkshire, and perhaps the other one is a little further south down around Woking. As you know the railroads and rail stations were another important factor for speculators (which is largely why Huntercombe failed as a venture).

I wonder at what point the sandy suburbian areas hit the tipping point, going from cheap land to prime real estate. Do you know?

In a sense it was only a matter of time before the railways brought people out to the heathlands.  This table (quickly constructed using Google Earth) shows the expansion of golf away from the centre of London.  Also those who don’t know their local history should understand that it is believed tens  in Britain developed to wards the south and west for the affluent. This (so the theory goes) this meant they lived upwind of the factories that provided them with the means to buy their rich houses surrounded by playing fields.  As time goes by the significant new inland courses become further from the centre as people move out.  In London’s case the affluent were moving towards the heathland areas, and the suitability of the land for golf was a mere accident when the overall demographics are considered.


Distance from Charing Cross the traditional way of measuring distance to London.

Blackheath 1608 6 miles (although at the time Greenwich Palace was less than a mile away)

Wimbledon/London Scottish 1864   7.5 Miles

Redhill 1887   18 miles

Epping Forrest  1888 11 miles

Mitcham  (Princes )  1890?   7.5miles

Mid Surrey 1892  8 miles  (this is on the same gravel based land that Kew Gardens sits on, free draining but flat).

 Woking 1893  22 Miles

Sunnigdale 1901   23 miles

Walton Heath  1903   15 miles

Huntercombe 1903   38 miles

Coombe Hill 1911  8 Miles  -  one of the few exceptions being a significant later development inside the ever growing circles.


Not sure what year these clubs started but they are NLE because the land became too valuable.
Clapham Common   3.5 miles
Tooting Bec   5 miles
Chiswick – 9 holes -   6 miles.

Tom the two belts of gravel are (I believe) the Surrey/Berkshire golf home and one in the midlands.

[Tony_Muldoon]

It is interesting to note that Park chose a very different site when set out to build HIS project at Huntercombe.

I'll check but I believe that Park was introduced to the Huntercombe land by Roberts who owned land around the comon where the course was developed. They formed a sort of joint venture. Roberts and his money men backed out soon after when, presumably, they realised the difficulties of selling plots of land for houses so far from a station.  Park was the sole investor after quite a short time and it seems like he was naive.  More research needed.

[Thomas MacWood]

In other words, are you really prepared to state as a fact, that if a guy like Park Jr was given the opportunity, the time and the money to create a course like he did with Sunnydale or Huntercombe in say 1885 instead of around 1900 that he wouldn't have had much of any idea how to even do that and that all he would've been able to do is some geometric looking course with no seed requirement? If that's what you're saying I think it's probably you who need to do a ton more research to prove why you think that.

If you think all the answers to that can be found in your "Arts and Crafts" essay on here I feel I would  very strenuously disagree with that as I'm sure you're aware I have in the past, at least until some far more in-depth answers are found somewhere and somehow.

TE
You lost me. Sunningdale and Huntercombe are two different sites and two completely different animals. In 1885 WPII had yet to design a single course - seaside or inland. There is no doubt his experience designing golf courses throughout ninties benefited him in 1900.

Golf architecture progressed incrementally not overnight. There was a lot of trial and error between 1885 and 1900 that led to course like Sunningdale, which by the way was not perfect.

In 1885 there weren't whole lot of golfers in England, and the rush out to the suburbs of London was not yet in full flight either. I'm sorry your question makes little sense to me.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tony
You are right the heathland was no good for agriculture, therefore it was of little value. Eventually they discovered it was perfect for housing, and so its value must have risen accordingly. My question is when was that land no longer inexpensive. In the twenties or thirties or earlier or even later.

Park was an original investor in Huntercombe. He owned £5000 of the initial issue of stock (of a total of £25,000), the same amount as HH Gardiner, the previous owner of the property. They were two largest stock holders. Roberts owned £500.

[TEPaul]

“I'm sorry your question makes little sense to me.”

No problem. I’m quite sure you know exactly what I’m asking but anyway…



Let me put it this way then. Do you disagree with the following remarks and if so why is that?



“Dozens of sorry inland courses built on impervious clay soils convinced most golf purists that only the ancient links could produce excellent golf. But a few golf course prospectors were unconvinced and kept searching for suitable terrain comparable to the best linksland. Their search was fruitful, for at the turn of the century they unearthed a mother lode of fine golfing land less than fifty miles from 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 that of the heaths, which except for the presence of trees, is not unlike the links. The long delay in the discovery of the heathlands, despite their 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 W. Herbert Fowler. Their prominence was due in part to their vision in recognizing the true potential of this unlikely terrain and in a part to their ability to shape the land into splendid golf holes.”

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
That is a good remedial synopsis. I would hope we are a little more advanced than that at this point.

[TEPaul]

"TE
That is good remedial synopsis. I would hope we are a little more advanced than that at this point."

Tom:

That is precisely the type of pretty deflective and also pretty arrogant response that bothers some on here about you. It's either true or it isn't true and if you don't think it is true maybe you might try to provide some kind of vaguely informative answer of why you don't think the facts indicate it's true or not other than your stock---"it needs more research."  The truth is probably something like you really just don't know but would prefer not to ever admit that.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
The three paragraphs C&W wrote on William Flynn are also a good simple primer. Would you suggest we leave it that?

[TEPaul]

Tom:

This is sort of like a deja vu. You don't really seem to have much capacity to discuss anything and I'd almost forgotten that most of your post responses are just short deflective questions, never much in the way of an actual informative answer. Maybe you think you should use the Socratic Method on here with someone like me but remember---his questions really were thought provoking! 

But basically, my interest and deal is to find historical accuracy. I'll take a general overview that's historically accurate over a research laden essay that isn't historically accurate any day of the week.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom:

 Maybe you think you should use the Socratic Method on here with someone like me but remember---his questions really were thought provoking! 

Really, I knew you were old, but I didn't know you were that old.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()