American Cricketer articles

[TEPaul]

"But it was an interesting moment in gca. One that it is under-appreciated in terms of the evolution of certain ideas."

Bob:

Yes, it was an interesting moment and probably under-appreciated in terms of the evolution of design ideas. For increased understanding of what J.H. Taylor thought he was accomplishing and why I would suggest that everyone read Taylor's own article on this idea that is contained in an old IMO piece on this website entitled "In Praise of the Ralph Miller Library" by Tommy Naccarato.

Obviously, Taylor thought he was getting away from some of the unfairness of both the old fashioned cop bunker thinking as well as both pots and flanking bunkers. He thought Mid-Surrey mounding was the latest and best work and word in what might be called a philosophy of "graduated" penalty.

Problem seems to have been it may've been that but it looked pretty awful and lost popularity pretty fast.

[Mike_Cirba]

It seems very akin to the Rees Jones "progressive discipline" methodology which is most visibly exhibited on courses he has re-done for major championships.

Of course, he may also claim that those Rees's pieces mounds he lines all the fairways of his original courses with are somehow classically inspired by J.H. Taylor and A.W. Tillinghast, but even those old guys knew when to chuck a bad design idea into the dustbin of history. 

[BCrosby]

Tom/Mike -

Taylor was a fascinating figure in the GA. He, along with Crane and some others, were the anti-Christ. They didn't buy into the strategic architecture stuff that MacK, Simpson and the whole pantheon of GA icons were peddling. He thought their flanking bunkers were too "effeminate". Taylor preferred "manly" Victorian cross and cop bunkering.

Look at Joe's picture of Taylor's par 5 at MS above. It's basically a Victorian design with a dash of proportional "alpinisation" thrown in.

It also seems pretty obvious, based on what I saw at Somerset Hills, that Taylor must have had some influence on Tilly.


Bob 

[Bradley Anderson]

I'm not sure what club this is but I'm pretty sure it's a MacKenzie course, because he appears in many of the photo's in the series. But the bunkering here seems like the placement in the article above.

[TEPaul]

"Of course, he may also claim that those Rees's pieces mounds he lines all the fairways of his original courses with are somehow classically inspired by J.H. Taylor and A.W. Tillinghast, but even those old guys knew when to chuck a bad design idea into the dustbin of history."

MikeC:

Even Ross was into a philosophy of "graduated" penalty on the farther off line the greater the recovery penalty. Ross basically talked about it with a bunker's design. You can read about it in his "Golf Has Never Failed Me."

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

Cool green photograph you hung up there. In my opinion, that right REAR bunker basically makes the whole arrangement!

[TEPaul]

BobC:

I've always thought you were a little too tough on Taylor on this strategic/penal dynamic. It could be that Taylor's ideas and philosophy was in a state of flux for a time between the old and some of the new ideas. The other thing that may've garnered Taylor some criticism in print over here is he seemed a bit too prideful about his side compared to this side. But that could be explained by the fact that there was a pretty big hiatus between his visits over here at an important time in the evolution of American ideas on architecture. Tilly hammered him and his ideas in print a few times.

[Mike_Cirba]

"Of course, he may also claim that those Rees's pieces mounds he lines all the fairways of his original courses with are somehow classically inspired by J.H. Taylor and A.W. Tillinghast, but even those old guys knew when to chuck a bad design idea into the dustbin of history."

MikeC:

Even Ross was into a philosophy of "graduated" penalty on the farther off line the greater the recovery penalty. Ross basically talked about it with a bunker's design. You can read about it in his "Golf Has Never Failed Me."

Tom,

I think Whitten just threw that chapter in there to excuse the elevation of Sandpines to Best New Course of 1990something in Golf Digest, or else Ross didn't know his arse from a pot bunker, either! 

[TEPaul]

If Whitten threw that in there himself trying to make it look like Ross he should be given a life sentence in Literary prison.

[Mike_Cirba]

Gawd...I hate formulas in golf course architecture!   

It always reminds me of that scene in "Dead Poet's Society" where Robin Williams as the teacher has his class open the book to the chapter where someone has devised a tool by which to rate poetry using a mathematical theorem, and then has the class each rip those offending pages from the book and discard them.

The idea that we can and should impose some precise, mathematical order on what should be a much more chaotic, chancy, uncertain game through starting with a 1.5 inch cut, and then 3 inches, and then 6 inches, and then some type of inpenetrable jungle beyond is sheer lunacy!

I love how it all comes crashing down when about 20 yards into the rough...where the most "progressive" shots end up, the rough is trampled down by spectators and usually ends up being a penalty-free zone! 

[BCrosby]

TEP -

Most of the history of gca has been written by architects. (That might be changing, but was true up until the last decade or so.) One of the curious things about that is that the architects who wrote tended to be of the strategic school persuasion. Or at least sympathetic to it. I can't think of any major exceptions. In fact, I can't think of any exceptions at all. Who am I forgetting?

Now whatever sorts of courses Taylor actually built (I've never seen one), at least at one point in his career (1910 to about 1925), he advocated for what most would call today a penal theory of architecture. It was sometimes muddled up with a bunch of other ideas, but there's not much question that for a period Taylor's sine qua non for good design was that all bad shots were to be punished immediately and hazards should be located to make that happen. He leavened that with talk about graduated penalties and proportional punishments. Mallaby-Deely (St. George's) was another architect, slightly older, who could sound very similar to Taylor. I would add Crane too, who was slightly younger, but who had some similar views.    

But all that's not what I think is interesting. What is interesting is that the views of Taylor and others probably come closer to popular views about what constitutes good design than the views of the much more famous strategic architects. Yet it was the latter who wrote the histories that shaped our understandings of the history. As such, the views of Taylor and others, even though they are probably representative of the biggest slice of the golfing universe, didn't get written about very much. They are more or less minor footnotes. They are the crazy uncles that the history of gca hides in the basement.

I'm not sure where this is going. Other than to say that the written history of gca has some baked-in preferences that are rarely noticed. So I guess I'm making note of one of them.

Bob

[Mike_Cirba]

Bob.

Any post that refers to the crazy uncle in the basement is its own reward.

No need to explain further...the joy is in the telling! (And reading

[Paul_Turner]

Joe

That's a great find about Colt and Pine Valley in 1914.  He arrived in Boston with Hamilton near Toronto being the main project.  If he traveled 3000 miles then why not include a short trip down south, for a revisit to the premiere golf course project in the USA?

Of course a visit in 1914, combined with the Carr 1915 report, would really be the final nail in the coffin for the argument that Colt was being used as a "Signature Designer";  put forward by certain arch Crump defenders on this site.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Does that Tillinghast article say Colt visited Pine Valley in 1914? Maybe you should read what that article does say. The history of the architectural creation of Pine Valley over app. ten years is pretty detailed and pretty clear now and I think Colt gets whatever credit that was due him, and so does Crump, and a few others who contributed over the years until 18 holes were in play.

[Sean_A]

TEP -

Most of the history of gca has been written by architects. (That might be changing, but was true up until the last decade or so.) One of the curious things about that is that the architects who wrote tended to be of the strategic school persuasion. Or at least sympathetic to it. I can't think of any major exceptions. In fact, I can't think of any exceptions at all. Who am I forgetting?

Now whatever sorts of courses Taylor actually built (I've never seen one), at least at one point in his career (1910 to about 1925), he advocated for what most would call today a penal theory of architecture. It was sometimes muddled up with a bunch of other ideas, but there's not much question that for a period Taylor's sine qua non for good design was that all bad shots were to be punished immediately and hazards should be located to make that happen. He leavened that with talk about graduated penalties and proportional punishments. Mallaby-Deely (St. George's) was another architect, slightly older, who could sound very similar to Taylor. I would add Crane too, who was slightly younger, but who had some similar views.    

But all that's not what I think is interesting. What is interesting is that the views of Taylor and others probably come closer to popular views about what constitutes good design than the views of the much more famous strategic architects. Yet it was the latter who wrote the histories that shaped our understandings of the history. As such, the views of Taylor and others, even though they are probably representative of the biggest slice of the golfing universe, didn't get written about very much. They are more or less minor footnotes. They are the crazy uncles that the history of gca hides in the basement.

I'm not sure where this is going. Other than to say that the written history of gca has some baked-in preferences that are rarely noticed. So I guess I'm making note of one of them.

Bob

Bob

I think of Taylor as a reactionary to the dropping scores in the Open which started around turn of the century and accelerated dramatically around 1910 - by this time the concept of par golf was fim;ly established.  Many courses which had bogey rating were reviewing these numbers and for the most part the concept of a bogey score died around this time.  Incidentally, this is also a period when conscious lengthening of courses was being done and it had little impact on dropping scores.  Perhaps Taylor was looking for alternative ways to challenge the golfer as I am sure he could see the long term writing on the wall in terms of increasing yardage was not going to do the trick of making par a meaningful score. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

...What is interesting is that the views of Taylor and others probably come closer to popular views about what constitutes good design than the views of the much more famous strategic architects. Yet it was the latter who wrote the histories that shaped our understandings of the history. As such, the views of Taylor and others, even though they are probably representative of the biggest slice of the golfing universe, didn't get written about very much. They are more or less minor footnotes. They are the crazy uncles that the history of gca hides in the basement.

Bob -

that reminds me - I'm just a little young to remember the 1960s in America, so my picture of it comes from reading about and watching re-caps of it on television in the 70s and 80s -- the war protests, Woodstock, the Summer of Love etc. So it came as a big surprise when I found out that, in the late 60s, it was Dean Martin's variety show that was the Number 1 show in America three years in a row -- babes, booze, brawls, and Dom Deluise. Now, I happen to think that Dean Martin was a terrific perfomer (maybe only Sammy Davis Jr was a better all around entertainer).  But still - the #1 show in the 1960s, three years in a row?  Which -- coming back to your topic and to gca in general - proves what, exactly? I haven't a clue....except to suggest that the act of writing itself (about an era, or an architecture) tends to transform a subject in-line with the requirements/qualities of good writing -- dramatic, complex, personal -- even if there isn't an agenda/advocacy that lies behind the decision to pick up the pen, which there usually is.

Sorry to sidetrack this discussion - I was just really struck by your point, i.e. the notion that what was actually going on in architecture (and what people tended to want and enjoy about it) in those early days of American golf might not have been what the consensus of written opinion would lead me to believe.

Peter   

[Paul_Turner]

Paul:

Does that Tillinghast article say Colt visited Pine Valley in 1914? Maybe you should read what that article does say. The history of the architectural creation of Pine Valley over app. ten years is pretty detailed and pretty clear now and I think Colt gets whatever credit that was due him, and so does Crump, and a few others who contributed over the years until 18 holes were in play.

Yes according to you!

[Rich Goodale]

...What is interesting is that the views of Taylor and others probably come closer to popular views about what constitutes good design than the views of the much more famous strategic architects. Yet it was the latter who wrote the histories that shaped our understandings of the history. As such, the views of Taylor and others, even though they are probably representative of the biggest slice of the golfing universe, didn't get written about very much. They are more or less minor footnotes. They are the crazy uncles that the history of gca hides in the basement.

Bob -

that reminds me - I'm just a little young to remember the 1960s in America, so my picture of it comes from reading about and watching re-caps of it on television in the 70s and 80s -- the war protests, Woodstock, the Summer of Love etc. So it came as a big surprise when I found out that, in the late 60s, it was Dean Martin's variety show that was the Number 1 show in America three years in a row -- babes, booze, brawls, and Dom Deluise. Now, I happen to think that Dean Martin was a terrific perfomer (maybe only Sammy Davis Jr was a better all around entertainer).  But still - the #1 show in the 1960s, three years in a row?  Which -- coming back to your topic and to gca in general - proves what, exactly? I haven't a clue....except to suggest that the act of writing itself (about an era, or an architecture) tends to transform a subject in-line with the requirements/qualities of good writing -- dramatic, complex, personal -- even if there isn't an agenda/advocacy that lies behind the decision to pick up the pen, which there usually is.

Sorry to sidetrack this discussion - I was just really struck by your point, i.e. the notion that what was actually going on in architecture (and what people tended to want and enjoy about it) in those early days of American golf might not have been what the consensus of written opinion would lead me to believe.

Peter   

Peter

I was at Woodstock.  It was highly overrated, or at least that's what some of my friends told me several years afterwards.......

As for the comparisons to Dino et. al., I think we often forget that there was no television in the early 20th century, and those articles from that era about golf we now read with reverence were probably read by only a selected few.  What was the circulation of "American Cricketer" anyway?  Not much more than "British Baseball" I would suspect.

Rich

[TEPaul]

"Yes according to you!"

Paul:

That's true. That is according to me in post #5 of this thread. That is speculation on my part but I look at it as some logical speculation because of that photo album of PV Colt apparently had in his possession at one time.

On the other hand that article above does not say that Colt actually visited Pine Valley in 1914, does it? If some local Philadelphia article from 1914 reported Colt actually DID visit PV in 1914, as they did when he visited PV in 1913, that would be a whole different matter, don't you think?

And then, of course, if that article or articles from 1914 or 1915 could be corroborated by documentation at PV to that effect from 1914 that would be pretty good confirmation, wouldn't you say? 

[Peter Pallotta]

Rich -  We probably all have our own private "woodstocks" that have been lost to memory, but in your case it was the real one!

"Those early articles from that era about golf we now read with reverence were probably read by only a selected few..."

What do you make of that, Rich? What I mean is, do you think the influence of those articles (back then) was less than we (today) imagine them to have been?

thanks
Peter

[TEPaul]

"But all that's not what I think is interesting. What is interesting is that the views of Taylor and others probably come closer to popular views about what constitutes good design than the views of the much more famous strategic architects. Yet it was the latter who wrote the histories that shaped our understandings of the history. As such, the views of Taylor and others, even though they are probably representative of the biggest slice of the golfing universe, didn't get written about very much. They are more or less minor footnotes. They are the crazy uncles that the history of gca hides in the basement."


BobC:


I agree with PeterP, that's quite a statement. I'm wondering if I'm picking up on what it really means as you intended it.

Are you saying that the written word was sort of opposite from the philosophies of the 'crazy uncles' but that architecture basically went with the philosophies of the crazy uncles anyway while trying not to admit it in writing or whatever?

If that's what you're saying, I sure would like to explore again what the distinctions in philosophy, or concept or even on the ground really were between those two camps. As you know, I do think there is something there but it's always been a bit hazy and I also recognize that some of it could just be sort of a "glass half full/glass half empty" kind of thing.

If you're not sure what I mean by that we can just get into the specific subject of what "penalty" was supposed to be in golf in the minds of those various people. Even if the likes of Behr/Mackenzie vs Crane/Taylor were looking at the very same bunker that was well placed on a course it seems like they were translating what it should be and what it should mean to the golfer, both in play and pyschologically, in vastly different ways.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich -  We probably all have our own private "woodstocks" that have been lost to memory, but in your case it was the real one!

"Those early articles from that era about golf we now read with reverence were probably read by only a selected few..."

What do you make of that, Rich? What I mean is, do you think the influence of those articles (back then) was less than we (today) imagine them to have been?

thanks
Peter

Hi Paul

Yes.

Even today, "Country Life" is ready only by toffs and wannabe-toffs.  That being said, it is undoubted that sports/games such as golf were passionately followed in Ye Olden Days--let us not remember that the reason that Prestwick has not held an Open since 1925 is because they could not control the spectators in those days.  Or, compare the crowds following any money match in 1900 (Morris vs. Park, etc.) to the average British Amateur final today.  No comparison.

We read in these old articles what we (as GCA "trainspotters") wish to read.  In most cases we can identify fact from fiction if we know what we are looking for, but in many cases we parse the prose and/or use dodgy dates to prove our own "timelines" (or disprove those of others).

I see these guys (regardless of who is or was "Far and Sure") as being "Joe the Plumbers" like most of us, just using their skills and their trades to make a living.  I really doubt if any of them were writing for posterity.

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

"I was at Woodstock.  It was highly overrated,"


Rich:

Maybe it was highly overrated for those who went but it was definitely not highly overrated for those who didn't get to go. My wife has told me a number of times she will absolutely never forgive her parents for refusing to let her go to Woodstock.

As for me, they couldn't have payed my enough to go up there with thousands of smelly, dirty, drugged up hippies and beatniks with zero manners. I think every one of the parents and grandparents of the kids who went up there totally failed their children and grandchildren in the "potty training" stage of their maturation!


"I see these guys (regardless of who is or was "Far and Sure") as being "Joe the Plumbers" like most of us, just using their skills and their trades to make a living.  I really doubt if any of them were writing for posterity."


Richard:

Yeah, really, and why would they? To them it wasn't posterity that was buying the newspaper and magazine articles they were writing!

[Rich Goodale]

"I was at Woodstock.  It was highly overrated,"


Rich:

Maybe it was highly overrated for those who went but it was definitely not highly overrated for those who didn't get to go. My wife has told me a number of times she will absolutely never forgive her parents for refusing to let her go to Woodstock.

As for me, they couldn't have payed my enough to go up there with thousands of smelly, dirty, drugged up hippies and beatniks with zero manners. I think every one of the parents and grandparents of the kids who went up there totally failed their children and grandchildren in the "potty training" stage of their maturation!


"I see these guys (regardless of who is or was "Far and Sure") as being "Joe the Plumbers" like most of us, just using their skills and their trades to make a living.  I really doubt if any of them were writing for posterity."


Richard:

Yeah, really, and why would they? To them it wasn't posterity that was buying the newspaper and magazine articles they were writing!

Tom

Woodstock was overrated precisely because Suzie was not there.......

Ricardo

[BCrosby]

TEP/Peter -

I'm making three empirical claims.

- The everyday golfer's idea of what makes for a good golf course is - in the majority of cases - much closer to traditionally understood "penal" theories of design than to "strtategc" theories of design.

- There have been architects over the decades whose ideas are more representative of such views of the everyday golfer than the views of the more famous strategic architects.

- It is is the strategic architects (and their sympathizers), however, who have written most of the literature of gca.

- With the ironical result that the most widely held views about gca (and the minority of architects that shared those views) get shunted into footnotes and sidebars in most histories of gca.

To totally wrap this up, I did not go to Woodstock, but two of my roomates did. They thought it was a waste of time, except there were lots of free drugs. So Woodstock had that going for it.

Bob