[Sean_A]

I think you lot are on a wild goose chase trying to define scientific design.  If we are talking about Park Jr and his age, there is no way the man was into scientific design the way you lot are using the term.  What the early designers did was take ideas from the earlier archies and intentionally incorporate them into a purpose built design.  They weren't afraid to shift a bit of dirt around or clear land to achieve their goal.  It happens that Colt was the first and the best (and perhaps still is considered the best) at blending his work with nature to best mimic the design concepts found on original links.

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Pre Modern, Scientific or call it what you want, the real point, I believe has been missed, as with everything there is a learning curve. We must look to our past with open eyes, to seek the actual truth not in the hope that it may fit this or that agenda. I more than most have a self-interest connected to more that one individual in course design, but all I want to know is the truth. But not just the truth I want to understand the process of design, how it developed and grew, the way in which different generations of designers moved the process on step further whilst at the same time utilising all the electronic/mechanical aids available to them. I have no agenda or theory to prove, I just want a real record of the whole story of Golf Course Architecture.

I am not going to repeat all the comments I have mentioned above, but I just want to view the history with a constructive eye. I would dearly love to identify each course with its original designer(s) and record exactly what was undertaken or changed over the years. To this end when I find information not connected with the Morris or Hunters, I collate all of it and pass it on to the clubs in GB. Sometime without even an acknowledgment of receipt – that is simply down to plain poor manners from the clubs management team. However, I can claim many successes so far.

The problem in GB is that the original club houses for the most part were timber buildings which with the early club records many were consumed by fire by the beginning of the 20th Century.

I believe the biggest damage to the real history of golf course architecture came from the like of those mentioned in TEPaul’s post. Their interest was clearly in themselves and promotion of self. They sprout comments that if actually investigated is quite frankly a total load of old rubbish, they failed to actually check out the full story. I don’t dispute that some part time designers may have designed a course in the way proscribed by them, but for the most part the record (as I have found little proof) does not match their comments. Their problem I sincerely believe was (what I have tried to warn others today about) trying to judge the early designers on the basic of the information, knowledge and records available in their later period, i.e. we would not dream of comparing the first steps of flying and stabilising the early aircrafts with that of the 1920-30’s or for that matter what we have today. Yet was that not the real period of development, making giant steps forward, a real Golden Age of Flight. Each step was rightly at the peak of its art, but the first few steps set the targets, proved the point that flight was possible, that set the path for other generations to follow. This IMHO is also the story of golf course design, yet we have the later designers making unfair, arrogant and ignorant comments about their predecessors based upon standard and developments of their day some 40 to 80 years later. Hence I dismiss most of what theses guys have to say. Thanks to these later Legends of GCA, the early designers have been put into boxes like a square peg in a round hole. This in unfair, the records proves that the main designers of the 19th Century were not one day wonders. Reports show, multi visits to site, the addition of bunkers after the courses had opened, of construction and earth moving. There are photos for those that are interested in the truth of men (from a few to a few dozen) with wheel barrow constructing course pre 1900. These guys also used what was considered modern and scientific in their day and it angers me to think that our history has been distorted because of vain men with agendas.

So I would request that when we view history, particularly GCA history, please do so with an open mind, these early guys used the latest available to them and what they achieved gave the likes of Simpson, Holt etc the ability to take the design stage to the next level. Without Old Tom, The Dunns, C Hunter etc. would Simpson or Holt have taken up golf in the first place?

If you must judge people, do so based upon the facts of their day not ours. Doctors of the 1850’s would I expect today be regarded as little more than butchers by their modern counterparts.       

Melvyn

[Steve Lang]

  Very well said Melvyn..

[Steve Lang]

  It gives pause to thought.. that all phases of civilization pass through distinct phases..



and that inquiry and reasoning have always been at the foundation of philosophical advance



was there ever pre-modern golf?  hasn't it always been in the present?

[Jeff_Brauer]

The definition of Modern is “lets make it complicated and expensive and sell it as unique” when in fact is should be clean, simple, efficient and practical

Or is it just camouflaging the truth.

Melvyn

Melvyn,

I agree with nearly all of your post 26 and a lot of 20.  Good stuff, especially putting it into perpective, which Steve Lang has also done in post 28 with graphs.  I especially like the idea of comparing it to aviation - I often say that modern attorneys would have likely demanded that the Wright Bros. just start right out with a 747, rather than develop the idea gradually.

I fully agree with your points regarding each generation was doing the best they could given the task and implements in front of them, and none of us could practice today without having built on the fundamentals brought forth in all eras.  To focus on just the Golden Age is wrong even if the principles of modern design might have been nearly perfected then.  Reading any of Geoff Cornish's work, we can see that many things we take for granted - even the idea of a dogleg hole - was at one time or another, a radical and much debated idea in golf course architecture.

But in those posts, you chastise us for pigeonholing pre 1900 design, and I have to say that the quote above, you do the same to modern, no?  Current designs are even more diverse than pre-1900 ones, if for no other reasons, the shear number of designers and more variety of sites encountered.  I would say modern designers are also doing the best we could given the task and implements in front of us.

You also somehow manage in post 20 to make the jump in logic that earthmoving equipment somehow contributes to nitrates in the water supply.  That is quite a jump and its not connected.  Not to mention that the nitrates in any water supply could and do come from farms, home lawns, etc. and not just modern golf courses.  Are we to suppose that the old line clubs somehow do not contribute to nitrates in the water supply whereas new ones do? 

BTW, the instances of water table contamination linked directly to golf is near, if not, zero.

[TEPaul]

"I believe the biggest damage to the real history of golf course architecture came from the like of those mentioned in TEPaul’s post. Their interest was clearly in themselves and promotion of self. They sprout comments that if actually investigated is quite frankly a total load of old rubbish, they failed to actually check out the full story. I don’t dispute that some part time designers may have designed a course in the way proscribed by them, but for the most part the record (as I have found little proof) does not match their comments."


Melvyn:

I'm extremely interested in that early era too----eg the latter half of the 19th century in GCA. And I also just want to know the historical facts and truth about it all. The way I see it is the only way to understand what really happened generally with GCA is through the accounts of those who saw it and experienced it and obviously things like photographs certainly help us understand it today and compare it to what would follow it.

I'm certainly trying to be fair and balanced and objective about any era and I don't want to have any preconceived agenda going into investigating something, but come on Melvyn, you claim others have an agenda and that that is not a good thing and you can't see that you clearly seem to have an agenda here-----eg which seems to be to defend those old peripatetic 19th century designers and the majority of their products at all costs??

Have you ever heard the phrase "Shooting the messenger", Melvyn?

Well, it looks like you just shot down the messengers Simpson, Darwin, Colt, Hutchinson, Alison and Mackenzie and all at the same time by proclaiming that all of them were self-promoting "rubbish" purveyors in what they said about some of the architecture of that early era.

You even seem to skew the basic timelines by suggesting you've investigated that early time and they didn't, even stated they came along 40-80 years later. It seems to me that all those men quoted above apparently saw that early architecture back in that day it was getting made. I don't think we can say that about you unless you're a lot older than I think you are.

If you have examples of how that early architecture was not what they said it was then why don't you make available to us what you have that leads you to that conclusion? And if and when you do show us some of that in a general and specific way, I should remind you that to us and to them and probably at any time in history the exceptions often do make the rule.  (In other words a few good courses really do make it pretty obvious how bad many others may be).

Furthermore, I don't believe any of them said that all of the architecture of the latter half of the 19th century was terrible, just an awful lot of it.

What I'm trying to figure out and I think some others on here are too (such as Dan Hermann who started this thread) is what golf architecture was generally like at any particular point in time (in this case the latter half of the 19th century) and why, as well as why it began to change so dramatically later (around the turn of the century and on) and why.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

I don't think gca was generally like anything in particular at any point in time and I agree with Melvyn that its easy to pigeon hole it too easily so we can grasp it.

I used the example of Muirfield, remodeled to its present form in 1892 as the first modern course.  But, starting at almost precisely that point, many courses in America were built that were far less than that generally accepted masterpiece, despite all the Scots transplanted to the US to design courses. 

Even the good early ones - like Chicago Golf, were built and rebuilt later (CGC in 1924 by Raynor, in sort of a "mulligan."  Besides, CBM, even some of the men who later became masters had to have built some rudimentary first efforts.  What were Ross' early efforts like, for example. 

I think everyone in America knew there had to be a different design paradigm than the classics in GBI because the land and climate were different.  Grasses didn't just grow naturally here.

In America, they were just learning while the GBI model had been in place/evolving for 400 years.

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

I'm not sure and don't have the details in front of me, but isn't the 1892 version of Muirfield much much different than today's course?   I believe someone famously called the original "an auld water meaddie", or something. 

Didn't Colt and Simpson do significant revisions at some point much later, including the now famous routing?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I could be wrong, of course. For some reason I thought the routing was 1892, but I do know that revisions continue to take place.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

It is not my intention to make any comment against GCA or modern architects. I have not studied nor looked at the modern design, certainly not in North America. As for the Pre 1900 date, it is just an ideal date to look at separating the ages of golf with the introduction of the Haskell and the modifications that entailed. Also it was not my intention to chastise any one at GCA.com, I just asked to check ALL the information before coming to a conclusion, which I hope is a fair and sensible request.

As for nitrates in water, that was a generalisation of what chemicals can do to the environment as a whole.

I am a modern man, I don’t cling to the past or its equipment and I enjoy the modern way of life, but I do want consistence in my recreational games. I was a sprinter in my youth, I also played football, rugby and swam for my school. All these have remained for the most part as it was in my early days but golf is still allowed to grow and change. Course getting longer, carts introduced to help assist getting players around the course and from Greens to next Tees, the golf ball debate in still not settled and golf clubs are a world to themselves, well I think you understand. Set standard and consistencies, is not a bad thing, it allows us to judge our own performance and to look back over the years to see how we have faired. If rugby, football, swimming cricket etc can maintain the Status Quo why can’t we in golf, its not as if we don’t have the ability or the technology. The Will, like to Spirit seems to elude many of us today.

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I don't think gca was generally like anything in particular at any point in time and I agree with Melvyn that its easy to pigeon hole it too easily so we can grasp it."


JeffB:

I'll tell you what----it is pretty disappointing to see anyone on here just claim that any time in GCA was either entirely black (entirely bad) or entirely white (entirely good) and therefore try to shut down or dismiss discussion of it for that reason. And that includes both Melvyn who claims that time (latter half of the 19th century) was some kind of first Golden Age of Architecture or any of us who may claim on the flipside of the coin that it was actually the diametric opposite, generally speaking of course----eg not every course done in that era was anywhere near as bad as many to most of them were!

Apparently, one way to do that is to claim that about 5-6 pretty contemporaneous remarks about that time from some of our best chroniclers of that time were nothing more than self-promoting "old rubbish."

Come on Mr. Brauer, that is bullshit and you've got to see it.

[TEPaul]

" Besides, CBM, even some of the men who later became masters had to have built some rudimentary first efforts.  What were Ross' early efforts like, for example."


Mr. Brauer, Sir:

There you go----now you're really talking Turkey. That is precisely the way we need to look at this entire evolution including the type of examples that will help us do it both intelligently AND historically correctly! 

[Ulrich Mayring]

1) The "Golden Age of Golf Architecture" is a term invented by Donald Steel for the 1976 version of the "World Atlas of Golf". Tom Simpson et. al. never talked about such a concept, they merely referred to a "dark ages" period, where course design was done according to mathematical principles instead of following nature.

2) Old Tom Morris was never a man of scientific design principles, he probably was lumped in with that crowd erroneously. I don't know of any Golden Age criticism of the great 19th century natural courses.

3) The Golden Age principles of course design were (very briefly) firm and fast, wide playing corridors (no rough), strategic design, focus on the green and natural appearance. These are exactly the traits exhibited by the classic links courses - many of which are attributed to Old Tom Morris and colleagues.

From 1) to 3) follows that the "dark ages" criticism wielded by Simpson and others was primarily targeted at inland courses of the Victorian age. How many inland courses did Old Tom Morris build? How many of them were any good?

4) The term "modern" as used by Willie Park Jr. refers more to construction than actual architectural principles. The main innovations were growing a course from seeds and clearing terrain to build holes on the most interesting ground possible. If the term "modern" appears in an advertisement of the early 20th century, then it basically means: "Dear client, I can build a great course for you, even if you don't have linksland."

Ulrich

[Sean_A]

Mike,

I could be wrong, of course. For some reason I thought the routing was 1892, but I do know that revisions continue to take place.

Jeff

Isn't Muirfield's loop within a loop routing a Colt deal from the mid 20s?

Incidentally, I think the idea of a loop within a loop is Park Jr's - originally done at Stoneham around 1910ish.  So, it wasn't a one way street of Colt teaching the other heathland archies their own game. 

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

Simpson & Co as you mentioned are certainly closer to the 1900 than I am. But, when we read the reports of these courses being built I don’t see this one day wonder, this pay my fee I’m not interested attitude, and this is all you get for your money.

What I am actually trying to say is that Simpson, Holt etc made the same mistake and we all do when we look back at past events. Our mind works on the present, the standards set in this our time, we forget the constraints of years ago and quite frankly we don’t really fully understand the limitation place upon the peoples of the past. A classic example in post war GB, whilst North America was booming we in GB went through 6-7 years of further rationing and hardships that was not reflected in your country. Our world only started to improve in the early 1950’s, yet this is totally forgotten by my brother generation and his children.

The point is that if you approach history even recent history with you mind set on today’s achievements you will automatically be critical of what happened some 20,30 ,40 years ago. Yes I too have fallen into that trap and perhaps been too critical of Simpson etc, but perhaps not when you read exactly what they say. Remember that these critics had 5,000 plus courses to base their judgement on to understand their art to develop their skill. They had many names to look back at to review the earlier works and designs, so they could afford to be critical. Yet what was the sample that Alan Robertson, Old Tom and others had to gauge their design ideas upon, as there was only a hand full of courses around many over a 100 years old and not what one could really called designed but slowly took form in the manner of the rule of the developing game. None of this was faced by Simpson, Colt etc. So I sincerely believe that design of the modern courses started at the likes of Carnoustie & Cupar in the early 1840’s, Dunbar in the 1850’s. The ideas of design of courses slowly developed and through on going process has reach us today, each generation adding more, but that start was born out of the men and their own ideas, yes in the light of today some may be called basic, lacking ideas but there was nobody around who knew better no other great course to base ones ideas upon. The early 20th century boys had it fairly easy, all the basics were in place the 9 hole, the 18 hole course & rules – that is a very important part of the development of the game and has really not been mention in most of the early criticism of the early designers - the rules had been more or less properly established by the close of the 19th Century. 

I am not saying that Dunn, Morris, Hunter and  Roberson were the best designers ever (nor in that order either) but they deserved more than ill informed comments from designers who should have known better after all it was their occupation and not many years after the close of the 19th Century. Hence my statement that they do not seem to understand the history of their own profession.

I am not making any criticism of their ability or the quality of the courses they designed, just what they said about their predecessors. Quite frankly it has actually shown them up IMHO as not knowing what perhaps they should have or at the very least understood the nature of golf course design because it was still in its infancy and well less that 100 years old.

As for checking records I will let you do that yourself and I think you will agree that it was more that described by Simpson etc.

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ulrich

The problem we are facing is that pre set ideas of what some thought was the facts of the day have become part of GCA history. Even Ran has gone alone this line in his phasing of the period of GCA history. All I am saying is that when I read some of the early stories or reports of the new courses I don’t see that translated into fact. Yes, compared to practices in the 1920-30’s the pre 1900 designers appeared basic and perhaps primitive but they do not deserve IMHO the rubbish that has been written about them.

I am also trying in my own way to explain that GCA history in this era was tremendous, I would go as far as to say it’s the equivalent to golf’s space race to get men on the moon albeit a lot more humble. The Dark Ages, I just cannot agree with that or see how anyone could call it that, this was real pioneer work, the development of the modern game, yet later designers call it the Dark Ages, it was far from that. It was the dawning of a new age, a new modern game, how can someone making a living out of golf be so dismissive of this period, it must be because they are thinking in their time period or just ignorant of the real history of our game.

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

UlrichM:

I think your post #37 is a very good general four point description of the truth about that early era that Dan Hermann initially asked about on this thread.


Melvyn:

I am very interested in answering your post #38 as I appreciate your own perspective and point of view (even if I may not agree with it) or let's just say I think I understand it and you by all means deserve to have your posts answered calmly and intelligently.

But, first off, let's have a bit of what some call good old fashioned "House Keeping" if this entire subject is going to be discussed well with both you and others.

What I'm referring to is your mention for the third time today of this man back then you call "Holt". If you are referring to Harry Shapland COLT, for God's sake give the man and us too the respect of spelling his last name correctly, not the least reason being a pretty good number of people in golf and architecture, both back then AND today believe Harry Colt just may've been the best golf course architect as well as one of the finest minds on the subject who ever lived!

Merry Christmas to you Melvyn, and if you happen to run into my old buddy, Richard "The Magnificent" Goodale who lives over there with you, be sure to wish him Merry Christmas too, for me and all the Boys from Filmadelphia.

[Ulrich Mayring]

You could at least have spelled Philadelfia correctly.

Other than that, I believe Charles Blair Macdonald originated the term "dark ages" in Golf, which he called the period between 1875 and 1892 in the United States.

Ulrich

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom & All

Merry Christmas

In the cool sobering light of Christmas Morning, with my Dalwhinnie 25 year old Malt firmly locked away by my wife until the Sun is somewhere over the whatever. I formally prostrate myself in front of you and our fellow members of GCA.com and humbly beg your forgiveness and that of Harry Colt for the gross error of spelling his surname with an H.

My only excuse is too many glasses of Dalwhinnie while trying to defend the integrity of the History of our Game and to correct the blasphemers as clearly they knew not what they were saying.

The pioneers of Microsoft will I expect in 100-150 years be described as near to Neanderthals in their approach to computer software because the process would have moved on rapidly by then. Yet with our knowledge today would we agree with that? 

Tom. We need to get to the truth, but how can the beginning be described as the Dark Ages, what sort of mentality would come up with that and further more why?

Melvyn

PS As for Arry, you would not find me disagreeing with your opinion

PPS Must get back to 'The Family' - I hope you all have a great day.

[TEPaul]

"I believe Charles Blair Macdonald originated the term "dark ages" in Golf, which he called the period between 1875 and 1892 in the United States."


Ulrich:

Due to your last few apparently factually accurate posts on this thread, I'm going to nominate you as GOLFLCLUBATLAS.com's "Fact-Man". As they say you seem to keep your head when all others around you are losing theirs.

I do not recall who else commonly used the term "Dark Ages" for that era in the latter part of the 19th century but as you said above, C.B. Macdonald most certainly did about the years 1875-1892 and his reason was there were no golf courses over here for him to play after he returned from college at St. Andrews, and so he labeled those years the Dark Ages because he could not play golf.


As to what a lot of the courses and their architecture looked like over there and then over here in the end of the 19th century and into the first decade of the 20th, I don't think we need to guess as there are plenty of old photographs and just as those men I quoted above who saw it did, we can form our own opinions about how good or bad it really was. I've seen a number of those old photographs and the labels "steeplechase" architecture or "geometric" architecture seem appropriate descriptions to me. Not everywhere, mind you, but enough of it for much of that era to be labeled that way.

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

If we can now somehow put aside the assumption that all observers and critics of that late 19th century architecture they referred to as "steeplechase" or "geometric" or "Dark Age" were ONLY into self-promotion and consequently "Old Rubbish" perhaps we can begin to look at it carefully and discuss the vast differences between it and the architecture those critics were talking about which they were producing after around the turn of the century, as well as why they felt things should change dramatically with the one compared to the other.

And while we are doing that perhaps we can also put aside the assumption that all they were doing was denigrating those earlier architects.

The fact is the differences are remarkable and we should endeavor to find out not just how different those styles were from one another but also why! 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

I am not certain you have fully understood my point.

Later designers are – let’s call it complaining about their predecessor and the lack of vision for want of a better work. Yet these poor Professionals or Green Keepers had the ability to develop a design systems and through their efforts, motivation and ability helped the game grow from a hand full of course (well under 50) to over 2,500 by the late 1890’s.

They had no Peers in those early days, no reference points, no design concept to debate or learn from, they only had their own ideas and determination to promote the game. We can call some of the early designed course primitive, lacking detailed thought, but can we actually be totally bloody minded (like Simpson and a few others) and criticise how it all really started. My point is the very people that are being accused of lack of imagination are the very ones to start the process off from more or less a blank canvas, that in my opinion shows that these early guys had balls of steel and a drive which the later guys did not.

What I don’t understand is why these later guys came out with all these comments – why criticise, I think they did so because they did not actually understand or for self promotion. The point I would have thought is that each generation/group moved the process forward bit by bit, each building on the success of the ones they followed, so why make these comments in the first place.

IMHO they are and were not justified, then or today.

Melvyn

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

Actually I have played on many old course that date back to the 19th Century and relatively unchanged and I musty admit they have been great fun and most enjoyable. In fact I can remember a small group of us in the 1970’s deciding to stay and play 36 holes on these courses.

Whilst I am not involved in course design, I must say they gave my group the motivation to stay in the area rather than drive back to St Andrews. These are old courses and the only comments worth noting were from the player concerned, which greatly differed from those of Simpson and others. These were inland courses not Links.

So my own experience does not seem to agree with the early critics.

Melvyn

[Steve Lang]

  So there is no place for something like Tom Doak's "Confidential Guide" being published, even with limited number of copies..  and he should have just kept it in his pocket and just used his accumulated knowledge to better design courses?

Tom Doak may in fact wish this were true, but hindsight is easy..

[Melvyn Morrow]

Steve

Sorry don't understand your comment.  The Tom in my post is TEPaul not Tom Doak, that is, if your post was aimed at me.

Melvyn

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()