News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« on: December 23, 2008, 06:46:07 AM »
Over in the Philly <--> Pinehurst thread, Mike Cirba wrote:
"Interesting to note with the terminology of "Scientific" and "Modern" architecture, one Willie Park was in the United States in 1916 advertising himself and his architectural services as;

"The originator of the modern course design.."
----------------------------------------------------------
With that in mind, what WAS "pre-modern" or "pre-scientific" design?  Was it steeplechase golf or something different?

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2008, 07:52:28 AM »
Dan

Honestly, I think pre-modern design the way Park Jr uses the term is pre-shaping (or at least shaping the land to fit what is already there) the land to any significant degree and/or pre-clearing land. 

Ciao
« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 05:20:40 AM by Sean Arble »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2008, 08:16:40 AM »
Found this in a 1916 advert:

MODERN GOLF
ARCHITECTURE
By Mr. Arthur G. Lockwood
If you are contemplating laying out a new golf course, or having your present course reconstructed, or bunkered, accordling to modern ideas, consult me first.

I have made a Special Sludy of MODERN GOLF ARCHITECTURE
And have Have Very Accurate Knowledge of All the Leading Foreign Golf Courses.

My wide experience in this country and abroad has taught me to design scientifically and construct economically.

Arthur G. Lockwood Co. Inc
GOLF AND OUTING SUPPLIES
338 Washington Street
Near cor. of Milk St., Boston MA
Telephone: Main 1406
----------------

(Lockwood won the 1903 Mass Amateur)

Mike_Cirba

Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2008, 08:19:41 AM »
Dan

Lockwood designed the first nine holes at Brookside in Pottstown,

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2008, 08:31:35 AM »
Dan

From the early days of my golfing life I have always wondered why very little was actually credited to the early course designers. You can read comments from Simpson, Campbell, just to mention two who seemed rather keen to belittle or perhaps discredit the original pioneers in their field.

I have read about one day designs and playing the new course in the afternoon, not being a designer I am not aware of the word steeplechase golf but I presume this refers to their type of course. Yet how many have really investigated what these early courses and how they came into being. Precious few because if one looks to the historical record we find that the majority of the courses were not designed and opened in a day. This is not a criticism, it is just a simple statement of fact – we, understandably are happy to accept the works of Simpson, Campbell and others regards these earl processes, yet in truth I actually wonder if they themselves fully understood the history of golf course design & architecture.

This is not my topic, so I will try and limit my input. Early design, pre modern or simply pre Second Golden Age (I still believe ignorance has not allocated the real Golden Age to pre 1900 era) was a lot more complicated and involved that perhaps many believe. A few simple example – the Barry course for Panmure G C took over a year to develop with the club having to delay its move from Monifieth Links, Muirfield was similar. Other clubs such as North Berwick took three months to extend its course from 9 to 18 holes. In general it was a three month period after the basic routing was agreed that the clubs would have its official opening, in which time work was undertake on developing the course. No matter how natural the land maybe there was still work to be undertaken in the formation of the Greens, adding or developing the hazards with the removal of certain obstacles like trees etc. Also in some courses drainage works was actually undertake pre 1900.

As time progressed it becomes difficult to actually understand exactly what may have transpired in those halcyon days, but I believe what was actually reported was just the initial routing of the course and where possible a basic game (if it could be called that) was undertaken to give the Committee a hands on idea of what was actually proposed. Clubs with money and resources had the engineers to convert the routing to a detailed paper plan. Let’s not forget that many of the general public today find it difficult to understand an architect’s plans/drawings. To the majority of golfers in the 19th Century architectural plans would have been rare and difficult to interoperate so the pegs were needed to convey design intent.

There was I believe methods to their madness in the early days of course design, they went that one step further and actually showed their clients the rudimentary course, but due to perhaps ignorance or arrogance those that followed in the Simpson era appeared totally unaware of involvement of the  previous century designers so dismissed them. Yet look at James Braid and a few more from his day who continued the original traditions of course design for the majority of their lives. It is thanks to these designers that so much is retained from the 19th Century. Perhaps they believed that old say “If it isn’t broken don’t try and fix it”.

There is also one more point worth mentioning which I firmly believed help golf on it future path to world domination. That being the intention to use the land as Mother Nature gifted us with minimal intrusion. In other words ‘Land fit for Purpose’ allowing that harmony between course and the natural terrain. Today that is mainly achieved by striping the heart out of the land before building it back into the image of Mans imagination, financially burdening the club and golfers for decades to come.  I know what I like, what I want and where I believe I will find it. I just hope that the Spirit of the Game is still there and able to protect our special places.

Pre Modern and whatever it may mean, I still certainly consider the pre 1900 is the real and only Golden Age of Golf.

Sean

Surely that is what golf is all about the harmony between Nature/Course/Man.

It’s that choice between fake or real, I would do without rather than buy fake. Fake is cheap, it’s a corruption. I would travel that extra mile or two for the real thing than accept fake, but that’s my preference. The Castle Course may well turn out to be a good course but it’s a total fake, its base canvas has been corrupted, the original contours obliterated, a Disneyland for Golfers. It’s a simple matter of choice.

PS. Bob Hope’s old Golf Cart would look well at home on the Castle Course.  

Melvyn


Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #5 on: December 23, 2008, 08:41:48 AM »
Melvyn,
Wayne Morrison knows a LOT more about steeplechase golf design than I.  But my understanding is that the earliest designs utilized horse steeplechase course ideas in the course designs.

The Golden Age is pre-1900?  Wouldn't that just about eliminate everything in North America?

Rich Goodale

Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #6 on: December 23, 2008, 08:58:23 AM »

The Golden Age is pre-1900?  Wouldn't that just about eliminate everything in North America?

Quite possibly, Dan, but so what?  After all, I don't think we Americans could or should take claim to having invented the Industrial Revolution, or the Rennaissance, or the original "Golden Ages" of Greece and Rome and China....... ;)

Melvyn

Great post.  The proponents of the "Dark Ages/Golden Age" dichotomy of golf (e.g. Tom Simpson) had strong vested interests in promoting their age as being "golden."  It is a shame that this has become the conventional wisdom, for some people, at least....

Merry Xmas to all

Rich

Kyle Harris

Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #7 on: December 23, 2008, 09:07:39 AM »
Golden Age implies golf's best days are behind it. I HATE that phrase.

Also not too keen on equating Scientific with Modern or Golden Age or whatever.

Science is a method by which a hypothesis is tested against a control and data gathered to form a conclusion. So, courses with the design philosophy that changes would be made based on playing conditions (think Merion with Wilson and Flynn) could be considered scientific. Ross mailing in plans, however, is not.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2008, 09:16:50 AM »
Dan

“The Golden Age is pre-1900?  Wouldn't that just about eliminate everything in North America?”

A Golden Age is just that The Golden Age for Golf irrespective of Nations. It is my opinion that the period was pre 1900.

Golf is not about England, Canada, and USA etc it’s about the history of Golf.

I look to history, its history that is important to me and to that end the major development in golf IMHO occurred pre-1900. So I must therefore give credit for that period.

Tell me what you have me say about the Armada or The Black Death, The Battle of Hastings, all happened before any major Western migration to North America.

I am not nor have I said that North American has not contributed to Golf. That still does not change my opinion that the Real Golden Age of Golf was pre -1900.  The between the war Golden Age guys had it on a Silver plate, sites, money, interest, stability of ball and clubs, massive interest in the game, new technology and understands, yet all they did was design & construct courses, some rather good course but that was it in a nutshell. They also publicised their abilities with a much broader access to the general public. A tremendous age for the expansion of golf but I don’t see a Golden Age, perhaps a Golden Age of Course Construction, that I will give you.

I suppose it all boils down to how you define Golden Age, for me it is more that just construction.

Melvyn   

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #9 on: December 23, 2008, 09:48:17 AM »
I posted on a thread recently that I always considered the 1892 version of Muirfield to be the first modern course, based on its scale, bunker positioning, etc.  GCA development was certainly not on a straight line since some horrid examples came after that, I presume by rank amateurs in the US with no real knowlege.

Many of the early gca's here did write about scientific design and ideal courses, often prescribing set distances for holes, bunkers, etc.  I think that was to merely distinguish them from those earlier amateurs, who apparently place bunkers in lots of random places, often at too great a cost to their value. 

I have always wondered if that was simply a reflection of the culture of the US at the time - with the industrial revolution hitting its peak, and Edison and others making great scientific discoveries, perhaps that was just the catch phrase of the day, like minimalism might be now?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #10 on: December 23, 2008, 10:11:55 AM »
Jeff - I think you hit the nail on the head - that it was a culturally "cool" term of the day.

JC Urbina

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #11 on: December 23, 2008, 10:37:48 AM »
Modern, can be defined as-
A series of mathematical computations made for the sole purpose of defining strategy and course layout.

Mark Bourgeois

Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #12 on: December 23, 2008, 10:59:32 AM »
JC

I think you hit the nail on the head.  I see "modern" as moving past the physical to explicitly consider the mental, the emotional, and the idea of a point of view that is inherently subjective not objective. Not simply the physical play but the interaction of the mental and the emotional with the physical.

Mark

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2008, 11:07:28 AM »
JC,

In a way, I think your definition of modern is also kind of minimalistic.

In essence, gradually, gca's kept removing bunkers in other than the good players landing areas realizing that the 120 yard player couldn't hit the green in regulation anyway, so why build a bunker to stop him from doing that?  As a consequence (and as budgets tightened) few bunkers were built that weren't "in play" by the best players.

Its updated, but not modern now - Ross used Dogleg points to lay out fw bunkers at 200 yards.  Later, other gca's went to 225, 240, 250, 266.33 (800 feet) and now 283.5 (850 feet) or 300 yards.

ANGC cemented that line of thinking.  But, the question remains - how many bunkers do we need built at 325 yards for the few players that hit it that far and how many do we need at 180 yards off the back tee for the players who play their and hit it that short?  Especially at about $5-6SF construction cost and the maintenance levels now required?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2008, 11:18:00 AM »


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

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #15 on: December 23, 2008, 11:50:03 AM »
Science is, at its root, the study of something. It's not a specifically creative process, it's based on the observation of something that already exists.

It seems to me that scientific method as applied to golf courses, by definition, means that it is the study of and reaction to the courses that were already on the ground. Perhaps Melvyn's original Golden Age was more of an explosion of creativity and discovery, while the latter post-WWI Golden Age was more scientific in its approach, analyzing what had already been done and in some way either continuing it, exploring it, or (in some kind of Hegelian dialectic) playing off of it to make something new. Whether you want to call it modern is up to you, as it was up to them at the time. When you look at guys like Macdonald and Whigham, who had in their minds the notion of creating an "ideal" course, the science of codifying what had already been done had to be a big part of that process.
« Last Edit: December 23, 2008, 01:11:33 PM by Kirk Gill »
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Mike_Cirba

Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #16 on: December 23, 2008, 11:52:35 AM »
Science is, at its root, the study of something. It's not a specifically creative process, it's based on the observation of something that already exists exists.

It seems to me that scientific method as applied to golf courses, by definition, means that it is the study of and reaction to the courses that were already on the ground. Perhaps Melvyn's original Golden Age was more of an explosion of creativity and discovery, while the latter post-WWI Golden Age was more scientific in its approach, analyzing what had already been done and in some way either continuing it, exploring it, or (in some kind of Hegelian dialectic) playing off of it to make something new. Whether you want to call it modern is up to you, as it was up to them at the time. When you look at guys like Macdonald and Whigham, who had in their minds the notion of creating an "ideal" course, the science of codifying what had already been done had to be a big part of that process.

Very nicely stated, and a good summary, I believe.

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2008, 11:59:30 AM »
Kirk, like Mike, I think you've summarized it very well.


Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2008, 12:04:36 PM »
 8) Perhaps the Three-age system  
 
Stone Age · Bronze Age · Iron Age

which is hopelessly physical.. needs updating for golf course architecture related to clubs..

Stone Age · Bronze Age · Iron Age · Stainless Steel Age · Titanium Age

or or perhaps precious metals are better suited to Golf Course Archaeological period analyses..

Bronze Age (pre-1500) · Silver Age (pre-1900) · Gold Age (pre-2000) · Platinum Age (2000+) · Silicon Age (2100+ when its all virtual reality)

Surely as far as design is concerned, adapting to what nature provided cannot be equivalent to design which is free of construction constraints.. cost not being an issue.. and the old form vs. function debate

I believe that most 1800-1900 gca activities, if that is truly a significant or credible demarcation of time, is certainly by reference considered as coming out of the post-medieval period and clearly within Industrial /Modern times.. and thus clearly part of the modern scientific age, where physics of ball flight, water drainage, and horticulture certainly started to be entertained by those interested in gca, if they were not keen on developing beyond finding rabbit holes and sheep blinds (or copying them) on the dunes, links land, and forest meadows.. and men of letters and many others sought to bring rational if not philosophical understanding to all things..

gold never has zero value.. but is it really the highest standard?  

==============================================
 
Continents Regions Archeological Periods ...

 
Americas North America North America Lithic/Paleo-Indian (pre 8000 BC)

Archaic (c. 8000-1000 BC)
Formative (c. 1000 BC - AD 500)
Classic (c. AD 500 - 1200)
Post-Classic (c.1200 - 1900)
 
Mesoamerica Mesoamerica Lithic/Paleo-Indian (pre 8000 BC)

Archaic (c. 8000-1000 BC)
Formative (c. 1000 BC - AD 250)
Classic ( AD 250 - 900)
Post-Classic (AD 900 -1515)
 
 
Australasia Australia Australia  
New Zealand New Zealand Archaic period (AD 1000 - 1350/1650)

Classic period (AD 1350-1800) or (1650-1800 in eastern South Island)
 
Oceania  
Europe Northern Europe Northern Europe Mesolithic

Neolithic
Bronze Age
Iron Age
Roman Iron Age (c. AD 1 - 400)
Germanic Iron Age (c. AD 400- 800)
Viking Age (c. AD 800 - 1066)
Medieval period (1066 - c. 1500)
Post-medieval period (c. 1500 - c. 1800)
Industrial/Modern
 
Western Europe Western Europe Paleolithic

Mesolithic
Neolithic
Bronze Age
Iron Age
Roman
Early medieval period (c. AD 400- 800)
Medieval period (800 - c. 1500)
Post-medieval period (c. 1500 - c. 1800)
Industrial/Modern
 
South eastern Europe South eastern Europe Paleolithic

Epipaleolithic
Neolithic
Chalcolithic
Bronze Age
Iron Age
Hellenistic
Roman
Byzantine period
Ottoman Empire
 
..
« Last Edit: December 24, 2008, 07:29:40 AM by Steve Lang »
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

TEPaul

Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2008, 01:23:15 PM »
"With that in mind, what WAS "pre-modern" or "pre-scientific" design?  Was it steeplechase golf or something different?"
 
 
 
 
Dan:

Instead of us just guessing and speculating about the realities and meaning of this subject why don't we just consider the words of those who were there at that time and were the best observers and critiquers of those so-called "pre-modern" and "pre-scienific" designs. The following is from Part One of Tom MacWood's "Arts and Crafts Golf".


"Naturally with the game’s widespread popularity came a need to establish new golf courses and most importantly a new type of expert to lay them out. Those first golf course designers were the greenkeepers and professionals, men like Old Tom Morris, Willie Dunn and Tom Dunn. They were the native sons of the old natural golf links -- St. Andrews, Musselburgh and Prestwick. But despite their familiarity with these ancient models their work was very disappointing.

Tom Simpson wrote, 'They failed to reproduce any of the features of the courses on which they were bread and born, or to realize the principles on which they had been made. Their imagination took them no further than the inception of flat gun-platform greens, invariably oblong, round or square, supported by railway embankment sides or batters . . . The bunkers that were constructed on the fairways may be described as rectangular ramparts of a peculiarly obnxious type, stretching at regular intervals across the course and having no architectural merit whatever.'


One of the reasons these men failed was due to the methods they utilized in laying out these golf courses, or the lack there of. The ancient links may have taken centuries to be formed, these men preferred a much shorter duration. There was very little time and even less forethought put into the design of a golf course.

As Bernard Darwin’s described, 'The laying out of courses used once to be a rather a rule-of-thumb business done by rather simple-minded and unimaginative people who did not go far beyond hills to drive over, hollows for putting greens and, generally speaking, holes formed on the model of a steeplechase course.'


Harry Colt recalled a particular incident, 'A leading man on the subject was introduced for the first time to 150 acres of good golfing ground, and we all gathered around to see the golf course created instantly. It was something like following a water-deviner with his twig of hazel. Without a moments hesitation he fixed the first tee, and then, going away at full speed, he brought us up abruptly in a deep hollow, and a stake was set up to show the exact position of the first hole. Ground was selected for the second tee, and then we all started off again, and arrived in a panting state at a hollow deeper than the first, where another stake was set up for the second hole. Then away again at full speed for the third hole, and so on. Towards the end we had to tack backwards and fowards half a dozen times to get in the required number of holes. The thing was done in a few hours, lunch was eaten, and the train caught, but the course, thank heavens, was never constructed!'


Stories like that became common place as a result of the great demand to build courses near or within the large towns and cities, especially in urbanly concentrated England. In the early years the game was exclusively seaside, but the new generation of golfers were busy men unwilling or unable to waste precious time traveling. Unfortunately many of the inland sites were ill suited for the game, featuring heavy soil and poor drainage. The weaknesses of the sites were compounded by their odd Victorian design methods.

C.H.Alison wrote, 'The construction of these courses was simple in the extreme. There was only one form of bunker. This consisted of a rampart built of sods with a trench in front of it filled with a sticky substance, usually dark red in colour. The face of the rampart was perpendicular. It was precisely 3 ft. 6 ins. in height throughout, and ran at an exact right-angle to the line of play. The number of these obstacles varied according to the length . . . A stranger, therefore, was able to ascertain the bogey of hole by counting the number of bunkers, and adding two to his total . . . There were no side-hazards except long grass and trees. The fairways were invariably rectangular, and the putting-greens were square and flat . . . It will be realised that this stereotyped placing of bunkers rendered the game extremely monotonous . . . moreover, the rampart style bunker did not add to the beauty of the landscape, or lend an additional thrill to the stroke by its awe-inspiring appearance. Another notable feature . . . was the extreme flatness of the approaches. Any bold features which existed were used as hazards for the tee shot if they were used at all. Very seldom was a green placed in such a position as to render the approach play naturally interesting, while to create grass slopes or hollows artificially was an unknown art.'


New seaside construction also suffered, 'some excellent courses already existed in 1890, but in constructing new course near the sea there was in the Victorian Era a tendency to take all hazards at a right-angle and to include a very large number of blind approaches.'
 

Golf architect Alister MacKenzie added, 'In the Victorian Era . . . almost all new golf courses were planned by professionals, and were, incidentally, amazingly bad. They were built with mathematical precision, a cop bunker extending from the rough on the one side, to the rough on the other, and similar cop bunker placed on the second shot. There was entire absence of strategy, interest and excitement except where some natural irremovable object intervened to prevent the designer from carrying out his nefarious plans.'


Of all the inland creators Tom Dunn seemed to be the busiest and most notorious.

Horace Hutchinson described the scene, 'He went about the country laying the courses out, and as he was a very courteous Nature’s gentleman, and always liked to say the pleasant thing, he gave praise to each course, as he contrived it, so liberally that some wag invented the conundrum. ‘Mention any inland course of which Tom Dunn has not said that it was the best of its kind ever seen.’ His idea---and really he had but one---was to throw up a barrier, with a ditch, called for euphony’s sake a ‘bunker,’ on the near side of it, right across the course, to be carried from the tee, another of same kind to be carried with the second shot, and similarly a third. It was a simple plan, nor is Tom Dunn to be censored because he could not evolve something more like a colourable imitation of the natural hazard. A man is not be criticized because he is not in advance of his time."

« Last Edit: December 23, 2008, 01:27:53 PM by TEPaul »

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2008, 01:54:47 PM »
I am not intentionally diminishing the quality of the design inputs from each decade from the turn of the 20 Century. There have been many great courses opened though out the last 100 years. As the years passed and scientific knowledge grew courses naturally incorporated these developments.

Yet have the modern and scientific processes actually benefited the game of golf. I expect that it probably has but lets not loose sight of the problems that some of these processes create.

Ok we have course in locations that in real terms should not have course. Our technology and earth moving equipment is highly advanced which allows us to venture in unknown areas to bring the game to the local population. The problem is that in places we are experience the leaching of nitrates into our water supply, irrigation systems have in them the seed of their own destruction. Plus the full damage to the environment has not been totally calculated.

My belief whether you call it an Golden Age or not, that period between 1850-1900 not only set standards but broke moulds and course started to appear away from the coast. Courses that had previously various holes became 9 hole courses for the most part and then 18 not just to mirror St Andrews and thus the natural progression of the 9 hole course. I would go even further and say that this period also saw a great jump in modernising golf including utilising science to resolve problems – certainly not on the scale of that in the 20th century. Best examples are the incorporation of sand for repairs and the demise of the feathery ball for the gutta percha. The Scientific improvements of that ball alone from smooth to all its (I believe) dozen or so aerodynamic forms.



This was not just the period of basic simple courses this was the development of out game in all its greatness. No Dark Ages as its have become known – I just can’t understand how anyone can call this great period of change and development the Dark Ages, it can only be down to clearly not understanding the history of that period. As for what most call the Golden Age, that period between the Wars, I see no real development, no new introduction of new design processes, it was just the normal development utilising more modern equipment.

On the subject of bunkers, again referring to pre 1900, bunkers were generally added a few months after the course was opened. Placement was careful and
Important to challenge the golfer.

In my opinion it is so important to understand this period of our history and actually recognise the real importance of what was actually achieved. Let’s not forget that this was the game that was exported to your great grandfathers worldwide.

If it was the Dark Ages with no modern influence total lack of scientific processes then please explain to me how the game of golf could have become so popular?   I believe Simpson & Co wanted to concentrate the public on their achievements so diminished this early period for their own gains – surprisingly the golfing world has happily gone alone with this spin.

Melvyn   

Tom

Your quote from MacWood & Simpson just goes to prove my point. One just needs to look at the records to see how these courses under OTM, TD & WD came about & the time scale.

I must say that I chuckle at this type of comment as it is based upon total ignorance.  These people seem to forget that there was no standard to gauge their performance, the courses of the early days were old and established links courses created over tens of years with not real thought as to what the game was or were it was going. So the likes of Alan and his trainee Tom Morris in the 1840’s were at the center the principal golf  course designer, in fact from them the modern concept of design developed. They set the ideas in motion because there was no on else, it was from their efforts and their ideas that the modern design was developed. The problem it that the idea of given credit on design to Old Tom would compromise MacWood agenda nor was it with Simpson. He has every right to is opinions, as I do but they are just opinions. The records of Alan Roberson & Tom Morris designs are there to see. Yes some errors have been made in crediting courses to the right individual but that does not diminish their involvement or input into the birth of the golf course design process - as for the Arts & Craft Golf – well, I have not constructive comment to make as I am happy for the records to state the facts. 



Kyle Harris

Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2008, 02:12:07 PM »
Science is, at its root, the study of something. It's not a specifically creative process, it's based on the observation of something that already exists.


Balderdash.

Science is a tool by which one can study. There are plenty of ways to study something without using science - i.e. Practice.

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2008, 02:58:40 PM »
Kyle, I wasn't saying anything remotely like "science is the only way to study." The point I was attempting to make was that science is based on observation of something and isn't inherently creative. So if you're referring to something like "scientific design," then that design is in some way going to be based on the study of design that already exists.
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2008, 11:50:48 PM »
Kirk,

While the study might have been courses as they existed, it might also have been the game the way it was played in America, too, no?  In other words, if the drive was 150 yards typically, then put bunkers at 150 yards (or maybe 120 if a carry was required) even if they might have been some other distance at TOC.

Scientific study might also refer to  courses in the sense of routing, rather than in feature design.  What kind of holes seem most pleasant, etc., to avoid the haphazard holes that many early courses had.  Of course, I always wondered how much study it might take to know that roads shouldn't cross fw?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Rich Goodale

Re: Pre-Modern (Pre-Scientific) design
« Reply #24 on: December 24, 2008, 02:53:23 AM »
Interesting discussion.

Both inductive (i.e. wait until you have adequate experience observing people play the course before you choose to place the bunkers) and deductive (i.e. study how people play in general and then choose where to place the bunkers based on how the land fits these calculations) GCA reasoning are "scientific."

The first, or the Morris/Morrow Method leads to courses which are raw when first open for play, but evolve over decades (often beautifully, often tragically flawed) over decades of stewardship and play.  The second, the Urbina/Brauer Conundrum creates a course which is "perfect" on Day One and needs only be preserved and periodically restored to remain so.

The first was the only possible way of designing a course in the first Golden Age and the second seems to be the ideal way of dealing with current information and the need for instant gratification of this latest Golden Age.

If our new classics (e.g. Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Shadow Creek, Kingsbarns) prove able to evolve as gracefully and instructively as have the old ones (e.g. Pine Valley, Dornoch, County Down and Augusta) we will all be the better for the investments which have been made in the concept of deductive design.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back