[BCrosby]

Melvyn -

I guess in some theoretical sense it is possible that all of Simpson, Colt, MacKenzie, Fowler, Abercromby, Croome, Ross, Low, Huchinson, Behr et al. were all factually wrong about Victorian architecture or simply lying about it for self interested reasons.

But I doubt it. I take a much simpler view of things. I think those men thought carefully about what they wrote and meant what they said. And to dismiss them as simply sloppy with the facts or as dissimulators is what it means to miss the interesting historical issues they raised. Indeed, it is what it means to miss the most important issues in golf architecture's most interesting era.

Jeff -

Colt rebuilt Muirfield (almost totally) in 1923. Simpson hated it, but most everyone else (especially Joshua Crane) thought it was a quite successful redo. The current course is, basically, Colt from that date.


Bob

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

Regarding your post #46----eg were the men I quoted off of Tom MacWood's piece justified in criticizing the work of earlier fast moving designers? I don't really know because I wasn't there but I think they were and I think they felt they were. Were they only trying to denigrate what came before them and what they did simply to promote themselves? I don't know that either because I wasn't there but I very much doubt that was their only reason and their only motivation.

We certainly are lucky to be able to see photographic evidence of what they were complaining about and we are certainly lucky to see what those men who complained did differently, and to my eyes it most certainly was different from what mostly came before them and that is what we are after here----eg why was it so different from what existed previously.

Believe it or not they did not just complain about those earlier fast moving architects themselves, they also explained for their time and our time what they felt was wrong with or bad about some of those earlier so-called "steeplechase" or "Victorian" designs and courses and they explained what they wanted to do and did do to make it different and to make it better golf architecture and better golf.

I do understand your point, Melvyn, and it seems to be that they should not have complained about what they saw that came before them and who did it but that, I'm afraid, is basically the way it was and the way it always has been and probably always will be with anything that even remotely passes as a form of art or art related to a sport or recreation.

I, for one, do not want to see this interesting time and subject just completely dismissed on the assumption that all it was about was a group of people back then complaining about something that came before them because they were simply promoting their own and spewing "old rubbish." 

Just looking at the vast difference in substance and style I think we can all see how different it was and I don't think it's all that difficult to understand why, particularly as those men who took it to the next level explained pretty well what they wanted to do differently and why.

[Steve Lang]

  Melvyn,

Just transposing 100 years from late 19th century to late 20th..  should tom doak have kept his opinions to himself about all the historic courses he saw, inspected, and played, rather than publish them.. in his Confidential Guide?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom/Steve

I don’t have a problem with examining history, I certainly don’t have a problem with people voicing their opinions. But what I do have a problem with is voicing ones opinion using the standards of the present against what should be the standards of the day when these events/designs happened.

To try and interoperate let alone understand what the early guys achieved using the standards of the 1920-30’s or 1990-2000 is in my opinion totally unacceptable and unreliable. We must use the mind set of the 19th Century guys to fully understand and appreciate what they actually did for the game. To sprout words of wisdom based upon our own standards will just generate absolute rubbish, no matter how brilliant or for that matter stupid that individual may be. Talk about the 19th Century guys in the context of today, fine but judge them against our standards is just plain and simply rubbish.

One of the points I have made on here and through my working life is that I have not been willing to condemn or criticise another designer unless I was fully aware of his brief. Without that information I am fumbling in the dark and may well be making unjust let alone unfair comments. That is how I view the comments by those later observers. They were clearly just not fully aware or in the position to fully understand what was happening in the 1850-1900.

My comment of ‘rubbish’ is kinder that some of the things these guys wrote about the early designers. Another thing you mention is that these guys were fast moving early designers, but set against who standards that of Simpson & Co or that of today? Fast moving! As you said you were not there so how can you use the word fast? Through my own research courses have taken from 3-4 months, some nearly two years to materialise, as in the case of Cruden Bay that started in 1894 plans of 1896 published in 1897 then amended to accommodate the 9 hole Ladies course (St Olaf) before being formally opened in 1899. As I mentioned Muirfield in 1891/2, ditto Barry for Panmure Club and many more took the best part of a year, Most took around the 3-4 months to construct, quick, possibly but in whose eyes, whose time period?

By all means criticise the early guys if you wish but do so using the facts and information of their day not from later generations as there is a strong possibility that those opinions will be just full of rubbish.

As for Tom Doak, I have the greatest respect for him, I agree with most he writes and I feel that our core beliefs are not that different. I just have more freedom to sprout my views and do so.

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

What you seem to fail to appreciate is many of the men I quoted above were not exactly from another era (as we are) regarding those so-called "steeplechase" or "Victorian" designs. They were from that era and they obviously saw those courses laid out.

The fact that they didn't like them or appreciate them is apparently a large part of the reasons they strove to do better, and eventually did do better.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

What you (and Tom MacWood) seem to not appreciate is that not all courses built in the late 19th century were built to the "steeplechase" model.  There were in fact some very good courses built in that period, particularly in Scotland, both on linksland and parkland, some of which Melvyn has highlighted above.  He also rightly notes that the idea that all GCA in that period was a 36 stakes in the ground one or two day affair is a ludicrous one.  Yes, most of these courses were altered over time, starting with efforts in the early 20th century designed to meet the challenges of the Haskell ball, but this does not mean that places like Cruden Bay, Panmure and Muirfield were badly designed courses.

I also doubt strongly that many of the golf writers of the 1920's knew an awful lot about how these an d other good-great courses were "laid out" at the time, as the majority of them were very unlikely to have played them in the late 19th century.

Rich

[TEPaul]

Richard The Assumer:

What you (and seemingly others on here) do not seem to appreciate is neither me nor Tom MacWood ever said (as far as I can tell) that ALL the golf courses built in that early era were of the style and type labeled by those men back then as "steeplechase" or "Victorian." But apparently enough were to elicit their negative comments.

I guess I will just never understand why so many on here, and now including you, seem to so often assume any subject must be either all black or all white or ALL or NOTHING and that when anyone makes any remarks about various subjects that that is what they mean-----ie all black or all white or ALL or NOTHING! 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

I’m not certain but I believed the following are the dates of those you mentioned.

H Hutchinson  1859  - 1932
Harry Colt       1869 – 1951
A Mackensie    1870 - 1934
B Darwin          1876 – 1961
T Simpson       1877 –1964
C H Alison       1882 – 1952

Looking through the list and particular at the designers, it would appear that they were in their 20’s by the turn of the century. Did any of them make their comments in the 1880’s or 1890’s or did they leave it well into the turn of the 20th Century before realising they had something to say?

I have never disputed that the designers among the list did not significantly contribute to the development of golf courses. But by the time of their creative maturity they had an established game, there was money pouring into the game, countries and their population screaming to have golf courses built in their countries. They were not the pioneers, but they did take our game to the next level or two.

Yet their voices were silence in the 19th Century, they played with the Gutta for years on courses which later some seem to dismiss in their later writings. Why leave it so late? Yes I accept that all criticism was not directed at the early Scottish designers but included some inland courses and those first installed inland within other countries. 

Whilst winning competitions I have not seen in print complaints of the courses that they won their titles or trophies upon. None, but all seem to have come full and strong in later years, which seems to reflect that they judge the courses from older and perhaps in their view wiser eyes.

The problem Tom is that most have come to believe what has been said about the early designers as gospel. All I am saying is that the current opinion including Ran’s intro and many on this site have become to believe this as fact, which it is NOT.

If the courses were so poor why did certain individuals copy our holes and take them to your country pre 1900 & into the early 20th Century before most of these comments seem to have been published. Merion in pre 1912 seemed to be looking for ideas to copy from GB according to articles recently printed on here. That in its self should throw doubt on the sincerity or reason for some of these statements.

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

"Fast moving! As you said you were not there so how can you use the word fast?"


Melvyn:

How can I say some of them were fast moving? Well, go back to post #19 and read what Bernard Darwin and Harry Colt said about that. I don't see any reason not to believe what Darwin and Colt said about that era as they were there then and certainly closer to it than we were.

As to the holes C.B. Macdonald brought over to this country to be copied to some degree, those were the holes and courses over there that most all those I quoted respected. Most of those men mentioned in my post #19 were part of the group of responders who selected those holes Macdonald used over here. It was part of a newspaper or magazine questionaire or competition. Obviously those men didn't think those holes and courses over there then were of the "Steeplechase" or "Victorian" variety or style.   

[Rich Goodale]

Richard The Assumer:

What you (and seemingly others on here) do not seem to appreciate is neither me nor Tom MacWood ever said (as far as I can tell) that ALL the golf courses built in that early era were of the style and type labeled by those men back then as "steeplechase" or "Victorian." But apparently enough were to elicit their negative comments.

I guess I will just never understand why so many on here, and now including you, seem to so often assume any subject must be either all black or all white or ALL or NOTHING and that when anyone makes any remarks about various subjects that that is what they mean-----ie all black or all white or ALL or NOTHING! 

Tom

You, too, should read "your" post #19, particularly the 1st two paragraphs.  It is full of "all or nothing" phrasing, which is why I found it objectionable.  You should also read my previous post (the one which apparently offended you ) and note carefully that I did carefully use words and phrases such as:  some; most of; doubt strongly; many of; awful lot; majority of; and very unlikely.  I don't do Manichean.

I've also been reading some Darwin (Bernie) over the holidays, and it is clear to me that his understanding of golf north of Watford is limited (something which he readily admits, at least in his earlier writings.  I've yet to find a contemporary critic of "Victorian architrecture" who ever visited Willie Park Jr.'s (consultation by Old Tom Morris) 1890's inland course at Burntisland.......

Hope you had a Merry one and will have a Happy one in 2009.

Rich

[TEPaul]

Richard the Observant:

I guess you're right. It probably always pays to carefully check what Tom MacWood writes before quoting anything from him, even his quotations from others!

I missed where he quoted Tom Simpson thusly:

"They failed to reproduce features of the courses on which they were BREAD and borne,..."   


Nevertheless, can you now accept the fact that I never said and have never claimed that ALL courses of that early era were the ones referred to by those men as "steeplechase" or Victorian", or would you too like to assume such a thing did not exist in that era and that those early years of INLAND courses was in fact the first great GOLDEN AGE and that Darwin, Colt, Hutchinson, Simpson, Mackenzie, Alison et al were ALL into self-promotion and "old rubbish"?   

On the other hand, what I'm really interested in determining more exactly is what the likes of Max Behr in the teens and 1920s really thought of the new concepts (and philosophy) in golf architecture that many referred to, at that time, as "Scientific" and "Modern."   

My sense is he probably didn't cotton to it to the extent he would willingly wear a full-blown expensive Sea Island cotton shirt made from that philosophy. And this may explain why Merion is not an example of that "Scientific/Modern" type and style which was probably why Max wrote Wilson or Vanderpool stating that he thought by creating Merion East Wilson had saved the morality of humankind!

The thing I've always appreciated about Max Behr is how measured he was in what he thought and wrote seemingly never overstating his case!!!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

IMO, Simpson was the (second) Golden Age arrogant classic snob, missed the beginning but decided to cash in on the second coming.  But you are right to quote him because he totally proves my point of sprouting crap. His opinions did not materialise until later in his life - well into the 20th Century – what is that if not looking back to a bygone age – his views were based upon his experiences of his days not that of those in the 19th Century. A blower of his own trumpet; A man concentrating upon his own image. Let’s not forget he was too young to understand what went before him and I believe totally blind to the history of course design. It did not fit his purpose as his main interest was Tom Simpson.

Before we move to the 1920-30 we need to fully understand the earlier history, otherwise it we have no solid foundations to build our history upon.

Melvyn   

PS I was just reading the report on Leslie GC confirming the course was in formation but open with 200 present and a dozen trying out the 9 holes course. The report went on to say “The course, went completed will be an excellent one, and is expected will be well patronised. The club numbers already about sixty members”. The report proves that even a small club like Leslie did not have its course design and ready within one day. They prepared the course although the basic routing was in place. It just takes some research to prove that the modern attitude to the original designers and how our courses were designer is just not true and is full of holes. The criticism comes from the 20th Century by those with their own agenda. I am surprised by your position, considering the fun you have had with Merion debate. The problem in part is that when you come over to GB&I you only have time to play the well known courses, those you enjoy so want to play them again and again, but you miss out on other fine enjoyable smaller out of the way courses that have in their own way nearly as much to offer.

[Rich Goodale]

Two of my favo(u)rite Tom Simpson quotes were in a letter he wrote to the Council of Royal Aberdeen in 1919 after gratuitously offerring his services to the Club.  Firstly, he offered his analysis that:

"At the present moment however there are many grave defects which we shall enumerate."

Secondly, he concluded by saying:

"...we hope that the council will not take the view that they can carry out the work themselves....... A satisfactory result would not be obtained.  Only one club has attempted to do that and the result was a dismal and costly failure distressing to all parties."

This all was about a course that was (rightly, IMHO) regarded very highly at the time and to a club which had been on the go for 139 years, and to a highly knowledgable council.  What a man!

Rich

[TEPaul]

Melvyn:

Look again at what Darwin, Colt and Simpson (and the others) said in post #19 about the way numerous courses towards the end of the 19th century were laid out. Are you actually trying to convince some of us on here that never happened the way they described it?   

If what you're claiming was true then how do you explain the photographic evidence we still have today that clearly shows what they were describing?

For example:

"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.'"

[Rich Goodale]

"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.'"

Tom

Do you have a single scrap of evidence that this gross generalisation applies to any of the courses which Melvyn has cited, or in fact to any course as designed by Old Tom Morris, or Willie Park or Archie Simpson, or any of many other "Victorian" designers of Scottish courses?

Thanks in advance for your reply.

Ricardo the Increasingly Impatient for a Straight Answer Goodale

[Sean_A]

Well, it seems this has turned into a tit for tat debate.  Whilst titting and tatting, take a moment to thank OTM for his vision and fortitude.  For without OTM's shoulders to climb on, these later archies may never have realized their goals.  When are you lot gonna understand that OTM wasn't just some green keeper much beloved by his betters?

Ciao   

[TEPaul]

Ricardo:

I don't have any because I've never kept photographs here and even if I had them I have no idea how to post them.

But if you're implying that architecture of that type didn't exist over here or over there off the designs of some of those peripatetic journeymen designers I know people like Wayne (and some others) have a good deal of that photographic evidence.

If that is what it's going to take to convince you it happened back then I hereby challenge those who've posted that photographic evidence in the past to post it again.

On the other hand, that you, like apparently Melvyn, seem to assume that those men quoted just made those descriptions up out of whole cloth doesn't really surprise me.

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

Amazing! This subject is not all about OTM you know?

It seems pretty true to says the OTM had a very good reputation in whatever he did in golf and architecture, but he was definitely not the only one designing inland courses in that early era. The one who seemed to get the most criticism from the likes of those men mentioned in post #19 were the peripatetic designers of the likes of Tom Dunne. His name seemed to be mentioned the most and it actually is mentioned in those quotations in post #19.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom

Of course it is not all about OTM, and it has never been.  I fully agree with Sean.  However, you should read carefully what Sean said and also again re-read your post #19, quoting MacWood who lumped Old Tom with the Dunns, saying:

"......men like Old Tom Morris, Willie Dunn and Tom Dunn."

I would be astonished if any of the photos that you have seen or Wayne has kept on his computer have any pictures of Old Tom Morris "steeplechase" courses, since I have not seen any posted on this site before, nor do I think he designed courses that way.

BTW, getting back to the topic at hand, as I have said many moons ago on this site, just because some critics of some age happened to have some point of view does not mean that this point of view is or even was a "truth."  Melville died without "Moby Dick" being acknowledged as a great work of art and 100 years ago Guido Reni (the "Divine Guido") was considered to have been the greatest artist of the 17th century (if not all time), whilst his contemporary Caravaggio was denigrated by the critics.

We live and learn, Tom.  Join the crowd, if you so wish.

Rich

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

The opinions of the ones you mentioned came years after the events and are based upon the times they lived in and not when the courses were designed. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and these guys used it.  Looking back 30 years ago we had no mobile phones, our computers if you could afford one was by today’s standards large, slow and cumbersome – proving just what regards the early computer designer? Yet they lead the way,  we have great systems now thanks to their endeavours, ditto in golf.

Melvyn 

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Again, you are right (in my opinion) that it was probably a mistake on my part to quote any of the actual words of Tom MacWood from his essay "Arts and Crafts Golf" (actually I thought I deleted them in an attempt to simply go with the quotations in his article of those various architects quoted in post #19).

I'm pretty sure you realize I never bought into most of his assumptions and premises in that five part essay but mostly my objections to his essay were the importance he placed on the "Arts and Crafts" movement as an seminal or primary influence on Golden Age architecture.

I did not object to his inclusion of those quotations in his essay from those men I requoted in post #19 in their descriptions of a lot of that early era as "Steeplechase" or "Victorian" architecture.

Matter of fact, Tom MacWood's assumption and premise was that most of that early rudimentary and geometric style was the result of the massive impact of the Industrial Revolution and the unnatural styles emanating from it (which was the reason for most of the negative reaction of the Arts and Crafts Movement itself).

I said to Tom MacWood that I felt the primary influence on that early INLAND type and style referred to by those men as "Steeplechase" or "Victorian" had more to do with the recreational and sporting world of the horse than it did the stylistic influences of the Industrial Revolution's era.

Of course Tom MacWood objected to that (as he seemed to with most anything at all I said or anyone else said who disagreed with or questioned his assumptions, premises and conclusions ). I then pointed out to him that Harry Colt was quoted by him in his own essay as stating that early architecture was referred to as "Steeplechase" architecture and that steeplechasing was a sporting endeavor to do with the recreational world of the horse and not the Industrial Revolution itself.

MacWood responded to that on here (on a thread in the back pages) that Colt had a decent sense of humor and he must have been joking when he said that (what MacWood quoted in his OWN essay).

I kid you not. That exchange is in the back pages. That's when I really began to shake my head over many of the things that guy said on here and some of the illogical responses he offered.

So you're right, quoting Tom MacWood's own words was a mistake on my part, in my opinion, but I would not say the same for those statements of those architects contained on post #19 on here.

But I'm confident that someone will begin to post photographs of that type of early geometric style both over there and over here that was referred to as "Steeplechase" or "Victorian" and we will all be able to see it and evaluate it and compare the look of it with what was to come in golf course architecture later.

When that time comes it would not surprise me, however, if you think and then state that it looks to you no different than Cypress Point or Pine Valley or Merion. 

[Ulrich Mayring]

1) Old Tom Morris did use artificial dikes, but I think that to him they were - like bunkers - a perfectly natural thing to have on linksland.

2) Old Tom Morris did build square greens. However, it could be considered an architectural innovation that he thought of building greens at all. Before Old Tom it was not common to cut a designated area for putting at all. Most of the time a flat piece of ground was selected, the flag planted and that was it.

3) Tom Simpson was an arrogant snob and an "imaginative" salesman. But he still was one of the greatest architects ever.

Ulrich

[Melvyn Morrow]

Ulrich

I agree about Simpson design ability.

Melvyn

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Tom

I look forward to the pictures of the steeplechasers at Merion and Pine Valley.  As for Cypress, it seems blatantly obvious that the hedge in front of the first tee which makes that shot blind was derived from the Sport of Kings.

Ulrich

I agree with #s 2 and 3, but can't immediately recall any artificial dykes.  AS for #2 there is an old picture of Tom's (now)17th green at Dornoch which is a closely mown square of about 15 yard sides.  What is most interesting is that it sits in the middle of where today's green is, and that green is 30 yards wide and 50 yards long, with sweeping contours.  The old geezer surely chose that site very well.

Rich

[TEPaul]

"However, it could be considered an architectural innovation that he thought of building greens at all. Before Old Tom it was not common to cut a designated area for putting at all. Most of the time a flat piece of ground was selected, the flag planted and that was it."


Ulrich:

That's an excellent point and one that would certainly square with the Rules of Golf at that time as they applied to what was considered to be putting green. Back then it was everything within twenty yards of the pin excluding hazards.

In some cases that may've made it indistinguishable looking from what we now consider to be "Through the Green" area---eg approach area and such.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()