[Tom MacWood]

“XXXX is a staunch advocate of the theory that America’s supremacy at golf is founded on the scientific bunkering and contouring of our greens. ‘You’ll notice,’ says XXXX, ‘how imported British professionals improve after they’ve played a few years on our correctly designed courses. Most of the historic British links were designed for the old gutty ball, the expansive greens are wide open, offering an inviting target. A player such as Bobby Jones can’t very well miss those enormous carpets. The approach to those British greens is often left unguarded.”

[DMoriarty]

I did a quick internet search for "XXXX" but I don't think I am on the right track.

[Emil Weber]

XXXX or 4X is an australian beer company based in queensland 

[Tom MacWood]

It was written in 1927.

[Matthew Mollica]

I'll take a stab at Tilly.

MM

[Scott Warren]

I'll say OB Keeler.

[Adam Clayman]

Joshua Crane would be too easy?

[Ronald Montesano]

Baby Trent?

Walter Hagen?

[Peter Pallotta]

It's probably Tillinghast. And, since the snippet mentions "supremacy" and "British professionals," he's probably talking about how to test the best players of the day, in the context of that ongoing (over a couple of decades at least) question about what country produced the best players...and why.

Peter

[Tom MacWood]

A. W. Tillinghast is the correct answer.

“AW Tillinghast, dean of American golf architects, is a staunch advocate of the theory that America’s supremacy at golf is founded on the scientific bunkering and contouring of our greens. ‘You’ll notice,’ says Tillinghast, ‘how imported British professionals improve after they’ve played a few years on our correctly designed courses. Most of the historic British links were designed for the old gutty ball, the expansive greens are wide open, offering an inviting target. A player such as Bobby Jones can’t very well miss those enormous carpets. The approach to those British greens is often left unguarded.”

[TEPaul]

What a number of those guys back then referred to in that early era as "modern" or "scientific" architecture was pretty much synonymous or interchangeable.

[Kalen Braley]

XXXX or 4X is an australian beer company based in queensland 

Ding ding ding, indeed it is.



P.S.  For those at home always be careful when doing a Google image serach on 'XXXX'.   

[Scott Warren]

It used to have the tagline "Aussies couldn't give a XXXX about anything else". Something tells me there's no way that would fly these days.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom MacWood - great thread...

Do you think Tillie was correct?

[Tom MacWood]

I do think Tilly was right, but I also believe there were other factors. American courses were definitely more severely trapped as a general rule and rough was also more prominent. Scientifically bunnkered courses produced a more scientific or mechanically proficient golfer. Ameircan courses tended to produce golfers with a strong aerial game. It was also said American golfers tended to spend more time practicing. Americans tended toward medal play; the Brits who were more match play.

[TEPaul]

"I do think Tilly was right, but I also believe there were other factors. American courses were definitely more severely trapped as a general rule and rough was also more prominent. Scientifically bunnkered courses produced a more scientific or mechanically proficient golfer. Ameircan courses tended to produce golfers with a strong aerial game. It was also said American golfers tended to spend more time practicing. Americans tended toward medal play; the Brits who were more match play."


Tom:

Good summation. That all would certainly seem to logically follow.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Were the American courses more in line of accept bunkers as their major hazards omitting most other forms commonly found on GB&I courses of the same period. Buildings, tracks, stonewalls mounds, burns, trees, heather, whins, dry gullies, fences, roads, quarries & pits to name but a few hazards.

I thought that the early American courses relied mainly upon the humble bunker and very little else.   

Melvyn

[JESII]

Seems like a tough to prove statement.

“XXXX is a staunch advocate of the theory that America’s supremacy at golf is founded on the scientific bunkering and contouring of our greens. ‘You’ll notice,’ says XXXX, ‘how imported British professionals improve after they’ve played a few years on our correctly designed courses. Most of the historic British links were designed for the old gutty ball, the expansive greens are wide open, offering an inviting target. A player such as Bobby Jones can’t very well miss those enormous carpets. The approach to those British greens is often left unguarded.”

Do American psofessionals improve when they play in GB for an extended period? I would think.

What is more inviting? A rock hard open front green in a 30 mile per hour cross wind or a soft, well bunkered green with no wind?

How many greens do you think Bobby Jones would average in regulation during the Open Championships in the 20's?

[TEPaul]

"I thought that the early American courses relied mainly upon the humble bunker and very little else."


Not exactly. Some of the earliest (1890s) courses and most significant clubs golf was a supplemental add-on to existing clubs that had begun earlier around cricket, tennis or more commonly the recreational and sporting world of the horse----eg racing, polo, fox hunting and steeplechase clubs. With most of those early courses existing features such as roads, ditches, stone walls and rough pasture grass etc were the primary hazard features in the beginning. The original 1894 nine of Myopia Hunt Club was a good example of that. On many of the early inland courses the hazard features pretty closely replicated the look and style of elongated and rectangular steeplechase pits and berms used in steeplechasing for jumping and in early golf as hazard features.  

[Andy Gray]

XXXX or 4X is an australian beer company based in queensland 

Ding ding ding, indeed it is.



P.S.  For those at home always be careful when doing a Google image serach on 'XXXX'.   

Probably the worst beer down under... truly horrible stuff.

[Tom MacWood]

Were the American courses more in line of accept bunkers as their major hazards omitting most other forms commonly found on GB&I courses of the same period. Buildings, tracks, stonewalls mounds, burns, trees, heather, whins, dry gullies, fences, roads, quarries & pits to name but a few hazards.

I thought that the early American courses relied mainly upon the humble bunker and very little else.   

Melvyn

What period are you referring to? Most of the early American courses were designed by British imports.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

Nice gca thread. I was away yesterday, but I thought it was Tillie, having remembered reading something like that.

That said, this is clearly a sales pitch!  And, it seems to have forgotten the wind ever present in GBI.  Oddly, it probably ignores the overall record of US pros in the British Open as well.  Yes, we were starting to win over their, but was it a number factor, more practice, etc., and/or how much did our architecture really play into it?

As a corrollary, when foreigners are winning here, does it mean they have better courses in Spain, Argentina and now, Korea?

[Cristian]

What is Scientific bunkering?

"I do think Tilly was right, but I also believe there were other factors. American courses were definitely more severely trapped as a general rule and rough was also more prominent. Scientifically bunnkered courses produced a more scientific or mechanically proficient golfer. Ameircan courses tended to produce golfers with a strong aerial game. It was also said American golfers tended to spend more time practicing. Americans tended toward medal play; the Brits who were more match play."


Tom:

Good summation. That all would certainly seem to logically follow.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Early 20th Century period. 

According to some no Scottish Import (sounds like crates of Singel Malt) designed Myopia or a few other US courses. These courses being home grown courses plucked out of the minds of those in the golfing know who understood the game better than any early Import (what a word, I can hear them shouting from their graves 'we are not imports or numbers, we are Human Beings from Scottish' - or am I wrong again).

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

Cristian:

"Scientific" (or modern) bunkering were bunker schemes and placements that were worked out with the purpose in mind of either challenging or accommodating the expected shot types of various types of golfers throughout the spectrum of ability.

Some architects such as William Flynn even recommended that ideally a course should be put in play for a while before the bunker schemes were worked out simply to test via general play where bunkering should ideally be placed.

Obviously, in an overall sense this kind of thing probably devolves down to the application of mathematics----eg some generally set distances and arrangements for expected shots of different types of player. This is also the way an awful lot of bunker designing is done today.

For instance, it was not that long ago that fairway bunkering for the expert player for a tee shot was in the 267 yard range (which just happened to be 4" on a ruler on a 1 by 200 topo map ). Today most architects have taken that fairway bunker placement for the tee shot of the expert player out to around 300 yards.

Basically, that's "scientific" bunkering.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()