Beale and Bunkering - 1909

[Mike Cirba]

On the Merion bunkering thread, a discussion took place about the history of sand-flashed bunkering on inland, clay-based sites, largely based on Tom Paul posting Hugh Wilson's only known writings on golf course architecture, specifically related to bunkering.

As the discussion ensued, Tom Paul wrote me the following;

Mike:

Regarding the origination of the Merion upswept sand bunker faces on clay/loam INLAND sites in America and if in fact it was at Merion East, Niall Carlton from abroad has been in touch to say he thinks he has found some bunker construction drawings from 1909 from Reginald Beale (Carter Tested Seed's primary agronomist) that may be more detailed than Robert White's bunker drawings and description from 1914 in Golf Illustrated posted above by Brad Anderson.

If they match what Wilson et al were going to do at Merion that may be the best link to date about where Wilson may've gotten this idea that was reflected in that paragraph of his on bunkers posted above.

I do know that Reginald Beale was in New York with Macdonald in the late spring/early summer of 1911 and that Macdonald introduced him by letter to Wilson and that Beale did visit Merion in the early summer of 1911 as that is confirmed by Wilson to Piper and Oakley in some of those "agronomy letters." Wilson's only mention of Beale to Piper and Oakley, however, was that he (and Macdonald) felt Merion should use about twice as much fertilizer (manure) per green as P&O and Wilson thought was necessary. But it is not unusual that Wilson would not have mentioned a bunker type or style to P&O as Wilson typically did stick just to the point of what he was dealing with P&O for and that was agronomy and not golf course architecture.


Niall was kind enough to send me the Beale article to post here.   I think there is a lot to chew on and discuss, but I was particularly interested in the section detailing the old practice of observing play for a number of months prior to placing of bunkers and other man-made strategic and penal hazards;

Enjoy!

[Bradley Anderson]

Wow! Thanks Niall!

[TEPaul]

Brad:

I was about to send this to you but here it is. I think particularly you will find this very interesting.

[TEPaul]

 


     Re: Now: Merion virtually bunkerless THREE YEARS after opening!?
« Reply #70 on: January 19, 2010, 09:01:41 AM » Quote Modify 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as I can tell the following paragraph on bunkers was the only time Hugh Wilson wrote on golf course architecture. This paragraph was part of a chapter Wilson wrote in 1916 for Piper and Oakley's book Turf Grass for Golf. He was asked to write on the agronomic development of Merion and his chapter appeared in the book but he crossed the entire following paragraph out of an early draft with a note above it-----"Probably better omit this as it comes more properly under golf construction."

To me this paragraph explaining Wilson's thinking on bunkers raises the question if he and his Merion Committee were the first to visualize, articulate and execute sand bunkers on American INLAND "clay/loam sites (as opposed to sand or sand/loam sites such as Pine Valley or NGLA) that produced the bunker type and style of "easy" (upswept) sand flashed faces that became famously known as "The White Faces of Merion." Again, I think the key distinction is INLAND clay/loam sites. If Wilson and Merion were not the first to visualize, articulate and execute this particular type and style of bunkering on inland clay/loam sites in America who was and what is the evidence of the purposeful visualization, articulation and production of upswept sand floors on inland clay/loam sites that preceded Merion East?

It seems to me even the best of the inland clay/loam site courses in America that preceded Merion East pretty much had flat sand floors that were generally depressed below natural grade (Ex. Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont etc). Merion's were distinctly not just flat sand floors.





“BUNKERS.    The question of bunkers is a big one and the very best school for study we have found is along the seacoast among the dunes. Here one may study the different formations and obtain many ideas for bunkers. We have tried to make them natural and fit them into the landscape. The criticism had been made that we have made them too easy, that the banks are too sloping and that a man may often play a mid-iron shot out of the bunker where he should be forced to use a niblick. This opens a pretty big subject and we know that the tendency is to make bunkers more difficult. In the bunkers abroad on the seaside courses, the majority of them were formed by nature and the slopes are easy; the only exception being where on account of the shifting sand, they have been forced to put in railroad ties or some similar substance to keep the same from blowing. This had made a perfectly straight wall but was not done with the intention of making it difficult to get out but merely to retain the bunker as it exists. If we make the banks of every bunker so steep that the very best player is forced to use a niblick to get out and the only hope he has when he gets in is to be able to get his ball on the fairway again, why should we not make a rule as we have at present with water hazards, when a man may, if he so desires, drop back with the loss of a stroke. I thoroughly believe that for the good of Golf, that we should not make our bunkers so difficult, that there is no choice left in playing out of them and that the best and the worst must use a niblick.” 
 Hugh Wilson, 1916

[TEPaul]

I think there is an interesting mentality and reality of that early time articulated in one section of that 1909 Beale article. Notice the section in the third page under the heading "Where to Place Bunkers and Cross Bunkers versus Side Bunkers" where he says 'Obviously the best way to determine both points is to employ a professional golfer or get the considered opinion of an amateur of the first rank...'


That very much represents the opinions of various clubs around that early era, the most well known of them being Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley, some of the most significant golf architecture in America and the world who relied upon various "amateur/sportmen" architects that almost without exception were very good players that those clubs referred to as "experts" (apparently mostly because they were very good players and in the mentality and reality of that day the thinking must have been if you could play that well you should be able to design proper golf courses).

That 1909 statement by Beale, albeit obviously representative of the thinking of that early time in golf and golf course architecture is sure not the kind of statement one would see in print these days.

[Tom MacWood]

If you are looking for early sand flashed bunkers a good place to start is Horace Hutchinson's book Golf Greens and Green-keeping (1906), with contributions from Hutchinson, Colt, Fowler, Fergusson, Hilton, Hutchison, Braid, Gilbert Beale, Reginald's brother, among others. The book is worth looking at just for the photographs, many of which are of impressive flashed bunkers, both natural and man-made. Hutchinson's influence on the formative years of golf architecture, both in the UK and US, has been under-appreciated. 

[Mike Cirba]

That very much represents the opinions of various clubs around that early era, the most well known of them being Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley, some of the most significant golf architecture in America and the world who relied upon various "amateur/sportmen" architects that almost without exception were very good players that those clubs referred to as "experts" (apparently mostly because they were very good players).

That 1909 statement by Beale, albeit obviously representative of the thinking of that early time in golf and golf course architecture is sure not the kind of statement one would see in print these days.

Tom,

I picked right up on that one as well.

For awhile, I thought perhaps it was a Philadelphia thing.   I can't tell you the number of articles I've seen in old Philly newspapers that refer to "experts" as virtually anyone who knows any facet of the game well or played with proficiency like the lowest handicap players in town.

Again, I think it's very clear that guys like Leeds and Travis and Macdonald created that mindset within the rest of the population, that someone who was really, really good at playing golf almost by definition had other "expert" capabilities in the game, with the first direct application being the designing of proper "championship" golf courses with "scientific" bunkering.

[Mike Cirba]

If you are looking for early sand flashed bunkers a good place to start is Horace Hutchinson's book Golf Greens and Green-keeping (1906), with contributions from Hutchinson, Colt, Fowler, Fergusson, Hilton, Hutchison, Braid, Gilbert Beale, Reginald's brother, among others. The book is worth looking at just for the photographs, many of which are of impressive flashed bunkers, both natural and man-made. Hutchinson's influence on the formative years of golf architecture, both in the UK and US, has been under-appreciated. 

Tom,

Thanks for that tip....Hutchinson had great input on a lot of folks including Macdonald.

But, I think Tom's question was more specific to sand-flashed bunkers on inland, clay-based US soils.   Do you know any good early US examples?

[Kyle Harris]

Very interesting find.

Tom MacWood,

In what locations are the courses noted by Hutchinson, et al?

[Tom MacWood]

~

[Kyle Harris]

The James Braid article on Page 142 would probably be most pertinent, agree?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

That whole book looks to be a joy.   Thanks for pointing it out.

Was it ever published and/or distributed in the US back then?


EDIT*** - Seeing the Fowler article on heathlands, I'm wondering if that was one of the articles that George Crump and his friends at Pine Valley wore the edges off and supposedly kept under glass?

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom Paul,

That quote really got my attention too. Here we have a world renown golf expert, who is on the business side of the game, endorsing the gentleman sportsman’s contribution to design.

I find it especially interesting that, according to Beale, there is not a general consensus at this time as to weather or not it is best to build bunkers during construction or rather to wait until after the golf course has been in play for six months. Indeed he even says that the majority will not mark out a bunker until the course has “found itself”. And the reason he gives?

“When a course has been in play for six months or more the run of the ground becomes practically constant and the bunkers can be placed accurately.....”

So when we read that bunkers are being adjusted or added subsequent to a course opening, at this time, we may not assume that this reflects poorly on the original designers competency. Very interesting.

[TEPaul]

There seems to be a somewhat similar (redundant) discussion and bunch of posts going on here between two threads---the Merion one and this one after Cirba started this one. Maybe tomorrow I will transport some of the pertinent posts from the Merion thread into this one.

I feel tonight there was a little known and potentially fascinating sub-subject that came up on here----eg the start-up and potential and perhaps soon to die out reality of construction arms of some of the most prominent seed merchant companies such as Carter's.

From the little I can garner from some of the agronomy letters it seems like people like the Wilson brothers et al and Piper and Oakley looked at this as some kind of a conflict of interest, unethical in certain circumstances, and perhaps a prescription for a potential rip-off in golf in America.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom Paul,

That quote really got my attention too. Here we have a world renown golf expert, who is on the business side of the game, endorsing the gentleman sportsman’s contribution to design.

I find it especially interesting that, according to Beale, there is not a general consensus at this time as to weather or not it is best to build bunkers during construction or rather to wait until after the golf course has been in play for six months. Indeed he even says that the majority will not mark out a bunker until the course has “found itself”. And the reason he gives?

“When a course has been in play for six months or more the run of the ground becomes practically constant and the bunkers can be placed accurately.....”

So when we read that bunkers are being adjusted or added subsequent to a course opening, at this time, we may not assume that this reflects poorly on the original designers competency. Very interesting.

Bradley,

I believe that is a very discerning post you just made.

What's more, I think there is something alluded to here by a self-professed expert in agronomy at that time who argued that the very earth itself had to "settle", or at least achieve, or more accurately...reclaim...some constancy and predictability after it was interrupted, disrupted, and set asunder by the act of trying to place a growing golf course atop it.

The whole idea of a course then "finding itself" is somewhat profound.   It implies a give and take between man and nature, and the idea that man, after dynamically altering the composition of the earth to shape it towards his ends, now needs to wait, and watch, and consider before attempting any further activity that might end hopefully and optimistically with postive and progressive results, is itself some philosophic part of organic and eternal wisdom of the ages it seems to me.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
That quote really got my attention too. Here we have a world renown golf expert, who is on the business side of the game, endorsing the gentleman sportsman’s contribution to design."


Bradley:

To me that is a total confirmation of the reality of some of what was going on in that early era----eg the reality that some of the best and most significant architecture in America (I stress again, maybe not that much but definitely some of the most visible and significant architecture) was being done by non-professional architects ----the so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects of that early era that did the likes of (in chronological order) Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, NGLA, Merion, Pine Valley, to name just the most significant six. It is just so supremely ironic to me that a few on here have tried to make the point that some of those so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects like Hugh Wilson were too much the novices to have been able to do what they did and therefore someone other than themselves (like a Willie Campbell or HH Barker et al) must have done those projects for them contrary to reportage or their recorded "legends."  

Beale was a businessman working for a commercial seed merchant. He was no fool, I suppose----he was simply articulating, by that interesting remark in that 1909 article of expert amateur golfers, the reality of that time for publicity or for business purposes for himself and his company.

I've been told on here by one or two, at times over the years, that the featuring of the significance of what I've called the "amateur/sportsmen" architects of that interesting time is just 'my schtick' and that it really isn't historically true or historically accurate or significant.

I think Reginald Beale's mention of the amateur that way in his article posted above just puts the lie to that accusation of my years-long claim about the significance, back then, of the so-called "Amateur/Sportsman" architect with certain famous courses.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom/Bradley,

I think it goes beyond that.

Beale is already acknowledging the existence and the prevalence of "the committee", at clubs, who are charged with making these architectural decisions, and seems to clearly point out that decision by committee in these matters can lead to very mediocre results.

He seems instead to favor the dictatorial approach of a single "expert", either a professional or top amateur golfer, who can make unilateral determinations that are in the long-term best interest of the golf course.

Reading those related paragraphs, I can't help but reflect to Max Behr's writings a few years later where he cites Macdonald at NGLA, Leeds at Myopia, and Wilson at Merion as dictators who have taken course construction in all of it's facets far beyond the unsatisfactory norm of the day.

[Tom MacWood]

This may be of interest. Speaking of amateur sportsmen Lloyd may take the cake.

[TEPaul]

"He seems instead to favor the dictatorial approach of a single "expert", either a professional or top amateur golfer, who can make unilateral determinations that are in the long-term best interest of the golf course."


Mike:

I think that's true to some extent. I don't think Beale in that 1909 article is exactly advocating dictatorship, at least not in the context of the ongoing administration of a club (like a John Arthur Brown or Cliff Roberts), I think Beale is just talking about how to create good architectural decisions to build a golf course and at that particular time he did put the "expert" amateur on the same plane as an "expert" professional in the CREATION of GCA.

[Tom MacWood]

Beale (and Carters) worked with a who's who of golf architects, both professional and amateur, I'm not sure why you gents are so consumed with the amateurs. Please explain.

[TEPaul]

Very interesting article there that was signed by Reginald Beale!

Would the poster of that article care to try to make some agronomic evolutionary sense out of what Beale said or was trying to say in that particular article for our general edification? In other words, what does the poster really know about alkalinity vs sweetening or liming of sites and soils and grasses used over here vs those used over there, as well as the various geographical areas and temperatures and such in various areas over here compared to where Beale came from and knew over there back then?

For my part, having read all the Alan and Hugh Wilson/P&O agronomy letters that together lasted about twenty years, it is not much wonder why none of them particularly trusted Beale's opinion on what was going on naturally and agronomically in America as compared to abroad.

Now, the more important question when considering Beale's postion and the position of the likes of P&O on the question of the degrees of alkalinity or liming (as expressed in that arcticle above which I must say I find confusing and somewhat hard to understand which side Beale is on) is who in the end seems to have been right? 

[TEPaul]

"Beale (and Carters) worked with a who's who of golf architects, both professional and amateur, I'm not sure why you gents are so consumed with the amateurs. Please explain."


Consumed by the Amateurs? Who's consumed by that? Was Beale consumed by that? Was I? Were Brad Anderson or Mike Cirba who both noticed what Beale said and mentioned it on here consumed with Beale's mention of amateurs? Please just reread what was written above and then tell us what there is to explain about that?

[Bradley Anderson]

Beale (and Carters) worked with a who's who of golf architects, both professional and amateur, I'm not sure why you gents are so consumed with the amateurs. Please explain.

I am only pointing out that when Beale juxtaposes the inferior results of a committee's decisions on bunker location with the superior results of one individual, he endorses the good golfer. In those days, good amateur golfers were held in as high esteem as professional golfers. Actually if one goes by the attendance at the big amateur events verses the big professional events, the good amateur golfer was held in much higher esteem by the golf public.

Well in either case, Beale here endorses the good amateur golfer's contribution to golf course design.

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom Paul,

That quote really got my attention too. Here we have a world renown golf expert, who is on the business side of the game, endorsing the gentleman sportsman’s contribution to design.

I find it especially interesting that, according to Beale, there is not a general consensus at this time as to weather or not it is best to build bunkers during construction or rather to wait until after the golf course has been in play for six months. Indeed he even says that the majority will not mark out a bunker until the course has “found itself”. And the reason he gives?

“When a course has been in play for six months or more the run of the ground becomes practically constant and the bunkers can be placed accurately.....”

So when we read that bunkers are being adjusted or added subsequent to a course opening, at this time, we may not assume that this reflects poorly on the original designers competency. Very interesting.

Bradley,

I believe that is a very discerning post you just made.

What's more, I think there is something alluded to here by a self-professed expert in agronomy at that time who argued that the very earth itself had to "settle", or at least achieve, or more accurately...reclaim...some constancy and predictability after it was interrupted, disrupted, and set asunder by the act of trying to place a growing golf course atop it.

The whole idea of a course then "finding itself" is somewhat profound.   It implies a give and take between man and nature, and the idea that man, after dynamically altering the composition of the earth to shape it towards his ends, now needs to wait, and watch, and consider before attempting any further activity that might end hopefully and optimistically with postive and progressive results, is itself some philosophic part of organic and eternal wisdom of the ages it seems to me.

I like your thoughts there Mike, but to those I would add that this part of article is principly about fairway bunkering.

The development of turf, through the green, was a fairly slow process at this time owing to a lack of irrigation technology, and also in determining what grass species to use, and how to grow them in. So there would have been more ball response to the ground than anything that we are accustomed to today. Add to that the inconsistency of the clubs and balls they were hitting and what you have is a very different development process.

The ball flew at much lower trajectories and it just really responded more to the ground than how we relate to the game now. I would guess that in the first few years of a golf course's development, the ball may have even played uniquely there depending on the soil type on that golf course. All of that is expressed in Beale's phrase's  "run of the ground" and "[find] itself".

So the science of bunker building was more in construction of the feature, and not as much in the placement of the feature. Hence the need for a good golfer to play the ground over and over in search of just the right spot.

[Niall C]

Bradley

Re your last post, a couple of things. I believe Beale was principally based in the UK and therefore maybe his comments are aimed more at the way things were done in the UK. Perhaps they did things differently in the US at that time in relation to turf and growing in, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

From a lot of Scottish newspaper articles I've been reading from 1890's onwards which refer to the building/laying out of golf courses the theme that recurs is that they refer to the turf and its suitability, and not necessarily just the soil. Bear in mind that the majority of these courses were on land that was farmed and that the most suitable farm land was considered that which was used for grazing as opposed to tilling. Hence the writer would refer to the turf as being "old turf" meaning that it hadn't been tilled in the recent past and therefore the ground would be more compacted. Indeed many of the early courses operated in a similiar fashion to the way Brora still does, with sheep (cattle generally caused too much damage) grazing on the course.

I'm not sure therefore that there would have been all that many courses that were totally ploughed and sown, but frankly I could be totally wrong on that count. I'm assuming things were maybe different in the US.

Indeed some of the articles seem to suggest that playing was almost part of the construction process in that an allowance was made for the ground improving with consolidation due to foot traffic going over it. I know that Old Tom in laying his courses pushed his tees forward at the start and made an allowance for them to be taken back once the "ball started running". Perhaps Melvyn can chime in on this point.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags: