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.


Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do We Think of Abercromby?
« Reply #50 on: April 28, 2010, 06:45:57 AM »
Paul

That article has made the rounds, but I forgot about it - cheers.  What do you make of the contradictions between articles?  Is it possible Colt could have advised on a general routing and left Aber to fill out the details?  If so, what may have precipitated such an arrangement - assuming it was planned this way?  When did Colt go to the States/Canada - I am thinking he made it back for "duties" in WWI and if so, did these "duties" and/or the trip to N America preclude him from finishing this job?  I can't think of a heck of a lot Colt completed during the war years.  

Ciao

Sean
I think that is a very possible scenario, that Colt routed the course and Aber filled in the details, probably over a period of years. Aber was assisted by Willie Park-Jr on the two course that proceeded Addington - Worplesdon and Coombe Hill. There was pattern of leaning on experienced men early in his career. I don't believe Colt's trips abroad or the War had any affect on The Addington.

Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do We Think of Abercromby?
« Reply #51 on: April 28, 2010, 04:35:10 PM »
13th a few years ago.



I really can’t decide.   

There was another old thread showing some early and hard to identify photo’s from the Addington.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=23232


Can anyone figure out how to restore the link, something must have changed in the reconfiguration?


I think a really thorough search might find 4 or 5 distinct phases.


1
Opening day course.  1914 Apparently without bunkers?



2
By 1930’s evolution and the height of its fame - Abercromby’s development and detailing.

3

Post war Changes (including putting in the bridges?) by the Chairman who followed Aber.

4
Restoration of Aber's ideas.  Jim Finnegan spoke in 1998 with Mrs Fownes, who had inherited the course in 1963. Showing him a map, with the Bridges on it, she told him this was necessary because of the misguided Chairman “he thought he knew more about golf course architecture than Aber and as a result undertook many revisions. I undid his changes and the course today is just as Aber made it.”

I believe Tom Doak also met her?
5
Clean up starting circa 2004.



When I see those old photos I Wonder how much Aber is still really there?  He seems like a myth with so little documentation of what he actually built.  There seems very little written about him.

This year at Deal I had a conversation with an old member of The Addington.
“Abercromby,” he boomed,” was an aristocrat, a wonderful man”.  I asked him if he had played the New “No, it went after the war and I joined in 1951.”

Later I checked.  Abercromby died in 1935.
Let's make GCA grate again!

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do We Think of Abercromby?
« Reply #52 on: April 28, 2010, 04:54:08 PM »
Tony,

Here is your link restored:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/?board=1;action=display;threadid=23232

If you find a broken old link, change "forums 2" to "forum" and it will work.

Tony_Muldoon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do We Think of Abercromby?
« Reply #53 on: April 28, 2010, 05:11:04 PM »
Thanks Scott

Such pictures.

Looking again it seems like the 'restorations' have cost it a lot of micro undulations.

Hard to imagine but...quite possibly it was much more fun then!!!!!!!!!!!! 

A shoe in to be the first Doak 12 ;)
Let's make GCA grate again!

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do We Think of Abercromby?
« Reply #54 on: April 28, 2010, 05:52:59 PM »
Well, Deal and Silloth have already combined to claim the first mark of 11!

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do We Think of Abercromby?
« Reply #55 on: April 28, 2010, 06:05:14 PM »
Well, Deal and Silloth have already combined to claim the first mark of 11!

Oh dear!  We might need Tom D. to reassess those ratings.  I bet Mark Chaplin could get him to join Deal if he brought him on as his guest. ;)
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do We Think of Abercromby?
« Reply #56 on: April 28, 2010, 06:12:39 PM »
To be fair to Tom, the two visits were 16 and 27 years ago, and neither of us were at either club then to say what they looked like.

But looking at the wording of his ratings, yes, I'd hope both might score higher today.

To each their own. I saw a guy today on a golf blog say The European was one of the most UNDERrated courses in GB&I (Golf World has it 19th) and Royal St George's was among the most OVERrated (it's 16th). There's no accounting for taste.

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do We Think of Abercromby?
« Reply #57 on: April 28, 2010, 06:15:27 PM »
To be fair to Tom, the two visits were 16 and 27 years ago, and neither of us were at either club then to say what they looked like.

But looking at the wording of his ratings, yes, I'd hope both might score higher today.

To each their own. I saw a guy today on a golf blog say The European was one of the most UNDERrated courses in GB&I (Golf World has it 19th) and Royal St George's was among the most OVERrated (it's 16th). There's no accounting for taste.

Let's not even discuss that list.  I looked at it the other day, and it's awful!  Woking doesn't crack the top fifty! :o
« Last Edit: April 28, 2010, 06:18:20 PM by JNC_Lyon »
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do We Think of Abercromby?
« Reply #58 on: April 29, 2010, 06:37:22 AM »
Based on what I've read I don't think Abercromby was a myth. He was very well respected as a golf architect by people like Darwin and Charles Ambrose. In 1933 Ambrose wrote, "If Colt moved golf architecture a long step from the hideous 'rifle-butt' bunkers of the Dunn, period, Abercromby has carried it another distinct step forward again in the direction of making still more use of natural features, and less of artificial traps, as hazards."

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do We Think of Abercromby?
« Reply #59 on: April 29, 2010, 06:44:54 AM »
Abercromby has carried it another distinct step forward again in the direction of making still more use of natural features, and less of artificial traps, as hazards."

Bingo, that IMO is among the major charms of his work. Natural landforms as hazards. Mill Hill may not be a great course, but it has some wonderful examples of exactly what Ambrose was referring to.

JNC Lyon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What Do We Think of Abercromby?
« Reply #60 on: April 29, 2010, 07:14:05 AM »
Abercromby has carried it another distinct step forward again in the direction of making still more use of natural features, and less of artificial traps, as hazards."

Bingo, that IMO is among the major charms of his work. Natural landforms as hazards. Mill Hill may not be a great course, but it has some wonderful examples of exactly what Ambrose was referring to.

I agree that Abercromby makes great use of land features in lieu of artifical bunkering.  The Addington is a great demonstration of his devotion to the land.  Isn't this principle the foundation of minimalist architecture?

However, this characteristic of Abercromby makes me wonder about how much responsibility he holds for Worplesdon.  Worplesdon relies heavily on bunkers and manmade hazards to dictate strategy and impose penalty.  To me, these features would not be the work of Abercromby.  They would be more akin to the style of Willie Park, Jr.
"That's why Oscar can't see that!" - Philip E. "Timmy" Thomas