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.


Melvyn Morrow


Simple Answer No, when referring to what I consider the real Golden Age of Golf Course Architecture the period between the mid 1800’s and 1900.

This was the Age when a total of 30 clubs - today I suppose many would call them elite golf clubs existed throughout the world. There were a few more public links were golf was permitted allowing the common man (if he could afford the cost of ball let alone clubs) would play the early game of golf.

There are plans and /or layouts of some of these courses  however the exact state and construction of these 30 plus courses are relative unknown, but sufficient  to say that the game was able to be played upon these courses selected out of the natural features and landscape that Nature had provided.

Golf was not new nor where all the courses, some dating back centuries. Golf had become a rather popular game pre 1600. In fact it was that popular that a King of Scotland had to ban it as it interfered with training to fight the English.  Still an excuse our Rugby Team use to this day.

Then around the mid 1800’s Allan Robertson of St Andrews whose family had for over a century owned and worked in the Golf Ball industry, first making the wooden ball then the expensive feather ball.  Allan was considered by many the best Golfer in Scotland, considered today as the First Professional as an individual who knew and understood golf. Through his knowledge he was asked to remodel some of the existing courses .e. Panmure, Carnoustie Cupar to name but three.

Allan in 1839 decided to take on a young apprentice, a distance relative (a Margaret Morris married into the Robertson Family in the mid 1700’s) Tom Morris. Morris after 6 years started to assist Allan re course designs with the Panmure in 1845 and Carnoustie in 1848.

So we see the start of establishing a design practice based at St Andrews for the purpose of designing/modifying golf courses.   Allan Robertson business commitments with Tom Morris stop in 1850 but they continue to play together against any pair for large sums of money. The records states that when playing for money the pair were never beaten, which never hurt their reputation in those early days.

Due to the list of designs undertaken by Allan Robertson between 1840-55, he should I believe be considered the first modern designer with multi-designs under his name. No other name stands out in the records found to date for multi designs before these dates.

So having set the start of the timeline for the modern design, perhaps it’s now best to examine the 20th Century Men of Golf (as I find it hard to call one, maybe two, gentlemen) who seem to have clearly understood their predecessor  from the  19th Century – well so they believe by their quotes..

We have some of their comments quoted on a recently posted thread which reads as follows
 
 Tom Simpson
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.’

A Mackenzie
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!’

H Colt
‘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.’

B Darwin
‘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.’

Let’s address Simpson comment first as in part he is the most outspoken certainly against Old Tom Morris, Allan’s apprentice and one of the most self-opinionated on the 19th and early 20th century course designers.

Examining the courses sketches and the remaining existing holes by Old Tom Morris and I see a designer that has used an array of hazards to test the golfer, from natural, existing manmade walls,  fences, turf dykes and sand traps all utilised for the pleasure of the game not to mention interest. I am of course referring both inland and links courses.  I do not see many flat gun platforms greens in Old Toms courses be they open or closed, but then Simpson has given all the options ‘oblong, round or square’ so take your choice. As for the ‘railway embankment side and batters’ I fear what he would say about Castle Stuart. Having said that I do not remember an abundance of these features throughout GB&I.  Knowing St Andrews and other Old Tom Morris courses can anyone say that he used rectangular bunkers all across the course.  Sorry but I do not see any correlation to the work of Old Tom Morris.

 As for Mackenzie comments, understandable if I had to go through the experience he describes I would not be that amused. Yet reading the article on the GB&I course installations of the 19th Century, I do not identify with that either. I see progressive discussion with the design progress in the 19th century on the subject, even down to including the ordinary golfer within the club concerned. Once most were happy then the real construction would begin. The interesting point about Mackenzie quote is that he seem to echo his comments on the visit by James Braid to Brora in the 1920’s which is more or less the course in play today. For information see Malcolm Campbell’s book The Scottish Golf Book page 149 on Brora. Interesting


Now if we all swoon at the words of Colt then me thinks what hope do we have on GCA.com for an in depth and sensible debate.  Yes its Colt but read his quote, who is he referring to, which site or country? I have seen many Victorian courses, bad, not a bit of it, what’s he talking about? Colt’s first sentence is half right IMHO as the holes and Greens that have survived are not amazingly bad but actually blood F#*king good i.e.  The 17th Road Hole TOC and 15th The Redan at N. Berwick, just two examples, to prove that even the renown Mr Colt gets it well and truly F#@King wrong. As for absence of strategy, interest etc., etc. just look at all the old courses, yes, some maybe a little dull but it depends upon the golfer’s mood on that day. Sorry but I do not recognise his comments on every Victorian course or hole I have played or seen, what about you guys?

So the last quote comes from Darwin, for all his writing he is not well known as a course designer or as a golfer of renown. Reading his quote one, well this one wonders just who is he referring to or what group, because again I do not recognise any course that meets that criteria again do any of you?

Quite frankly I have never been well taken with some on the above guys, but clearly this site and many individuals seem to dribble at some of their words. I prefer to judge them, if indeed that is the right expression on their designs and whether I enjoyed the experience or not. Having said that I just do not see or relate to any course that meets their criticism so I must walk away with the opinion that they did not really know what or more importantly understand the old courses they played upon.

It’s the type of unsupported bullshit I sometimes read when others attack me, full of just words with no real substance or meaning. Actually when you come to think of it, they are trying to ruin not just one but many a reputations of the old Victoria guys, but have not put any real substance of any merit into their quotes, just plain drivel in their attacks.

In closing I wonder why some of the Victorian guys retained Trees, undulating fairways, built and kept bunkers, existing manmade hazards and natural hazards, incorporated blind shots grassy hollows, hedges, walls/roads, burns ponds ditches, whin, broom, rough grass, quarries pits and not forgetting turf dykes – could it be anything to do with strategy, surely not that’s just to obvious but not to our boy wonders Simpson, Mackenzie, Colt or Darwin.

I have not mentions courses like Prestwick, Dornoch, Royal North Devon (Westward Ho), Royal County Down, Machrihanish, Muirfield, Wallasey, North Inch, Dunbar all well established in the Victorian Age. Just what was it that Colt said “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.’

I again put it to you that the real Golden Age was based between the mid 1800’s to 1900 and those that followed just picked up the baton. Their words on their predecessors were certainly not charitable or golden yet they learnt their trade on the back of the ideas and designs of Allan Robertson, Old Tom Morris and others.

Remember histories are generally written by the victors who carry their message or their deeds and may well be unfriendly to those they fear even though dead.
 
Melvyn

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Is there a real definition to GCA which is understood down the Ages?
« Reply #1 on: August 27, 2010, 01:43:37 PM »
Melvyn:

I agree with your point that Colt, MacKenzie et al. were not disposed to play up the earlier architects or their true influence on design and construction. 

It is important to remember that in the early 1900's there was a major rift between "professionals" and amateur golfers who went into design, and at one point I believe the professionals tried to bar the amateurs from practicing design, or else insisted that they be declared professionals and not eligible to play in the Amateur.  So there was no love lost between Braid and Taylor v. Colt and MacKenzie, and not surprising that the latter tried to portray professionals as unskilled designers, while portraying themselves as more studious and scientific in their methods.  [The same stuff goes on to this day, I'll be happy to share some first-hand stories if you like.]

As far as I know, Old Tom remained above the fray in that battle.

Paul_Turner

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is there a real definition to GCA which is understood down the Ages?
« Reply #2 on: August 27, 2010, 02:47:05 PM »
Melvyn

They were being critical of the new inland courses (not links) constructed before 1900.  

They were obviously very fond of the ancient great links...see their other quotes regarding St Andrews and others, although the could be critical of some old style features such as punch bowl greens, they loved the links.

Take a look at the photos of the inland courses in Horace Hutchinson's "Book of the Links".  A lot of it was as they describe. Eltham for example and Cassiobury

« Last Edit: August 27, 2010, 02:59:51 PM by Paul_Turner »
can't get to heaven with a three chord song

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is there a real definition to GCA which is understood down the Ages?
« Reply #3 on: August 27, 2010, 03:49:28 PM »
The cops at Royal Liverpool come to mind as well.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Is there a real definition to GCA which is understood down the Ages?
« Reply #4 on: August 27, 2010, 04:19:08 PM »

Tom
Thanks, but I am aware that it was inland course that our Latter Day Saints were talking about. As for Old Tom I have no record of any bad feeling towards him from either party.

Another item that I find interesting being the complete replacement of the turf not just for the Greens but also the fairways. In some cases thousands of yards of turf was laid on some of his courses. There are certainly reports of the Green construction and as far as earth moving at St Andrews Old Tom followed the lead of Bruce by continuing the land reclaiming he started which in the end allowed for the 1st Hole and 18th Holes to be redesigned. That was done by men and massive amounts or earth was moved.

Paul
Yes I am aware that they were not commenting about all the courses but mainly the inland ones. Yet I find it amusing that the inland courses were in the first place to mirror (well as close as possible) the seaside links courses. The ideas being a golf course is a golf course but as we now know the environmental and soil content does have an effect on the course. Again I would have thought that the second generation designers would have understood in there development of the inland sites however they seem as Tom mentioned to ‘stir’ the pot.

Interesting photo and would you believe that in Kroegers book he has that same photo as West Herts Golf Course showing the turf dykes.

The point I believe is the latter designers seem to have forgotten much of what went on before them or they are seeking to raise their profile to the golfing world. Seems they have tarnished their Golden image a bit IMHO those second Golden Boys. To understand your industry you need to know its history so that you do not make the same mistakes as previous generations – one of the first laws of business according to my father.

Melvyn

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is there a real definition to GCA which is understood down the Ages?
« Reply #5 on: August 27, 2010, 04:24:59 PM »
My question is what examples do we have of courses that were great golf courses in the mid-late 19th Century?

Not courses conceived then that are considered great now, but courses that we know were "great" in the 1850-1880 period, through testimonials, pictures and/or descriptions (obviously none of us were around to play them!)

I think there would need to be a decent list of courses on such a list for an argu ment to be made that the period in question was a Golden Age of golf course architecture.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Is there a real definition to GCA which is understood down the Ages?
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2010, 04:31:07 PM »


Scott

I gave a list of courses "I have not mentions courses like Prestwick, Dornoch, Royal North Devon (Westward Ho), Royal County Down, Machrihanish, Muirfield, Wallasey, North Inch, Dunbar all well established in the Victorian Age" plus North Bewrick etc. etc. To decide the courses just read old Golf or newspaper articles, those covering the Graet matches of the Day Old Tom Willie Park and any other major money match.

Trust that goes a long way to answer your question

Melvyn

Peter Pallotta

Re: Is there a real definition to GCA which is understood down the Ages?
« Reply #7 on: August 27, 2010, 05:44:51 PM »
Interesting, Melvyn - thanks.  I don't know enough to comment, but I think maybe the 'Victorian Age' was just too long and varied an era (in every way) to be used meaningfully as a way of demarcating different periods in gca.

In other words, I think we should maybe look at the Robertson-Old Tom period as sui generis (as my erudite friend Bob Crosby might say), i.e. as one relatively brief flowering of the art before a much longer period of decline and, later, a re-discovery and re-invention of that original flowering...which 'process' I think we'd probably find repeated for many art forms in many eras in many countries.

Peter

« Last Edit: August 27, 2010, 05:58:30 PM by PPallotta »

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is there a real definition to GCA which is understood down the Ages?
« Reply #8 on: August 27, 2010, 06:59:47 PM »
Melvyn:

Quote
I gave a list of courses "I have not mentions courses like Prestwick, Dornoch, Royal North Devon (Westward Ho), Royal County Down, Machrihanish, Muirfield, Wallasey, North Inch, Dunbar all well established in the Victorian Age" plus North Bewrick etc. etc. To decide the courses just read old Golf or newspaper articles, those covering the Graet matches of the Day Old Tom Willie Park and any other major money match.  

Melvyn,

You've claimed that the mid to late 1800s was a golden age in golf architecture and that the practitioners of the day are "the real stars" of golf design. That's fine, but all I have asked is that such a claim be accompanied by some kind of support.

Of the courses you've namechecked above we have:

Dornoch - major changes by Sutherland and then Duncan et al.
Royal North Devon (Westward Ho) - changes by Fowler
Royal County Down - changes by Colt
Machrihanish - changes by JH Taylor and Sir Guy Campbell.
Muirfield - changes by Colt
Wallasey - within 40 years changes by Herd, Hilton, Hawtree, Taylor and Braid

What I've asked is whether the courses named were great golf courses before those post-1900 changes were made? Were they built on principles, concepts and ideas that would drive the artform going forward?

You've referred to "discoveries" you have made on the topic that you allude to being the proof you need to be sure of your claim, but to the best of my knowledge you've not presented those discoveries.

Of course the words of Colt, Simpson, MacKenzie and Darwin are not gospel and they may well have been prejudiced, but I still feel the onus is on you here. They were alive and involved in the industry at the time, and you weren't born yet.

As far as discrediting their views of pre-1900 architecture by pointing out the brilliance of The Road Hole and Redan etc, Mackenzie did say:

Quote
They failed to reproduce any of the features of the courses on which they were bread and born

which I expect includes TOC and NBWL.

The ultimate irony of all of this was you typing:

Quote
It’s the type of unsupported bullshit I sometimes read when others attack me, full of just words with no real substance or meaning

Support your claim, add to it some substance and meaning. That is all anyone has asked in this or the previous thread.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2010, 07:32:59 PM by Scott Warren »

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Is there a real definition to GCA which is understood down the Ages?
« Reply #9 on: August 27, 2010, 09:43:33 PM »

Scott

I have to prove sweet FA, because its all out there in black and white all you have to do is look for it.

You do not believe me, or want to conduct your own search, I’m more than OK with that after all this is just a DG.
Many on this site are not that interested in GCA anyway preferring to list or discuss their top 50 or 100 clubs, again I’m OK with that so I see no point wasting my research on many who do not seem interested.

As for the courses being modified over the years, so what we are not talking about over the years but in the 19th Century.

To assist you in your research why not start with the holes copied around the world. Why copy a hole, is the designer making a statement that he is out of ideas so has to copy a very old dead guys design. Template holes, what a cop out for the later designers, but use the Template holes it may give you an interesting list.

Scott, who are you that I have to prove my points on a DG?  Accept it or not that is totally down to you.

Melvyn

Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Is there a real definition to GCA which is understood down the Ages?
« Reply #10 on: August 28, 2010, 02:15:31 PM »
Scott,

Muirfield was widely considered a poor course when it held it's first Open. I think Darwin or Hutchinson mention it in their books. I've no idea about the rest on your list; I'd need to check Hutchinson's book.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Is there a real definition to GCA which is understood down the Ages?
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2010, 06:47:13 AM »

Donal

All courses are open to criticism, just look at the Castle and Castle Stuart Courses.

Muirfield is an interesting course full of its own history and opinions.  Yet when we look to the first course it did have its critics, one being Andrew Kirkaldy who considered it ‘nothing but a damned water meadow’. But then that might have been down to his frustration that a young English amateur won the 1892 Open at Muirfield. The reports of the day from the newspaper were of “providing good golf, sporting links, tricky but fair Greens. This Course was 5203 yards long.

Some minor modification was undertaken for the 1896 Open but for the most part retained the original but utilising some additional land stretched the course to 6,000 yards. The Course still was not really change for 30 years until Colt’s redesign of the 1920’s when more land was added.

Let’s not forget that the original course on 1890 was laid out within land surrounded by a stone wall requiring the course to remain within that constraint until the club was able to obtain land to expand, which meant that the course remained very little changed from the first 30 years of its life – now would you call that a damning criticism of the course by its Members.

Muirfield must have been considered a good course because they decided to use it for The Open. As for providing proof or documents, well the proof is out there, if you are really interested then you just need to look like the rest of us.

Widely is not a word I would use, perhaps a little early for The Open as it was such a new course which in those days took time to bed in.

Melvyn