[Neil_Crafter]

I am posting this article for Niall Carlton, who found it after a nice bit of detective work. Here's what Niall had to say:

Charles Ambrose is someone I've been reading a lot in Golf Illustrated and elsewhere and he is a very fine writer as well as illustrator. He would appear to be very friendly with Colt, Fowler, Abercrombie and in particular Simpson. He also seems to have known MacKenzie but didn't seem to have quite the same rapore which might have something to do with MacKenzie being at the other end of the country.
 
Ambrose would appear to have been a long time contributor to GI and indeed might have been the editor, while inbetween times he was the course manager at Worplesdon where he seemed to be a John Sutherland of Dornoch type character.
 
Anyway in an article where he talks about different architects styles he refers to when he was writing for the Bystander magazine and wrote to the principals of Colt MacKenzie and Alison to ask them each to design an uphill par 3 for inclusion in an article. This of course set me off looking for the article and I now attach it. Firstly, he didn't appear to have approached Allison but approached Fowler and Abercrombie instead. It would appear that only Fowler and MacKenzie submitted designs although what we see in the article is Ambrose's 3d depictions of the designs.

Naturally interested in comments and thoughts on these. I attach the article and enlargements of Ambrose's sketch of the natural conditions and his sketches of Fowler's and Mackenzie's schemes.

[Tom MacWood]

Niall & Neil
Great article. Ambrose is a mystery man to me...I was not aware he was the manager at Worplesdon at one time....any additional info you have on him would be of great interest.

[BCrosby]

Charles Ambrose wrote frequently for Field magazine during the mid-twenties. I don't know if he held official positions with other magazines at the time. I thought Harold Hilton was the editor of the British GI during those years.

Among the things Ambrose did at Field, as with the article from the Bystander, was interview architects about topics of the day. He interviewed Colt, MacKenzie and Abercrombie about whether they concurred with Joshua Crane that the Old Course ought to be "improved".  Equally interesting is that Aber and MacK sent drawings of changes they would make to the 1st and the 18th at TOC. Both drawings were reproduced in Field.

He also did a series of twenty or more articles on the best inland holes in Britain as selected by Colt, Fowler, Aber and Simpson, a series inspired by Crane's criticisms of various British links courses. Ambrose also did wonderful drawings of the holes selected. He seemed to be good friends with all the most famous British architects of the era.

I too would like to know more about him. He seemed to get around.

Bob   

[RSLivingston_III]

The two drawings are captivating. It looks like they both started with a template we aren't being shown. The hill on the right and slope to the left of the green are almost identical between the two. The footprints of the two greens have some interesting similarities.
I'd love to have a go at playing that Mackenzie approach shot.

Is that issue from 1905?
that date is hard to read.

[Sean_Tully]

Niall and others:

Fun stuff all around. Interesting bunkers by AM given the 1925 time frame looks to be getting his "California" style bunkers a little early.

Ambrose was a prolific contributor of drawings to Country Life mostly of prominent golfers of the day.

Bob- would love to see the MacKenzie mentions that you reference!

Tully

[Sean_A]

Neil & Niall

Thanks for posting this bit.  I find four things about the sketches very interesting.  First, the Dr Mac sketch is really sort of what I would expect him to produce and given the bunkering scheme I wasn't surprised he wanted to plant "effect" trees up on the right.  Second, as much as Dr Mac produced something typical for him, Fowler produced something very odd.  So odd I have never seen any Fowler work like it adn I wonder if Fowler would really have tried to create that sketch in the ground.  Third, the foreground for both archies is very different.  While both seem to lean toward the fir as the optimum approach angle (presumably 100 yards out), Fowler uses the a slope running away from the angle of play to protect that prime spot where Dr Mac is a bit more generous - but still uses a forward bunker as the seal point.  Fourth, Dr Mac's sketch suggests a right to left hole while Fowler's suggest a more straight on hole with hogback fairway.  Very good stuff and a fun read.  

Ciao  

[TEPaul]

Bob:

I recall that before Ambrose got around to interviewing any architects about what they thought of Crane's ideas, Ambrose realy hammered Crane himself, evoking a pretty cross response from Crane. I also thought his articles with interviews from othere architects on some of Behr's ideas on architecture were interesting. As I recall they all seemed to think Behr may've gone a bit overboard on his ideas on using convex angles and contours at least in one or two drawings.

[Paul_Turner]

Neil and Nial

Thanks for posting this...I had a look for this Bystander article a few years back at the British Library and could never find it (Ambrose had mentioned it in Golf Illustrated).   I couldn't find all that much golf in that magazine, but perhaps was looking in the wrong years.

[TEPaul]

Bob Crosby mentioned that Ambrose also wrote for Field Magazine. This is the magazine Bob Crosby was on the hunt for over a number of years before finally finding a pretty full run of it.

Who on here has seen original copies of Field Magazine because there is one aspect of it I don't believe I have ever seen before in publishing?

[Neil_Crafter]

Among the things Ambrose did at Field, as with the article from the Bystander, was interview architects about topics of the day. He interviewed Colt, MacKenzie and Abercrombie about whether they concurred with Joshua Crane that the Old Course ought to be "improved".  Equally interesting is that Aber and MacK sent drawings of changes they would make to the 1st and the 18th at TOC. Both drawings were reproduced in Field.  

Hi Bob
Thanks for this info. Do you have copies of the articles you mentioned in The Field? Our research team would be very interested in the interview with Mackenzie, as well as the article with Mac's drawings of 1st/18th at TOC.

RSL
Article is from 1925, apologies I should have mentioned that.

Tully
Yes, I thought that too, the Mac bunkers are shaped like a lot of the ones he built and drew in California a few years later

[Paul_Turner]

I think the most interesting part from a historical perspective is Ambrose commenting on the penchant for less undulating greens in 1925 within GB.   I think this is definitely born out in the the courses built....less green contour in comparison with pre WW1 and just after WW1.   All the really wild greens within GB & Europe(?) for newly constructed courses (separate from the ancient links) seem to come from courses built prior to, or just after, WW1.

Markedly different from the USA which embraced wild greens for all of the "golden age".

Although it's a bit difficult to prove (lack of photos etc) I think Colt built greens with more contour in his earliest courses:  St Cloud, Eden, Zoute, Sunn Old, SGH (Colt was criticized here and had to soften a few of the greens).

Perhaps that's why Mackenzie got fed up and went to America!

 

[Tom MacWood]

Darwin was critical of undulating greens (Colt's among others) too, I wonder if Ambrose was influenced.

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't know enough about Ambrose either - a shame, since even this little article demonstrates his skill and insight as a writer and commentator, e.g.

Golfers wanted green contours and architects responded, but then they didn't.

Why should a good golfer design courses with a pack of ten-hadnicappers in mind?

Another example of what strikes me as the "100 Man Club" of that era - Those in the know knew, and were known by all the others in the small golfing establishment, who tended to know exactly who knew what, and when".

I know, an exaggeration...but it was fun to write.  

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Your #10 is an interesting statement and frankly amazing to me. I've never heard such a thing or thought it. If it's true it seems like architectural fads and cycles were a whole lot quicker than I ever realized.

[Peter Pallotta]

TE - that's the same thought that occurred to me, i.e. that tastes/cycles changed back then much more rapidly than I'd assumed, and that perceptive viewers like Ambrose were able to provide an 'overview' of these changes earlier than I would've expected (in those pre internet-and- instant-communication days).

Peter  

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think the most interesting part from a historical perspective is Ambrose commenting on the penchant for less undulating greens in 1925 within GB.   I think this is definitely born out in the the courses built....less green contour in comparison with pre WW1 and just after WW1.   All the really wild greens within GB & Europe(?) for newly constructed courses (separate from the ancient links) seem to come from courses built prior to, or just after, WW1.

Markedly different from the USA which embraced wild greens for all of the "golden age".

Although it's a bit difficult to prove (lack of photos etc) I think Colt built greens with more contour in his earliest courses:  St Cloud, Eden, Zoute, Sunn Old, SGH (Colt was criticized here and had to soften a few of the greens).

Perhaps that's why Mackenzie got fed up and went to America!

 

This is what immediately stood out for me also and I will give at least two examples of this being borne out in truth... Firstly - Lahinch... Where MacKenzie's 1927 design had many of its greens systematically flattened between 1931 and 1935... and also MacKenzie's municipal course at Hazlehead where he buried stones, created apparently wonderful undulations only to have Aberdeen council blow the course up and flatten it within a matter of months / years... (oh Aberdeen council!... You were misguided even then!)

The way I think you can read it (in GB&I) is that greens pre-1900 were as they were laid, flat or undulating... the first real earth moving architecture in the early 1900's started to "create" greens and the wildness of them grew over the next 20 odd years as the expertise and confidence at creating correct slopes grew... And then the golfing public backlashed (something that hasn't changed since aside from those GCA afficionados who like undulations)

[Tony_Muldoon]

I have nothing to add except my thanks to people sharing these wonderful discoveries.


Tony

[Paul_Turner]

Repeating what Tom wrote: did Darwin had influence here, he does seem critical of heavily contoured greens.  

Ally,

And Sitwell Park (1913) was the wildest by Mack, I wonder how long those greens lasted.

I think of other constructed inland courses like Fowler's Beau Desert which was early (1913?) which has some wild greens.  Also Simpson's 9 at Morfontaine (Valliere) 1913 has some crazy greens, even for him...I think these must be his wildest set and they are much more severe that his 18 (Grand Parcours) there (1927).

And then there's Woking and Huntercombe which are very early and have some wild greens too.

For Colt.  An example is this 1912/13 green at St Cloud.  You don't see this kind of severe internal contouring on his later courses:

[Richard Phinney]

 
[/quote]



The way I think you can read it (in GB&I) is that greens pre-1900 were as they were laid, flat or undulating... the first real earth moving architecture in the early 1900's started to "create" greens and the wildness of them grew over the next 20 odd years as the expertise and confidence at creating correct slopes grew... And then the golfing public backlashed (something that hasn't changed since aside from those GCA afficionados who like undulations)
[/quote]


The urge to create greens may have started at least a wee bit earlier. In Montrose, 1899, a few new greens were created under the following specifications:

The turf will be laid by thoroughly experienced workmen only and must be laid to an even gradient entirely free from humps, hollows or any irregularity of surface. . . . and finished to a true surface with spirit level and levelling board.

Given that Montrose was a famous golf community at the time, I expect this infatuation with flat surfaces was more widely shared.

Harry Colt, 14 years later, in proposing his revisions to Montrose,  praised the greens for their conditioning, but said that  ‘the natural undulations have been flattened out too much’. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Richard,

I guess you can say they started "creating" greens as far back as Allan Robertson with the road hole in 1832... But as you seem to state, I'd hazard a guess that the created part was almost always flat / table-top / plateau.

Historians certainly seem to think the moving earth for creative purposes came in around 1900... So I suppose I'm adding two and two together to guess that undulating greens began to be created around that time (as opposed to just found), both in Britain & Ireland and elsewhere.

[Niall C]

Charles Ambrose wrote frequently for Field magazine during the mid-twenties. I don't know if he held official positions with other magazines at the time. I thought Harold Hilton was the editor of the British GI during those years.

Among the things Ambrose did at Field, as with the article from the Bystander, was interview architects about topics of the day. He interviewed Colt, MacKenzie and Abercrombie about whether they concurred with Joshua Crane that the Old Course ought to be "improved".  Equally interesting is that Aber and MacK sent drawings of changes they would make to the 1st and the 18th at TOC. Both drawings were reproduced in Field.

He also did a series of twenty or more articles on the best inland holes in Britain as selected by Colt, Fowler, Aber and Simpson, a series inspired by Crane's criticisms of various British links courses. Ambrose also did wonderful drawings of the holes selected. He seemed to be good friends with all the most famous British architects of the era.

I too would like to know more about him. He seemed to get around.

Bob   

Bob

As I'm rubbish with technology I had asked Neil to post this article, I hadn't thought he would post my comments also which shows you should be careful what you ask for ! The reference to being editor of GI actuaslly came from an old post that i think TEP posted on a thread a couple of years ago. I've no actual proof that Ambrose was editor but after Hilton left he certainly became one of the main contributors.

As you mentioned he seemed to know all the main GCA's and was quite willing to hold his own in a discussion with the likes of Max Behr who I thought was a good sport after Ambrose set him up a couple of times. That was in the Golf In the Landscape series which I think should be required reading for any aspiring GCA. As far as I know Ambrose didn't publish any books with his collected readings the way Darwin did which I think is a great shame as while he might not reach Darwins heights in his writing (who can !) he came awfully close IMHO and was more informed architecturally.

In later years a lot of his articles dealt with agronomy and greenkeeping matters and again he was quite opinionated. I'm certain that if you collected enough of his material you could get a very interesting volume on golf architecture. If anyone is interested and knows how to go about it, please email me and I would be happy to discuss.

Niall

[Niall C]

Calling Tony M, Neil C and FBD, do you notice any similarity between the picture of the St Cloud green and what is now the first green on the Eden ? Interestingly from the same time frame as well.

Niall

[Neil_Crafter]

I think perhaps with these early greens there was a sense of "what could we create if given a free hand" about some of them, like with Colt's St Cloud green that Paul posted. I think after a few of these were built their creators naturally begun toning them down anyway, apart from any golfer backlash as they may have realised they were just too over the top. Lucky they did not have today's green speeds to contend with as well!

Niall
Sorry about posting your comments to me as well, but did so as they seemed a nice summary. And yes, you should be careful what you ask for!

The now first green on the Eden nicely corresponds with the St Cloud one timewise, but that green is a good deal smaller that the St Cloud one looks, but just as undulating. It was hard to leave that 1st green at the Eden, and I expected that they might get even better from there on - but I was a little disappointed as to me that was far and away the best green on the course. As for the 'new' holes - the less said the better.

[Niall C]

Neil,

If you look at the St Cloud green and imagine someone built a wall running across the green just where theres a ridge half way back and in line with the left hand golfer, you would then have something very similar to the Eden green in that you have a left hand slightly raised and cupped area with a lower area to right with the two areas bisected by a small ridge running back to front. Either that or I need to get out more.

BTW, thanks for posting the original article.

Niall

[Tony_Muldoon]

Calling Tony M, Neil C and FBD, do you notice any similarity between the picture of the St Cloud green and what is now the first green on the Eden ? Interestingly from the same time frame as well.

Niall

This one Niall?  You have one of the keenest eyes of anyone I’ve played with and so I’ll go with what you say.  “The greatest green in Scotland”.


My recollection is of a green wider than long ,  certainly the undulations are there.














Sadly the 7 courses I took photo’s of in Sept have all come up small – would love to resize them.

And then there's Woking and Huntercombe which are very early and have some wild greens too.

For Colt.  An example is this 1912/13 green at St Cloud.  You don't see this kind of severe internal contouring on his later courses:

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()