Princeton/Springdale Early Golf course evolution

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

David,

Thanks for the photos. Please post more if you have them.

One thing that interests me is that it seems clear that Dunn provided plans for an 18 hole course of 5,771 yards at the inception and we have the first 9 holes opening in 1902 with visions of 18 holes eventually. 12 years elapse and we hear that work is well advanced on the new holes on the southern side of the property. Did Gerard Lambert complete Willie Dunn's original plans or did he devise his own?

The description of the first nine holes meeting with several water hazards would indicate they were located on the Alexander Street side of the property where a small pond and stream are still present today and the back nine is currently routed.

I will need to dig some more to try and discover how Lambert's vision of 18 holes corresponds with Dunn's.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom -

It's always such a delight discussing things with you. Especially so when you tell me (1) that you have no experience of the matter at hand (serving on a green committee) and (2) then telling me about my experiences that:

"I think you are letting your imagination get the best of you."

For me at least, you have forfeited your right to be taken seriously on this topic.
 

Bob
Drop the condescending attitude. I don't believe a person needs to have been on a green committee to know their primary role, just like I don't believe one has to have practiced golf architecture in order to intelligently discuss the subject.

Based on your experience what is the primary focus of green committees? I'm not sure how usefull it is to compare your experience today with Wilson's 100+ years ago. What do you think?

It appears to me the Princeton golf course project was in the works prior to Wilson being nominated to the committee.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Thanks for the 1901 info on Princeton.

As you know, that book was compiled and published in early 1901 and does not list the members of the Green Committee.   Hugh Wilson was appointed to the Green Committee during his junior year in March of 1901, and became Captain of the golf team for his senior year in 1902.

Mike
It is my undestanding Princeton GC was completely dedicated to golf. And if that is true how many committees would they have had beyond the green committee and the governing committee? And of those two committees wouldn't the governing committee be the one calling the shots?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I'm not sure your point, but the 1901 Guide doesn't list the Green Committee of the Merion Cricket Club either, and we know that they had just designed and constructed a brand new nine holes and revised two of Campbell's holes for a new eighteen hole course that opened that year.

Nobody is contending that Hugh Wilson was "calling the shots" at Princeton in 1901 at age 20, are they?

[Kyle Harris]

Perhaps scouring Princeton's yearbooks could provide some much needed context to this discussion.

http://books.google.com/books?id=eTUCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA571&dq=Princeton+Golf+Team+1901&hl=en&ei=auNjTfuQI8OC8gbShPzSCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Princeton%20Golf%20Team%201901&f=false

[Michael Blake]

I played there last year and thought it was a fun course.  Everyone (young to old) was walking and playing.  Very nice to see.  Unpretentious clubhouse and atmosphere.  Seemed like the focus there was simply on the golf.  

Has anyone contacted Roger Rulewich to see what kind of historical nformation he had access to when he was hired to do work there?


...and please don't let this thread deteriorate into another Merion thread.

[JNC Lyon]

I played there last year and thought it was a fun course.  Everyone (young to old) was walking and playing.  Very nice to see.  Unpretentious clubhouse and atmosphere.  Seemed like the focus there was simply on the golf.  

Mike,

We have same sort of atmosphere at Seven Oaks--almost everyone who plays the course walks.  To me, college courses seem like a stronghold of walking golf, which hopefully can carry over into the rest of the golfing world.

[Malcolm Mckinnon]

Kelly,

Originally the land was owned by the club.

They donated the land to the University in 1909 and now lease it back.

[JESII]

FWIW, I can agree that as of 10 or 12 years ago, Springdale was a really good course with pretty small greens, interesting topography, and a nice variety of holes...some go left, some go right, some are short but there weren't many that felt long. Chance to see some co-ed off to the right of #18 which is always a nice benefit.



As to the Green Committee responsibility question since I haven't seen Bob's answer yet...I think a very substantial portion of their time is spent on architectural issues today, and I would suspect it was more so 100 years ago on the basis of maintenancve expectations being so much lower at the time.



Kyle,

I didn't click on your link, what does it tell us?

[Kyle Harris]

Jim:

Nothing other than Wilson's records in some of the golf matches in which he participated for the team. There's a team photo from 1900 in which Hugh Wilson is not present. His playing record was modest - some wins, some ties, some loses.

The yearbooks are not on any digital archive I've been able to find yet. It'd be nice if the 1901 yearbook had some sort of narrative of the golf team's activities that year, and perhaps even the development of the golf course.

It gets annoying when the narrative starts to tell a story outside of the facts. If Bob Crosby is going to make statements to effect of "Why wouldn't they discuss this?" I think we need to really establish context of the scale and scope of the green committee at the time. For example, how often did they meet? Did Wilson attend every meeting? How long did the meetings last? Did Wilson spend the summer at Princeton? What courses of study was he taking? How did he divide his time between his studies and his golf? Why was he appointed to the green committee? Did anyone check the weather records for the 1901 golf season? What sort of climatological factors were involved and who was in charge of maintaining the golf course? What standards were established for maintenance?

If none of these facts/answers actually exist, then to speculate on their activities is a fool's errand. It's entirely conceivable that the green committee was charged with dealing with significant turf issues at the time that were both more acute and more focuses than the architecture of the golf course.

I think all would be better served if we followed the simple rule of letting the sources be the subject of the sentence. "Such and such reported that Wilson did this," as opposed to "Hugh Wilson did this."

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba, I've no intention of rehashing the Merion debate here, so perhaps you could stick to trying to distort the history of only one course per thread?   Thanks.
______________________________________________

David -

I don't know what Wilson learned or didn't learn about golf architecture while on the g/c at Princeton. But then you don't either.

Bob,

Fortunately, neither of us need guess.  Wilson wrote directly about his level of knowledge and experience in golf architecture for the 1916 Piper and Oakley book.  

But whatever the structure of the Princeton g/c might have been, it is inconceivable that the architecture of the new Princeton course wasn't discussed often and in great detail during Wilson's tenure. Those conversations would have also natually spilled over onto larger architectural issues of the day. Indeed, it would be quite odd if they hadn't.

Wilson's tenure?   How many semesters was that, exactly?  

All of which leads me to what I think is a non-controversial conclusion. Starting at least as early as his college days at Princeton Hugh Wilson was exposed to architectural issues in a pretty serious way. I would go on to note that, given the players he met in college and in amateur tournaments afterwards and given the architectural issues then in the air, there is no reason to suppose he didn't continue to discuss and deepen his interest in golf  architecture after Princeton.

I am not sure what being exposed to architectural issues "in a pretty serious way" means?  My ball landed half way up a bush on Sunday.   Does that count as being exposed to architectural issues in a pretty serious way?  

Seriously, I question whether you have a sound basis for guessing at any of this, let alone presenting it as a "non-controversial conclusion."  Wilson addressed the issue of his knowledge about and experience in creating golf courses in the 1916 book. What makes you think you have a better understanding of Wilson's knowledge and experience than Wilson himself?  Your experience on green committees 100 years later?  Inconceivable.

___________________________________________________________

There are a few people here who actually seem to be interested in discussing the history of this course, rather than just using the history as a means to prop up Hugh Wilson.   Perhaps we could do them the courtesy of actually discussing the course?    

___________________________________________________________

Malcolm.

I found the article from which I got those photos and will post it shortly.  It will likely do a better job than I could in answering your questions.  

[Mike Cirba]

Kyle,

Like this statement that has no factual basis that once again started this attempted thread derailment?  

"His interest in golf architecture came later, much later."

David,

Neither you nor Tom have the slightest idea when Wilson's interest in course architecture started, and neither does anyone else here.

His humble, gracious 1916 comments for an article specifically about Agronomy at Merion for Piper and Oakley's publication have been constantly misrepresented by you here for your own purposes and they have shown to be completely inconsistent with the facts and the backgrounds of the men involved on that committee.

His statement was specific to "construction and greenkeeping", and was reflective of the fact that at the time standards for grass-growing were changing far beyond the primitive turn-of-the-century practices of just laying out a course in a pasture and perhaps sodding some greens, and I believe it was Max Behr who commented that only Windeler at Brookline, Leeds at Myopia, and Macdonald at NGLA (through hard lessons) knew a thing about growing grass in 1910.

He then went on to say that they did get a good start on the principle of laying out the holes from CBM, which you argue in your own essay had nothing to do with architecture, but in simply constructing the holes on the ground.  You wrote;

Note that Wilson did not even bother to mention the Committee’s lack of experience designing courses, but instead only described their lack of qualification for course construction and green keeping. It was not that he was an expert in design. Rather, his concern was only with building the course and growing grass on it.

Wilson next credited Macdonald and Whigham with giving the committee a “good start in the correct principles of laying out the holes.” In so doing, Wilson was not abruptly changing the topic to golf course design. To the contrary, Wilson was discussing the construction of the course, and was being quite literal. He was charged with laying out the course on the ground.

To now try to turn that around to say he was discussing his/their lack of knowledge of architecture or course design is really transparently disengenous, especially since we now know that Dr. Toulmin and Rodman Griscom had been involved in designing courses previously..  

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

Like this statement that has no factual basis that once again started this attempted thread derailment?  

"His interest in golf architecture came later, much later."

Yes. But I only try to reason with reasonable people - hence my bringing up Bob's statements.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba.   I see you have about tripled your post since I began typing.   I'll not bother to even read what wasnt their originally because it is obviously a waste of time and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I will say that you know damn well that his comments were by no means  limited to agronomy or "specific to 'construction and greenkeeping.'"  You do Wilson's reputation a huge disservice by continuing to misrepresent him, and it doesn't do much for your reputation either.  

Here is the rest of the paragraph from Wilson.  Let's let others decide whether or not he was only referencing "construction and greenkeeping" or whether you are again just being a partisan hack willing to write anything to support your petty agenda.  

Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings. May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.

And Mike, please quit misrepresenting my position regarding Merion.   Surely you have started enough Merion threads to give you plenty of forums to do that. Or is every thread you start ostensibly about Merion?  I thought this thread is supposed to be about Princeton Golf Club/Springdale?  If so, then stop this nonsense.  

I don't want to waste my time here if this is going to yet another Merion thread.

[DMoriarty]

Returning to the actual history of Princeton Golf Course, below is an article from the January 1902 edition of Golf, written by "The Editor" who I believe was van Tassel Sutphen at the time.   It is quite long so I will post over two posts.

Pages 20-23:

[DMoriarty]

Pages 24 - 26:







I hope this helps. 

[Mike Cirba]

I will say that you know damn well that his comments were by no means  limited to agronomy or "specific to 'construction and greenkeeping.'"  You do Wilson's reputation a huge disservice by continuing to misrepresent him, and it doesn't do much for your reputation either.  

Here is the rest of the paragraph from Wilson.  Let's let others decide whether or not he was only referencing "construction and greenkeeping" or whether you are again just being a partisan hack willing to write anything to support your petty agenda.  

Through sketches and explanations of the correct principles of the holes that form the famous courses abroad and had stood the test of time, we learned what was right and what we should try to accomplish with our natural conditions. The next day we spent going over the course and studying the different holes. Every good course that I saw later in England and Scotland confirmed Mr. Macdonald's teachings. May I suggest to any committee about to build a new course, or to alter their old one, that they spend as much time as possible on courses such as the National and Pine Valley, where they may see the finest types of holes and, while they cannot hope to reproduce them in entirety, they can learn the correct principles and adapt them to their own courses.



David,

Of course he's speaking about architecture in the second part of that paragraph!   Why didn't you acknowledge that obvious fact in your essay?

If you knew he was speaking about architecture in the lines beginning, "Fortunately, we were given a good start..." then I have to ask why you wrote otherwise, implying all he gave a fig about was learing how to "build the course" and grow grass?

Funny how convenient that is when you tried to make a point that he was simply a construction man doing someone else's design.

You wrote; "Rather, his concern was only with building the course and growing grass on it."

Now, suddenly, voila!, it's about architecture.   So be it.

And David, while I do appreciate you posting that article and pictures here, nobody is forcing you to follow and post on every thread I start.   That is totally up to you, but while you're here, I think it's awfully presumuptuous of you to think you can dictate the agenda and discussion to the rest of us.   Pretty, pretty arrogant, actually.

I started this thread because Malcolm McKinnon met me this week at Seaview and we discussed Princeton and I told him I had some information that indicated Willie Dunn had designed the course.

I posted the articles I had, and Malcolm responded with what is a reasonable speculation that perhaps Wilson's experience there prepared him for other future matters.   Bob Crosby concurred, also speculatively.

It was only when Tom MacWood tried to posthumously read Hugh Wilson's mind from 100 years away to tell us he knew exactly when Wilson's architectural interest started that this thread devolved into nonsense....yet again.

So, let's talk about Princeton if you'd like, but if you think you're going to dictate the agenda to others just start your own thread and be self-appointed king of your own hill.

[DMoriarty]

Give it a rest Mike.  I am no longer reading or considering any post of yours that is not on topic.   You are a joke when it comes to Merion, and your cherry picking of my essay is despicable.

_______________________________

Malcolm,

Mike apparently doesn't want me participating here, but I have looked into this club a bit, so I hope you and others don't find my posts  about the course too much of a distraction from Mike's agenda.

To the course:

1. Note that according the article the entire 18 hole course was laid out originally:  "A full course was laid out, drainage pipes put in, putting-greens seeded, and the ground otherwise prepared for the purposes of the sport." Reportedly, they expected to have the full course going by that spring.  

Are you sure there was a long delay in opening the other holes?  For some reason I was thinking it 18 holes early on, but if may have been this article that made me think so.    If it was just kept at nine holes for a long time it may have been that they simply chose to hold off on opening a second nine.  Perhaps the amount of use did not justify two nines, or perhaps it was an issue of expense?  I recall seeing something that made me think expense could have been an issue at the club, but I don't remember exactly what it was.   I will try and figure it out.  

2. Note also the description of nine holes. Surely most of the described cops are long gone, and the article mentioned that a few of the holes might be altered when other nine was added.  Nonetheless there are a few mentions of the terrain and features so I hope this will enable you to determine whether any of the original corresponds to later versions.   (It is possible that these nine holes were the ones far enough along to be ready for play, and they therefore might not represent a exact intended order.)

[BCrosby]

David -

You bring back to mind why I have avoided the Merion threads. Sheesh. Please take the burr out of your saddle.

I'm making some simple, inocuous claims.

Wilson was on the Princeton GC g/c for a couple of years. During that time he was at the table when much of the planning and construction of the course was discussed and executed. His being chosen for the committee and his participation on it suggests an early interest in golf architecture. He was a bright guy and probably learned a great deal.

At the time Wilson was attending g/c meetings, a number of important developments in gca were taking place. It would not be unreasonable to speculate that Wilson was aware of them, either by way of his service on the g/c or otherwise.

Those developments included:

- concerns circa 1900/01 that game improvements were over-taking older courses (see Hilton, McPherson, the 'Colonel' and others in Golf) at about that time. This was pre-Haskell.  
- the introduction of the Haskell circa 1901/02 and the tectonic impact it was then having on older course designs.
- the "Best Holes" list was taking shape
- Hutchinson's 1897 book on links courses, with photos of many famous links holes, was introducing people to holes and hazards most had not seen before.
- concerns about "naturalism" were starting to get traction.

I'm sure there are other contemporary developments I have forgotten. Suffice it to say, there was a lot going on at the time. A bright young man like Hugh Wilson would not have been ignorant of those developments. Indeed, I would think they were a regular topic of conversation among Wilson's friends and golfers he competed against in tournaments.

Simple, intuitive stuff.

Sully - Yes, g/c's spend more time than most people think on architectural matters. It was a bit of a surprise to me at first. It is now a big part of why I enjoy the work so much. I see no reason to think that g/c's 100 years ago had qualitatively different agendas.

Bob





 

[Mike Cirba]

David,

It is interesting that the article believes the second nine will open the following spring.

I know in 1907 that it was still a nine hole course.   Perhaps the club never had the funds until the teens to finish it?

[Kyle Harris]

David,

It is interesting that the article believes the second nine will open the following spring.

I know in 1907 that it was still a nine hole course.   Perhaps the club never had the funds until the teens to finish it?

Mike:

If you'll be so kind to note in the link to Google books I posted, you'll note that the Princeton Athletic history published in 1901 states that the club now had an 18 hole course.

Erroneous? Different venue? What does that mean, do you think?

**EDIT** The book states that an 18 hole course had been laid out.

[Mike Cirba]

Kyle,

I think it's from the same source that this article came from, and the expectation that the other nine would open the following year.  

I have seen no mention of them opening the second nine...to the contrary I have seen articles that indicate it is still nine holes in 1907 during a tournament won by Jerry Travers.

Maybe Hugh Wilson screwed it up?  


***EDIT***If you go back to the first article I posted on this thread from December, 1899 it's clear that an 18 hole course was designed.   It just seems the second nine never opened as planned.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

I think it's from the same source that this article came from, and the expectation that the other nine would open the following year.   

I have seen no mention of them opening the second nine...to the contrary I have seen articles that indicate it is still nine holes in 1907 during a tournament won by Jerry Travers.

Maybe Hugh Wilson screwed it up? 

Were the results of that tournament published, as well?

Is it possible a plan to lay out the additional nine was delayed for one reason or the other?

Wilson was the captain of the golf team. Perhaps it would be nice to research if his position on the green committee was to serve as a representative of the team. Did subsequent captains serve in a similar position?

[Mike Cirba]

Kyle,

Hugh Wilson was elected to the Green Committee in his Junior year in March 1901, prior to being elected Captain of the Golf Team in his 1902 Senior year.

The article does have the Opening Day medal play results and specifically states the course is nine holes.   Travers won both the medal and the match play.

[DMoriarty]

Malcolm

Not sure if I'd characterize this as indicating financial problems, but it is interesting nonetheless.  From the Princeton Alumni Weekly, June 11, 1904:

   The Secretary of the Princeton Golf Club, P. A. V. Van Doren '79, has sent the following letter to the secretaries of all classes holding reunions at this Commencement:
   "I am requested by the Board of Governors of the Princeton Golf Club to notify secretaries of classes about to have reunions at Princeton this coming Commencement season, that the club is run each year at a loss, that there has been an unusually large deficit during the present season, owing to the fact that the clubhouse was kept open last winter.
   While we are very glad to have reunions on the course, we must insist on each contestant paying 50 cents daily for the use of the grounds.
   Dates of tournaments should be arranged ahead with the Secretary of the club, so that there may be no confusion or conflict."

By the way, I think that Van Doreen might have been involved in getting the course laid out. 

This from the 1903 University Catalogue about the course and new clubhouse (a drawing of which is in the article above):

     Students of the University are eligible to membership in The Princeton Golf Club, whose new eighteen hole golf links cover 240 acres, and adjoin the campus.
     Class Of 1886 Memorial Building. This building, erected by the Class of 1886, will be completed during the present academic year. Built upon an elevation overlooking the Princeton golf course, it commands an extensive view of the adjacent country, and in design is admirably in keeping with the surroundings.
    The building contains ample provision in the way of bath and locker rooms, reception rooms, etc., designed for the use of members of the Princeton Golf Club, with dormitory and kitchen facilities, to be devoted to the use of the members of the Class of 1886. The building will be conveniently furnished and supplied with the most modern system of heating and electric lighting.

Note that the 1902-1903 Catalogue indicated the new course was 18 holes.