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


The Spay Bay Golf Course was constructed in just over 6 months and comprised of a workforce of between twenty and forty-five.  Nothing really out of the ordinary there you may say. However this was the end of the period when course work was said to take a few days to build with just a hand full of men.



This little article from The Scotsman dated the 12th March 1907 is quite remarkable as we are not talking of London but a remote area in Northern Scotland. Golf courses according to some historians, past Designers and by popular opinion believed that courses were just taken out of the landscape with very minor modification, formed in days and sometime designed in the morning played in the afternoon. Nevertheless we have yet again another golf course that has taken well over 6 months to build, but that not all, we have the reports of Cruden Bay being started in 1894 yet not finally opening until 1899; then we have Muirfield designed a year and a month earlier that the famous drawing by Blyth Hall dated December 1891.The Kinghorn Course being early has detailed reports on its design, construction to opening phases. These are not isolated reports but more the norm than the exception, but we still seem to want to insist that the Early Designers  just conjured courses out of the landscape with hardly much effort by Man.

I remember a debate on this site some months ago on the terminology used in past ages, comments laying out, laid out etc and what they actually meant.  Why do we think we will never get to the bottom of this. Perhaps it can be answered as simply as why can’t really understand each other on this site. So how in Hell’s name are we going to understand those who lived a 100 years ago. Having said that this small article has again made clear and with no misunderstanding by defining who designed the course and who laid it out (constructed the project), I quote “Excellent progress has been made under the direction of the greenkeeper, Robert Marr, North Berwick, the laying off of the course having been done by Bernard Sayers”. Not ‘Laying out’ the course but “off”.

I, again refer to this Scotsman article on a third and final point, it notes the interest that the course is having on the area, from a few premises to a new hotel being planned, we are looking at a Cruden Bay, Castletown Resort course in the making, but it seem by a rather different approach than a certain Mr Trump.

Yes we are coming towards the second Golden Age but the first still had not died or faded away, so it makes me wonder even more if we need to look to some of the reports from certain  - I was going to call them Gentlemen but in hindsight I fear that is a complement to far . The likes of T Simpson springs to mind with his outspoken opinion of his predecessors, just why did not know let alone understand what was the normal practice just a generation or two before his time.

Golf Course Architecture or design has always been about making a sporty challenging course for all. Yes it included the hard difficult Holes but with options for the less skilled or Duffers. Many believe the first Golden Age of GCA courses had the best sites thus giving the designers an added advantage, but that is another myth, that is wrong, again a total oversight by the last few generations of designers. The ones who had the best choice were the second Golden Age. They had the money to acquire the sites, the technology plus labour including the mechanical resources to relay upon.  We forget that many a Golf Course in the early stages were only poor unused corners of Farmers or the Landed Gentry property useless for crops and would only sustain sheep. That’s why we see the courses comprising of 6, 8 9 or 12 Holes, the land just could not accommodate any more Holes even with the many crossover of fairways.  Many a Links course was owned by the local town some allowing Golf to be played among other facilities as laying out the washing etc. Money was tight in the early days, even in the first boom period in Scotland the late 1880-1900’s and it was not until the clubs achieved a good membership allowing money to roll in did they try to buy the land rather than just leasing it from the Farmers/Gentry. It was not uncommon in those days to have 2 or 3 clubs sharing the same golf course, so no they did not have the money to buy the best sites.

This on little article has explained much, all very interesting but I still expect to see and hear that the early designers designed a course in the morning and played a match in the afternoon – I have a full explanation with some supporting article explain this myth, but first we need to understand the period and the mind-set of the club members – But that’s for another time – that is if anyone is interested in GCA.

Hope you find the above interesting.

Melvyn


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Melvyn:

I must admit that I love the notion of "just mowing out" a course.  In fact, it's the ultimate expression of the concept of minimalist golf design.  But I have yet to build a golf course where it was really possible to do nothing at all, and I've always found that the golf course would be "better" by most people's standards if we made small tweaks here and there to make the greens more interesting and to add a few hazards to make people think.

I presume that it took those 25-45 men you mention [with rakes and shovels] to make little tweaks like that ... although most likely, half of them were simply tearing away whins and obstacles to make the course more playable, instead of all of them digging bunkers furiously.

I would also note the possibility that the two views may in fact co-exist.  If you've got a good, playable piece of links ground with the turf closely grazed, you can hit balls around it as soon as you lay out a course.  I played 15 holes at Cape Kidnappers with my crew just a couple of weeks after we started building the course, which still had some $3 million worth of construction to do before it was finished.  And it was great fun to play then ... though hopefully, most golfers find it better now that it's done.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tom,

What you say about playing Cape Kidnappers is likely what happened in most instances. From the articles I've read, the important issue was the turf and often it would be referred to as being old ie. it was land that was being used for the grazing of sheep and hadn't been ploughed for a number of years and therefore the turf was "consolidated" as they used to say. In those instances they didn't seem to hang around and played the course as soon as they could, the view being that the foot traffic over the course helped level the turf. Apparently Old Tom was wont to say that the foot was the best roller for courses.

Also bear in mind that back then (1906 when Spey Bay was built) it was common practice for bunkers to be put in long after the course opened.

Melvyn

Interesting comments on the use of laying off or laying out. Again from what I've read both phrases were commonly used for both designing or constructing and I don't think there was any definitive meaning to those phrases.

Niall

Melvyn Morrow


Tom

Just for you as you like mowing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1TD95M8Fe4&feature=fvwrel


Niall

Precisely, yet we need to think it through in their time period not ours. That frame of mind is what is important and at the centre of GCA IMHO. As for the numbers, I still find that interesting that numbers have generally played out from earlier times including the extension to North Berwick to 18. Numbers were not restricted, and must be considered, it was not just one man with lots of pegs under his arm staking out a course as many seem to believe.

Melvyn.   


Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0

I remember a debate on this site some months ago on the terminology used in past ages, comments laying out, laid out etc and what they actually meant.  Why do we think we will never get to the bottom of this. Perhaps it can be answered as simply as why can’t really understand each other on this site. So how in Hell’s name are we going to understand those who lived a 100 years ago. Having said that this small article has again made clear and with no misunderstanding by defining who designed the course and who laid it out (constructed the project), I quote “Excellent progress has been made under the direction of the greenkeeper, Robert Marr, North Berwick, the laying off of the course having been done by Bernard Sayers”. Not ‘Laying out’ the course but “off”.

Hope you find the above interesting.

Melvyn



Melvyn,

I agree in this case that it is quite clear that Sayers designed (laying off) the course, since Marr is mentioned as the greenkeeper, but are you saying that you've never come across the expression "laying out" or "laid out" when referring to the designing of a course.

I've come across ambiguous terms such as "discovered" and "planned" and in my opinion, it's difficult to say with certainty what the authors of these articles meant at that time. There usually isn't any confusion when a well know architect is mentioned alongside an unknown greenkeeper.

Melvyn Morrow


Donal

Yes seen many terms to describe designing a courses but today many look to these words with the current meaning not that from the time they were spoken or in this case written.

The biggest mistake we make today is to believe we fully understand the terminology of the Victorian Age. We should know better just look at the difference between us and our cousins over the pond.

My point is that on a few lines we see how a course pre (2nd) Golden Age come into being, noting the large workforce, the time scale and seeing how the beginnings of Cruden Bay and other Golfing Resorts started.  It goes a long way to kill off this idea of staking the course in the morning playing a match on the virgin course in the afternoon.

This early Golden Age, I believe was indeed Golden in that they had to develop the art of designing courses, plus the challenge of moving courses inland, facing all manners of problems in producing a course. The Second golden Age had it on a plate, the design concept just need to be developed further and with the expanse of the game worldwide, money was not a major problem as it had been in Scotland up to the early part of the 20th  Century. 

I am not taken away anything from the late Golden Age guys, they certainly did their thing, but on the back of the early pioneers who looked at the land, from their understand of the game they were able to selected and build some of the finest courses in the world. Without their input would Colt or T Simpson and others have played golf lets alone considered getting into designing a course. They learnt from the real greats which some failed to appreciate and where IMHO the concept of design cames from in the first place.

This little article shows that work was not done in 12 hours or 24 hours nor a week or two, but took planning and project managing to achieve the final result. The early guys knew how to design and build courses.

Melvyn   

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
MHM
Most historians have the golden age starting in 1900, so it was well under way in 1907.

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
How many courses, even today can (or would want to) boast that they don't have any holes shorter than 200 yards?
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
1907 was a very interesting year as famous golf architects had their maiden efforts open for play:  National Golf Links in America and Alwoodley in Great Britain.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
How many courses, even today can (or would want to) boast that they don't have any holes shorter than 200 yards?

Mark

I'd struggle to put my hands on any ready examples but you'd be surprised how many of these courses were full of holes of between 200 and 350 yards.

Niall
 

Malcolm Mckinnon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Melvyn,

To sum up your long treatise in a nutshell...

Is a great golf course work of man or a work of God?

I say a bit of both but the two sides can push back and forth.


David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
What this article does not tell us (and what I would be very interested to know) is what constituted Bernard Sayers "laying off the course?" How many visits to the site did he make? How much time did he spend there? Did he visit the site while the course was being constructed? Did he offer instructions and direction regarding the size, slope and contours of the greens and/or the size, shape and depth of the bunkers?

Unless we know the answers to these questions, can we really say that Bernhard Sayers deserves more credit for "designing" the course (at least as we understand the term now) than Robert Marr, who supervised the construction of course, does?   

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
David

For what its worth, I take laying off the course in this instance is to locate tees and greens with a description of what work is to be done.

Next time your over, it might be worth a day trip or to along the Moray course playing some interesting courses. The Spey Bay course is so rough its nearly back to nature. They have one gang mower still going and once thats done its probable that the course will close. You can still see where the greens were rounded off at the corners from their original square shape. If you like your golf rough and ready then you'll enjoy it. Not as wide as Castle Stuart mind you  ;)

Forres and Cullen are another two courses that are like a step back in time and a lot of fun (and cheap !).

Niall

Don_Mahaffey

How many courses, even today can (or would want to) boast that they don't have any holes shorter than 200 yards?
I have no idea but how cool would it have been if standardized hole lengths had not been pushed by all those great architects. I'll bet you could easily build a course that still required the use of all the clubs in the bag no matter how odd the lengths of par.
And better yet, we wouldn't be tearing up perfectly good land in an effort to reach some standardized number.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 08:35:26 PM by Don_Mahaffey »

Jim McCann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Melvyn:

Spey Bay has received a mixed bag of reviews on the Top100 site over the last four years:

http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/productdetails.asp?id=1105

but the main concern seems to be its conditioning, not the architectural merits of the course.

I'm hoping to play there in the summer when I'm in the area to see for myself if it's a genuine
"hidden gem".

Melvyn Morrow


Jim

I am with Niall on this one, I would go for Moray or Cullen, yet it is worth the effort to play as you may enjoy your game in this fashion.

Try it and see, perhaps give us your opinion with a Hole by Hole review with photos on here.

Melvyn

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jim

I hope you do play Spey Bay, for one thing your green fee will help keep things going. The clubhouse is a wooden shack that doesn't get used during the week from what I can see and their is an old fashioned honesty box for you to put your money in.

They lost a couple of holes to coastal erosion a while back and the new holes which are on the inland side of the course are a wee bit out of character but OK, but what it has done is made the routing seem bizarre where you have a 400 yard walk to the next hole at one point because of the lost hole.

When I was there once there was an american couple playing the course and they were asking me for directions as they thought they had skipped a couple of holes but couldn't figure out how. Didn't matter though, they certainly seemed to be enjoying it. Whether or not its a hidden gem is down to the eye of the beholder.

Final comment, yes the greens are fairly mossy and ropey in parts but then thats the nature of the course. As long as your expectations aren't to play Turnberry you should enjoy it.

Niall