[BCrosby]

Sean -

Regarding Woking, I have not come across any references to Huntercombe as an inspiration for changes made there, including the c/l bunker on the 4th. If you have found references, I would love to see them. There are, however, any number of suggestions that Low and Paton were inspired by features at TOC (and other links courses) in redoing the 4th at Woking, in building the 'Johnie Low' bunkers and other changes on the course.

Based on what I've seen in mags and books, Huntercombe didn't get a lot of attention at the time it was built or in the decades that followed. That Darwin did not include it in his book is consistent with that. Rightly or wrongly, Park does not seem to have been highly regarded by Low, Darwin, Colt and others. A further sign of that was the muted response to Park's work at Sunningdale. By contrast Colt's revisions a few years later were widely praised.
 
I have played Huntercombe. I saw it more as a culmination of an older inland style course (and a very good one at that) than as a course that pointed to the dramatic changes that were then overtaking architecture. I tend to agree with Simpson, Mack, Darwin and others that Woking should be seen as one of the main revolutionary courses of the era. I don't think Huntercombe belongs in that group.
 
Bob

[Sean_A]

Bob

The problem with that thinking is Huntercombe was first and I would bet dollars to dimes that Low and or Paton saw the design.  I can't believe it a coincidence that Woking then changes their course - in the main changes to the greens making them quite radical for a heathland course.  It could well be that folks didn't care for the unnatural, abrupt style of Park Jr at Huntercombe, but the substance of strategic golf is stamped ALL OVER THAT DESIGN.  I do, however, think the course quickly became a back water. 

Ciao   

[BCrosby]

Sean -

I too would think that that Low saw Huntercombe. I'd guess, given his standing in the game, that he saw lots of courses. But the more likely story of what inspired the changes at Woking was Low's involvment with changes then being made to TOC and the architectural issues raised by those changes. Low was at the time chairman of the R&A rules committee, on the R&A green committee off and on during those years and pretty deeply involved. Interestingly, Fowler was involved as well.

Low was also writing about gca for various periodicals during the relevant years, some of which he later compiled in his 1903 book Concerning Golf. (His chapter on gca called 'The Links' is highly recommended.) I have so far found no references to Huntercombe. It's always possible something will turn up. There are, however, lots of references to TOC, Hoylake (a special favorite) and other links courses.

Bob

[Tony_Muldoon]

Park may just be the neglected genius of his time and what he achieved is more valued today than it was then.   

Let us not forget the standing of the professional golfer in those days. Park was busy rushing hither and thither to make some money.  Fowler, Colt, Simpson et all were from a different class, dinning in  their clubs with Bernardo, so it’s no surprise who he wrote about.  Similarly Low and Paton were at Woking when it was almost a sister Club to Sunningdale, where Colt was now definitely in charge.   So much easier to write about something when you have access to it’s creator and the theories they are passing on.

Braid was another talented designer given short shrift by Darwin.

Definitely Park is due a full reassessment.

[BCrosby]

"So much easier to write about something when you have access to it’s creator and the theories they are passing on."

Tony -

I think the differences ran deeper than access. There were real class and education differences between the two groups. It was Edwardian England, after all.

I think those differences in class and education had a bearing on approaches taken to golf architecture. The preeminence usually given to the architects of the Golden Age who, as it turns out, were from the Oxford/Cambridge axis (for lack of a better term), is a telltale of that difference.

I agree about the usefulness of revisiting Park. But I think an even more interesting topic is the parallel, largely non-intersecting  architectural universes that co-existed during the era.

Bob

[Sean_A]

Sean -

I too would think that that Low saw Huntercombe. I'd guess, given his standing in the game, that he saw lots of courses. But the more likely story of what inspired the changes at Woking was Low's involvment with changes then being made to TOC and the architectural issues raised by those changes. Low was at the time chairman of the R&A rules committee, on the R&A green committee off and on during those years and pretty deeply involved. Interestingly, Fowler was involved as well.

Low was also writing about gca for various periodicals during the relevant years, some of which he later compiled in his 1903 book Concerning Golf. (His chapter on gca called 'The Links' is highly recommended.) I have so far found no references to Huntercombe. It's always possible something will turn up. There are, however, lots of references to TOC, Hoylake (a special favorite) and other links courses.

Bob

Bob

The distinction Spangles makes is quite a useful one.  I would also point out that it is my understanding that Paton was the main man at Woking, not Low.  This could be just as well, for wasn't it Low who was partially responsible for lining the right hand side of TOC with bunkers in effort to tighten the course - or brung it back more to its whin days.

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Low's and Paton's roles at Woking are unclear. Darwin tells the story differently at different times, for example. Paton seems to have often been the guy on the ground, but Low was the more powerful figure in the game and a more prominent voice in architectural matters. Given Low's status and his friendship with Paton, I find it hard to believe that Paton, to the extent he initiated changes at Woking, wouldn't have vetted them with Low. But we'll never know for sure who did what.

Low did add bunkers to the right of the outward holes at TOC in order to 'tighten' them. With the earlier widening of the course and the destruction of the older whins, those holes had become enormously wide. Low wrote about his thinking in some detail after criticisms fromTaylor and other professionals had been levied against the bunkers. They thought the bunkers were "unfair". Low's rationale was that by tightening those holes in the way he did, he made them, in essence, more strategic (though 'strategic' is not a word they used at the time). The basic notion being that the best way to approach the greens on the outward holes was from the right. Ergo, that's a good place to add some bunkers so as to give good players something to think about. Line of instinct; line of charm and all that.

Bob

 
 

[JMEvensky]

Thanks guys--interesting reading.

[David Lott]

The photo on the home page is sensational. Who took it?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()