[Michael Dugger]

Chan Egan.  Made me laugh.

[Peter Pallotta]

Just an aside. In a response to Crane's ranking system/course rankings (no need to get into that here), Mackenzie wrote (my bolding):

"I have recently seen an article by Joshua Crane on the rating of famous golf courses. It is difficult to read the article without a feeling of intense irritation.  He rates Muirfield as the best and poor old St Andrews as the worst of our famous golf courses, whereas any architect in Britain or America who has achieved any marked success in creating popular courses will reverse his rating.

A bit of a snide last line, but the point seems clear - i.e. in MacKenzie's mind, anyone who knows what he's talking about would rate ToC the best course around. And I assume he agreed with Colt, who in the same series of responses to Crane wrote in defence of ToC:

"I think that the Old Course is so unique that any attempts to graft on new ideas would never be a success. It has served its purpose for centuries by providing healthy exercise and enjoyment to vast numbers of people, and at the same time a test for Championship golf."

[John Mayhugh]

Interesting column and comments.  I had similar thoughts about the accuracy of the quote, but the choices are at least arguable.  Who else would like to see other architect's choices of a top 3 or 5?

Thanks for sharing the column, David.  I'm amazed at what people more energetic than me are able to dig up.  

[BCrosby]

David - Thanks for posting the article. Interesting stuff.

I wonder if MacK's not including ANGC had to do with the fuss he was then having with Cliff Roberts about getting paid. I doubt that Jones' assistance in the design would have been the main reason for the absence. Given Jones' status at the time, a connection with him would have only enhanced MacK's rep, I would think.

Bob

[Jordan Wall]

Regardless, I think it's pretty hard to argue with the doctor's top 3.

Actually, it's quite easy to argue his top 3.

First you have to understand and put into context, the date the statement was made.

The omission of NGLA and the insertion of CPC is easy to argue.

Both are wonderful golf courses, but many feel that NGLA is superior to CPC.

Pat,

I think it understandable that any great architect would lis their own courses as some of the absolute best.  With Mackenzie, the fact he was might have been the best give his statements a lot of weight, and whether or not he is correct in his claim of the top three golf courses in the world would you not say today that those three are still among the best in the world?  I can only speak for Cypress, which certainly is.

But, as you bring up NGLA, I could never compare that course and Cypress.  Once you get to the top ten or so courses in the world, I think it would be hard to justify any as truly better than one another.  Different, yes, but better?  When courses are so great, I always feel like appreciating them individually instead of putting them up against one another is the best way to sense each course's greatness.

Whether Cypress or NGLA is in the top 3 in the world is up for debate from person to person and certainly varies by personal preference, but surely each is among the best golf courses in the world.

[BCrosby]

Peter -

The Crane connection also occurred to me. Sounds almost like Tillie lifted a line or two from Crane. Also, at about the same time Tillie was writing his criticism of TOC as a championship course, Crane was publishing in the British GI his proposed changes to the first four holes of TOC. The whole issue of TOC keeping up with the times seemed to be on a lot of peoples' minds circa 1934.

Bob

[Kalen Braley]

David,

Interesting article indeed...

I don't think the ego thing though is limited to the best GCA architects.  I think it applies to just about any field when it comes to identifying the best of the best.

Think of athletes, CEOs, doctors, lawyers, politicians, etc...just about any profession is going to have massive egos when discussing who is the best in their trade.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks for the comments.

No doubt some of the greats had (and have) a high opinion of their own work, and in the case of the greats who could (can) blame them.  But what about the not-so-great architects?   Do they view their courses as on par with those considered great?  For example, when the junior Billy Bell (not to be confused with his more talented (IMO) father, William P. Bell) was building Torrey Pines, he favorably compared the course to Pebble Beach.   Sure they are both near the Pacific Ocean, but did Bell really believe that Torrey Pines was otherwise on par with Pebble Beach?  Perhaps a high opinion of one's own work allows a few to achieve greatness while condemning the rest to mediocrity.
------------------------------------------

Thanks to Jim Nugent for posting the AWT blurb.  At that point of his career AWT certainly doesn't seem to have been a big fan of The Old Course. While AWT may not quite be the exception who proves the rule, his comments almost seem to foreshadow the many decades of mediocre architecture to come.  If there were really "fifty better championship tests in our own country" by 1934, imagine how many there were by 1983.

Bob Crosby and Peter Pallota,   The Crane reference is interesting and one that didn't immediately come to mind, but upon further reflection I think you both may on the right track regarding AWT. (At least at this point in his career/self-promotion.)  Here is AWT blurb from the next month's Golf Illustrated (July 1934) wherein AWT took on John L. Low and The Old Course, criticized bunkers in the line of play, and praised bunkers catching only "badly hit balls."  As if that weren't enough, he then knocked Prestwick's Alps Hole, perhaps even suggesting it ought to be modernized to do away with the blindness.



Bob, are you aware of any direct connection between Crane's approach and AWT's?

Here is the full version of the excerpt Jim Nugent posted above . . .



John Mayhugh mentioned he would love to see the top three or five course of other architects.  So would I.  I'd also love to see AWT's list of fifty American courses mentioned in the highlighted portion above.

[Garland Bayley]

Thanks for sharing this with us. I think a lot of those golden age architects were full of confidence (self-confidence). I wonder if any of them lost potential jobs because their clients didn't like their arrogance?

I don't see AM's statement as arrogance. Probably an architect adopts a style because he believes it is the best style. Therefore, when he compares courses in his style to others' courses, he will naturally select his own style. I can see how AM would have a greater appreciation for his own courses when compared to AWT's or CBM's.

[Tom MacWood]

I thought Royal Melbourne was largely constructed after MacKenzie left Australia and that he never returned to see the finished product.  If so, then it strikes me as odd that he would be confident enough to declare it as one of the three best in the world.  While I have no reason to believe that Royal Melbourne isn't worthy of such a claim, does anyone else find it surprising that MacKenzie would do so without ever actually seeing the course in its completed form?

I do find it a little surprising for the reasons you gave. On the other hand Colt never saw the completed PV either and he had a similar opinion. I suspect their opinions were formed by talking to trusted friends and associates who saw these completed courses first hand, and from detailed photographs.

[BCrosby]

David -

I don't know of a connection between Crane and Tillie, other than it was probable that they read each other's pieces in golf mags. By the mid-30's Crane was spending most of his time in Europe, so they might have crossed paths there. But I have nothing concrete.

In your lead-in to the Tillie texts (thanks for posting), I think your reference to 'George' Low is meant to be to 'John Laing' Low.

The excerpts you posted are surprising. Tillie seems to have changed his tune. I'm no Tillie scholar, but I recall that circa 1920 he was saying things that John Low, MacK, Simpson et al would have agreed with about the function of hazards. In fact he was saying things that could have been lifted straight out of a Low essay. Hazards should catch the "almost perfect shot" of the good golfer playing aggressively. Leaving plenty of room for the weaker player. That sort of thing. By the mid 30's he appears to be saying something very different. A bunker's main function is now to catch bad shots. Something Crane would have agreed with and something Low, MacK, Simpson and so forth would have strongly disagreed with.

(By the mid-30's Crane was starting to talk about hazards more like (thought not entirely like) the way a classic strategic architect might talk about them, and much less like the way he talked about them in the 20's. Crane's views too seemed to have evolved in the 30's, but, ironically, in the opposite direction of Tillie's.)

So I'm not sure where Tillie's 180 degree turn came from. Might he have adopted such Cranesque views as a rationale for taking out bunkers as part of his PGA tour of US courses in the Depression? If so, it would be disappointing.

BTW, Tillie played against John Low in the OCGS matches in the US in 1903. I'd guess they knew each other reasonably well. There is a wonderful picture of them together in bathing suits standing on a beach on Long Island during a break in the OCGS tour.

Bob

[DMoriarty]

Bob,

Thanks for correcting my careless error on the name. I had the dates wrong as well. The blurbs are from 1934, not 1933.

I too was surprised by the blurb, particularly the John L. Low challenge.  The Low discussion to which AWT refers is one of the best explanations of strategic bunker placement I have ever read and it is one of the earliest of which I am aware.  It surprises me that AWT would directly challenge it. Maybe it had something to do with the PGA campaign, but if so then this contradicts the notion that all AWT was doing was removing the so-called "duffer's headache" bunkers.   Almost by definition such bunkers would be the most likely to "only take to themselves badly hit balls."

[BCrosby]

David -

Agreed. I had forgotten the "duffers' headache" line. I'm left scratching my head about where AWT was coming from. Strange.

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

I've wondered about that, David. I'd have to go back and read Phil's posts/articles on it, but I assume that "overly bunkered" back in the 20s and 30s meant (and described) something quite different than what most of us today would be complaining about.  This is just a guess, but I think the initiative must've been more extensive/encompassing than merely a focus on (narrowly defined) "duffer's headaches".  

Peter

[JESII]

"We know that there are many who will listen to no word of criticism of the Old Course at St. Andrews. Indeed, no course in the world is so rich in tradition, but we assert (and we know the old course well) that as a collection of holes it has too many weaknesses to be regarded as truly championship. This seems almost like speaking disrespectfully about one's grandparent. Frankly, we know of no place on earth where we would rather spend a golf holiday, and harking back forty years we appreciated its greatness as we followed a "guttie" ball around a magnificent course of that period. But conditions have changed in forty years. Old St. Andrews has not. We can pick out fifty better championship tests in our own country. So it seems to be throughout the entire kingdom.

David,

These are hardly the words of someone who is "not a big fan of the Old Course". He's clearly drawing a line between Championship courses and the rest. I agree his words match Joshua Crane's generally but think this is a clear example of his discussing TOC as not working well for championship golf while being exceedingly enjoyable for casual golf for even his high level of play.

He sounds alot like the Tour players of today.

[JESII]

Is AWT saying Prestwick rates 2 strokes better in his mind than TOC because it didn't have the bunkers that caught certain shots? Or was he just saying that TOC doesn't necessarily have to rely on that feature and held up Prestwick as evidence of a higher caliber course which did not have it?

[DMoriarty]

These are hardly the words of someone who is "not a big fan of the Old Course". He's clearly drawing a line between Championship courses and the rest. I agree his words match Joshua Crane's generally but think this is a clear example of his discussing TOC as not working well for championship golf while being exceedingly enjoyable for casual golf for even his high level of play.

He sounds alot like the Tour players of today.

I agree he sounds like a lot of tour players today, but like those tour players his words indicate to me that at this point in his career he was not a big fan of the Old Course.  Perhaps he was also making a distinction between Championship courses and "the rest."  But in so doing leaves little doubt in my mind about which category was superior.  Reading the entirety of the both articles, he seems to be equating greatness with whether a course could test the golfer and create better players.

We believe that more outstanding players are being developed here in the United States because generally throughout the nation our golfers play over more testing courses than do they in Great Britain. Undoubtedly there are some truly great constructive minds across the water, designing some really fine golf holes and certainly there are great British courses—but too few.

He seems to be equating "testing courses" with "great . . . courses" and concluding that there are "too few . . . great British courses."

Is AWT saying Prestwick rates 2 strokes better in his mind than TOC because it didn't have the bunkers that caught certain shots? Or was he just saying that TOC doesn't necessarily have to rely on that feature and held up Prestwick as evidence of a higher caliber course which did not have it?

I am not sure what he was saying.  He didn't really set out his disagreement with Low, only that he disagreed.  

[David Kelly]

Tillinghast was really bugged by the bunkers and "pits" at TOC.  From "Reminiscences of the Links" which is a reprint of an article from Golf Illustrated, May, 1930 (or Golf, Jan-June, 1901 the editors were a little unclear):

^{"The one criticism of the course that I have to offer concerns the placements of certain bunkers and pits.  Many may take exception to my remarks, but I do not think it proper to penalize a well executed, accurate shot.  Very often after a most satisfactory stroke, I would find my ball snugly nestling away in a hidden sand-pit. To be sure, those who are perfectly familiar with the course know every hazard, and play short when they deem a long ball dangerous, but I can testify that many a well-hit ball found an early grave; possibly my own misfortunes may have much to do with my prejudice."}

[Sean_A]

I agree with David.  I don't think there is any question Tillie is equating "championship" with  "great".  I too have been of mind to think that Tillie leaned toward the penal school of architecture or at least a much more "structured" approach (from TOC) in which the the job to be done by the player is readily apparent.  In fact, I would say this was a prominent movement in the US - to  include Flynn.    I always think of Dr Mac and perhaps the California archies as somewhere in the middle of the two "schools".  What is very odd is that one school - the far left we shall call it, really only has one example - TOC.  After Paton/Low, we don't see that style of course being pushed until Simpson comes along and he wasn't keen on blindness, plus, I am not sure how well his work was received.  I wish there was more of his work about and more info on the guy. 

Has anybody else really tried to make a career of a TOC style designs?  I see very few even attempting a Simpson style take on TOC principles.  When viewed in this light, it is easy to see why many think TOC is a dinosaur. 

Ciao   

[JESII]

Sean and David,

What do you think AWT meant when he said there's no better place for a golfing holiday than St. Andrews?

[David Kelly]

What do you think AWT meant when he said there's no better place for a golfing holiday than St. Andrews?

Tillinghast differentiates between casual golf and championship golf.  It is clear from his writings that he loves St. Andrews and its atmosphere.  He wrote, "Once in St. Andrews one revels in golf.  He is a slave for the nonce. He is in a new world - a new being.  The atmosphere of the old town is redolent with golf." He uses the phrase "for the nonce" differently than it is used today obviously but it isn't clear to me what the phrase meant then.

[Peter Pallotta]

Yes, it seems clear that -- in his mind -- Tillie was making and meant to make a distinction between every-day/casual and championship golf; but to me that distinction is a very blurry one indeed, given that he also said he could "pick out 50 better championship tests" than ToC, and in America alone no less.  Were there even 50 half-decent courses in America at the time, championship or otherwise?  (Partly a sarcastic question, but partly I really don't know - were there?).  Also, were there many other architects back then making and/or defending such a distinction? Did any of the great architects in America or GB&I create or promote their work in those terms, e.g. "Yes, this new course of mine is great for casual play but not as a championship test" or "This is going to be amongst the best championship tests in all the world, but I wouldn't want to be a member here if I was a lot worse than a scratch man".   From what I've read they all tended to say the same thing: "This will be one of the finest courses in the country".  

Peter

[Sean_A]

Sean and David,

What do you think AWT meant when he said there's no better place for a golfing holiday than St. Andrews?

Jim

I think Tillie meant just that, TOC is holiday golf.  "Holiday golf" is an odd term used in the UK quite a bit.  People tend to use it to mean a not overly taxing course which is fun to play, but not meant for the serious business of championship golf.  TOC happens to be a course which can fairly be labelled for both camps - a rare thing indeed for most good holiday courses may at best be used for Open qualifying or holding the odd pro event.  I don't think Tillie was alone in with his opinion.  Crane's suggestions for alterations were proposed with an eye to keeping TOC relevant at the Championship level.  Of course, the addition of bunkers and length is also a nod to championship golf. 

Ciao   

Ciao

[David Kelly]

The main problem with AWT's opinion of TOC is that as far as I know when he criticizes the course he is writing about a course he hadn't visited for 30 years and when he played it he said he used to go around the course using gutta percha balls.

[DMoriarty]

Tillinghast was really bugged by the bunkers and "pits" at TOC.  From "Reminiscences of the Links" which is a reprint of an article from Golf Illustrated, May, 1930 (or Golf, Jan-June, 1901 the editors were a little unclear):

^{"The one criticism of the course that I have to offer concerns the placements of certain bunkers and pits.  Many may take exception to my remarks, but I do not think it proper to penalize a well executed, accurate shot.  Very often after a most satisfactory stroke, I would find my ball snugly nestling away in a hidden sand-pit. To be sure, those who are perfectly familiar with the course know every hazard, and play short when they deem a long ball dangerous, but I can testify that many a well-hit ball found an early grave; possibly my own misfortunes may have much to do with my prejudice."}

The quote above is from the February 1901 issue of Golf.  In May 1930, ATW authored a piece in Golf Illustrated called "Recollections of St. Andrews" in which he fondly described Old Tom and other characters and features from Saint Andrews circa 1900, but he does not discuss the merits of the golf course at all in the 1930 article.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()