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.


BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Sven -

Great stuff. Thanks.

Assuming this is more or less the Myopia Bramston and Low played, there are some Victorian cross bunkers, though not a lot.

(I note that the current 1st was in place by 1905, so my comment above was incorrect.)

Bob

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Sven,

Thanks for the Bramston, Kirkby articles and the Myopia schematic.

I have not seen the Bramston article prior and it's very interesting and insightful.   He really is quite critical of Chicago Golf Club as it existed at that time and very high on Myopia, which seemed to be fairly consensual opinion among those visiting from abroad.

I do think he brings up an interesting point that I believe you alluded to earlier which seems to suggest that the very idea of having in mind various hole lengths limits the architect's thinking in such a way as to not maximize any particular piece of property.   While I think that certainly can be true with constricted real estate, I think with enough ground and natural features folks like Crump proved that it didn't have to be a handicap and I'd suggest the same is true at Oakmont.

Kirkby's article is interesting as one from a long-hitting tournament competitor viewing the landscape.   He seems particularly fond of lengthy forced carries, or at least a premium on holes where such is required.   For instance, his main criticisms of Garden City seem to be the lack of long carries from the tee as well as no long carries past cross bunkers.   Perhaps coming from New Jersey he was related to Matt Ward?  ;) 

Great discussion, guys.
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bramston was a tragic figure. An attractive, athletic guy. He was probably the best golfer on the OCGS team that waxed the Americans. He was a fine writer and had - as you can tell from the article Sven posted - a good eye for architecture. Low thought highly of him. He was close friends with Alison and would have traveled in the same circles with Colt and Darwin. It is not wild speculation to think Bramston might have become an important architect one day.

He was already ill at outset of the exhausting OCGS tour in 1903 and he returned to England very sick. Bramston died a year or so later.

Bob   

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike

Re not building the bunkers until after the course has opened, I thought that was fairly standard procedure for Old Tom etc, or am I mistaken ? Maybe they did things differently over the pond.

Niall

Niall,

Let's just say that things didn't exactly get off to a roaring start with golf in this country, architecturally speaking.

Almost every golf course that was built had the same motif as described in the following Walter Travis article and which can be seen above exemplified in the Chicago Golf Club schematic.   Frankly, the idea of bunkering a course any other way but largely by rote was something almost novel in this country and I'm trying to track down the first instance, which I also asked Sven Nilsen.  

http://www.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1920/ag2333f.pdf


Mike

Thanks for posting that Travis article, an interesting read but unless I read it wrong there was no reference or suggestion that putting the bunkers in after the course was built was a new concept ?

Niall

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Niall,

Perhaps I'm reading too much into it but to me the implication is that if you are to have a cross-bunkered, steeple-chase course with berms at repeated, rote intervals (as most US courses did) then there would never be any reason to wait to carefully observe play before placing bunkers, no?

I can think of only a few courses that were developed during this time period where I read that bunkering would be done later after play was observed and Oakmont is the earliest in the US I'm familiar with.   From other research I know that in later years much the same thing was written about other courses, mostly long-term projects by amateur architects who had the time (and money) for such a fastidious and more expensive approach.
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
The suggestion that virtually all the courses built in the US before 1904 were built from the very beginning with a complete bunkering system is absolutely ridiculous.

The trouble with this thread and the related thread is that Mike has decided that Oakmont must have been revolutonary from the get-go, and he is is just making things up to try to justify that belief.  He throws out questionable contention after questionable contention as if they are proven fact, and leaves it to the rest of us to correct him.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
David,

Please cite some examples to make your case of early US courses built without bunkers that were then added intelligently after carefully observing play.   

I'm not saying there are no others...I'm saying I'm not aware of any.  Thanks.
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Peter Pallotta

I'm reminded of the phrase/concept that TEPaul used to use a lot, I think it was "designing up" -- in reference, I think, to that phase of course design that, in the early days of American golf, was just as important if not more so that phase one (i.e. the routing/laying out of the course.) So, first came the decisions on (and creation of) tees and greens and basic direction and length of the 18 golf holes in some kind of routing; and then came - in the designing up phase - the addition of bunkers and other hazards and mounds and tweaks to the length of the holes and evolving maintenance practices etc. And it seems to me that, whether it's Oakmont or Myopia or Merion, the courses we now (still) consider great owe a lot of their greatness to this "designing up" phase. I have no way of knowing how many well-routed/laid out courses from the early days of American golf never benefitted/benefitted enough from the designing up phase and thus were, either soon afterwards or in the decades to come, forgotten or bulldozed over.

Peter  
« Last Edit: April 04, 2015, 01:15:49 PM by PPallotta »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
No Mike.  You have said that there aren't others. You've said it repeatedly. You think that because you aren't aware of any that there must not be any, and to put it politely, that isn't sound research. As for your request that I do your research for you, no thanks. You cant just throw out one half-baked theory after another as if they were fact, and expect us to clean up your messes. Yet that is what you have done repeatedly since your return.

Your research in this case seems to consist of nothing but cherry-picking a single course rendering from well after the time the course was built, and then pretending that every other course in the country was built the same way from its inception.  Give us a break Mike.  Do you know how many courses had been built by the middle of the first decade of the 20th century?  And many with very limited resources for and sometimes by novice golfers. (Think of your Phoenixville example from a decade later.)  Most courses were works in progress.  

And, as Jim points out, whether it was fully implemented or not, Oakmont did have a scheme of hazards in mind from the very beginning, and it wasn't necessarily as advanced or enlightened as you portray it.

In short, you are making things up on both ends of your argument.  
« Last Edit: April 04, 2015, 01:32:16 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike,
Being in Pittsburgh woujd Andrew Carnegie have had any input. He started golfing in 1899 according to articles.

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Pete,

I'm not sure about Carnegie as an influence but did come across the following;


Who Was Henry Fownes?
Like other 19th century Pittsburghers, Henry Clay Fownes made a fortune in iron and steel manufacturing. But while others used their money to build even greater empires, Fownes used the profits he received in 1896 by selling his Carrie Furnace Company to Andrew Carnegie, to go play golf. He was only 40 years old. Fownes played well enough to compete in the United States Open in 1901. By 1903 Fownes was looking around to build his own club.

How Did Oakmont Country Club Come About?
Fownes found the plot of land he was looking for on an old farm overlooking the Allegheny River just northeast of Pittsburgh. He drew up the routing for the new course himself and directed a crew of 150 men and 24 mule teams pulling scrapers to shape the land. Golf equipment was rapidly evolving at the time and Fownes built his course longer than most existing layouts to adapt to these improvements to the game. The course was so long, in fact, that when it opened in 1904, Oakmont played to a par of 80 (72 is normal). Fownes wanted a links-style course so Oakmont was built with no water hazards and, despite its name, scarcely any trees. The course routing seen today, lauded by some as America's greatest, is little changed from Fownes' original vision. Oakmont would be the only course Henry Fownes ever designed.
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike,
Somewhere in Mark Frost's book "Grand Slam" it says that Carnegie introduced Fownes to the game. If this is true, then the nexus between them may be bigger.

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0

Fownes wanted a links-style course so Oakmont was built with no water hazards and, despite its name, scarcely any trees.


Not sure where this is from (a citation would be nice), but it isn't entirely accurate.

The initial intention was to leave many of existing Oak trees on the site.  Most of them died shortly after construction (with the exception of the iconic tree by the first hole).  The open playing field we associate with the course and which was reclaimed years back by a tree removal plan was not an intentional feature.

Golf Illustrated - May 1931

« Last Edit: April 06, 2015, 10:41:51 AM by Sven Nilsen »
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Sven,

Yes, a citation would be nice, as well.  ;)

One would think that if the Fownes family actually wanted trees on the course they would have planted them.   Interestingly, I was just looking at some aerials of Oakmont this morning and was surprised to learn that most of the tree planting there occurred after 1969. 

www.historicaerials.com
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Early in this thread some mentioned that the work that Ross (and Travis) were doing at Pinehurst likely influenced Fownes and Son given their annual pilgrimage(s) to that mecca.   It seems likely that would have indeed influenced them as they were also very close to the Philadelphians who at the time were themselves evolving in their thinking about golf courses through their exposure to Pinehurst; in fact Fownes was a charter member of Pine Valley.  Given that Oakmont was routed prior to Pinehurst #2, and the fact that Pinehurst had flat, sand greens at the time, the architectural influence was most likely found in some of the ideas of "scientific bunkering" being implemented at Pinehurst.

Indeed it seems that the influence was felt at the same time in the Philadelphia region as well, as I posted some time back as follows.  I should mention that a number of us believe that "Far and Sure" was A.W. Tillinghast;


Jim Kennedy turned me onto this awesome 1920 article by Walter Travis that speaks to his role in the 1906 "scientific bunkering" of Pinehurst #2.

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1920/ag2333f.pdf

Also,

A March 11th, 1911 Philadelphia Press article titled "30 Quakers Tramp Pinehurst Links - Philadelphians Help Swell Army of Golf Enthusiasts at Southern Resort to 800" was but a sample of the type of ongoing enthusiasm and consistent support for Pinehurst among golfers in Philadelphia, as well as nationwide.

From the article;

"The number of Philadelphians who come here yearly is increasing steadily as there is no place in the South which compares to Pinehurst when it comes to golf.  At one of the hotels there are more than 400 golfers quartered and it is safe to say that oever the three courses more than 800 golfers may be found any bright day."

"The Spring tournament, which ended today, was responsible for the second largest entry list in the history of golf.   The entries numbered 241 and this was beaten in only one tournament - the Transmississippi at Denver a few years ago.   Here, 228 actually played, which is a new record.  This is remarkable in view of the fact that the weather was down to freezing and a stiff gale blew across the course."

"There are three distinct, great eighteen-hole courses here, which is true of no other place in the world except the R&A Golf Club of St. Andrews, Scotland.   A fourth has been staked out and will be in readiness next Spring.   The most famous of these courses is the No. 2 course, laid out by Donald Ross and Walter J. Travis. They did not plan it together, but each coincided with the other's suggestions.   The only change suggested by Travis and which was adopted was the omissions of cross bunkers.   The ground is rolling and the grass on the fairway is Bermuda grass, the only kind that is possible in most golf resorts in the South."

"The putting greens are of clay foundation and covered with sand.   The greens are flat and as there are no worm casts, perfect putting is always possible.   The greens are watered for a radius of a few feet from the hole and men are employed to do nothing else but water the greens and drag a roll of carpet over them to remove all traces of heel marks."

While this article and architectural attributions are noteworthy to point out the popularity of Pinehurst during these early years, it doesn’t speak necessarily to the architectural sophistication that was found there.

However, the following article from the May 1912 American Golfer does;

"After one of the most unprofitable—from a golfer's point of view—winter, Philadelphia extended a warm greeting to spring. It has been years since the links of the Quaker City have been so unplayable as the period from Christmas until the latter part of March.  An occasional day was the only respite from weeks of the worst possible sort of weather."

"One thing will be noted by visitors from other cities whether they play over such excellent eighteen hole courses as Huntingdon Valley and the Philadelphia Cricket Clubs as representing the larger organizations or the two dozen or more courses of nine holes and that is the growing tendency to improve in a more scientific manner the courses around Philadelphia. "

"Time was when changes were made in a sort of a hit or miss manner. Today every trap or pit that is constructed means something definite and with it all has come the scientific construction of bunkers and hazards.  Time was when the green committee built courses on a broad principle of the greatest good to the greatest number and as the greatest number in every golfing organization is the dub or indifferent player, the really good player suffered.  As the chairman of the green committee of one of the largest courses recently expressed himself: "A few years ago we used to post the changes proposed. This met with so much opposition that we were forced to take a couple of days in the week when we were sure that the bulk of the players would not be on the course and then we started to construct a course that would help the good player and do no great injury to the poor player.  Nowadays, fortunately, we are able to make changes without feeling that we would be subjected to the severest sort of criticism.""

"There is no doubt that the Southern courses have done wonders for golfing conditions around Philadelphia.  It is not so many years ago that very few players took two weeks off in mid winter to play golf in the south.   Where one player went South five years ago, twenty go now.  Pinehurst, in particular has worked wonders. Hundreds of men who have always played a rather indifferent game have gone to Pinehurst and have been confronted with golf courses constructed on scientific principles where traps and pits have been placed in spots because good golf demanded their presence there."

"The result has been that the indifferent, careless player found that every shot he made demanded study and care and the golf there brought out the best in him. When he got back to the home heath he began to realize that one of the reasons he had not been playing better golf was because his own course was constructed on rather slip shod lines, on the one hand, or built on lines to suit him and scores of other players who insisted that the course should not be made any harder than it was. He realized for the first time that his wild shots were not penalized, that many of his approaches should have been punished but were not. The realizing sense finally came to him that he had not been playing golf but had simply used the paraphernalia of the game in a very bungling fashion."

"As a direct result scores of the indifferent players who have received their real golf education in the south have gone to the green committees and frankly and freely confessed that their theories were all wrong and asked them to stiffen the course. They now realize that it is impossible to play good golf over an inferior course and that a good course does not hamper their game but actually helps it."

"At any event, the golfing renaissance in Philadelphia has actually begun and before many years we shall have courses which are a credit to us and not a mark of good natured chaffing of others who know what constitutes a good course."  - "Far and Sure" - May 1912
« Last Edit: April 24, 2015, 01:58:30 PM by MCirba »
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Interesting blurbs, but I am having trouble figuring out what they have to do with the premise of this thread, which was based on a 1905 blurb mentioning that Oakmont was "laid out scientifically" not with regard to bunkering, but with regard to the lengths of the holes (number of shots per hole.)

You wrote:
Given that Oakmont was routed prior to Pinehurst #2, and the fact that Pinehurst had flat, sand greens at the time, the architectural influence was most likely found in some of the ideas of "scientific bunkering" being implemented at Pinehurst.

I am trying to make sense of this, but I can't.  You seem to be trying to draw a connection between use of the word "scientific" in both instances, but how could the original course at Oakmont have been influenced by the "scientific bunkering" at Pinehurst #2 when
1) Pinehurst #2 didn't exist when Oakmont was planned,  
2) the original course at Oakmont had no bunkering, and
3) the "laid out scientifically" quote had nothing to do with bunkering.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
"At any event, the golfing renaissance in Philadelphia has actually begun and before many years we shall have courses which are a credit to us and not a mark of good natured chaffing of others who know what constitutes a good course."  - "Far and Sure" - May 1912

Did Tilly really say that the Philadelphia area courses weren't up to snuff in 1912?  ;D


A Ross routing would also be a good example for the Fownes', as well as the many good courses they played prior to Oakmont's construction, and don't forget that they were surrounded by some of the best designers of the early 20th century.

I don't think there is any other construct that explains the quality of Oakmont's layout, absent some unknown statement to the contrary from the Fownes'.  
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'm actually not trying to tie the mention of "scientific" design to the whole question of the systematic bunkering that took place at Oakmont except perhaps by way of coincidence that the term "scientific" is used in both the early Pittsburgh news articles discussing the creation of the course to describe the routing and hole length creation process and later by Travis to describe what he felt was a novel bunkering methodology in this country that (he?) began in 1906.   As Bob Crosby pointed out, the term "scientific" seems to have been used to cover such a variety of things at the time as to be essentially meaningless.

The tie-in to Pinehurst is based on early suggestions by Philip Hensley, Sean Tully, and Sven that Fownes was likely influenced by Pinehurst and I'm merely pointing out that given the timing and state of Pinehurst at the time that could only have influenced their thinking on bunkering strategies.

Yet, I would suggest that there was something very different in the way Oakmont was created and then evolved than what happened at most courses at the time.   The Brooklyn Daily Eagle article I posted from the spring of 1906 on the other thread stated;

"The course as laid out was the product of years of valuable experience on the part of several experts and needs only development to become well nigh perfect."

Again, this is still before implementation of the studied and systematic addition of bunkers based on careful and thoughtful observation of actual play that had been planned from the very beginnings of the club that was to follow in the next several years and then decades into the 1930s.

It seems possible to me that Oakmont was the first course to be built with the idea that it would be a living, evolving thing that would take many years of tinkering to perfect.   I think there are a lot of unanswered questions here, and the tie-in to Pinehurst and what happened in terms of influencing Philadelphia later are related in a number of ways.   For instance, who exactly where the "experts" who laid out Oakmont who already had "years of valuable experience"?   Where did they receive that experience?

And Jim, of course Tilly would have bemoaned the state of Philadelphia golf course architecture in 1912, and he and some other prominent Philadelphians had been doing so for a number of years at that point.   Merion wouldn't open until late that fall and before then there was really a hodge podge of various course of various quality (and not) but very soon the efforts of Tillinghast and others to stimulate golf in Philly through the creation of championship-level courses that would foster better competitors in the city would pay big dividends with the creation of Merion, Pine Valley, and Cobb's Creek by 1916.

As far as Ross, I'd have to check but I don't think he had done much in terms of routing at Pinehurst by the time Oakmont was designed in 1903, had he?   Had he done his revisions to the #1 course by that time?    That being said, I do think Fownes would have benefited from some of the ideas going on down there in terms of the bunkering initiatives described in the Travis article and I do find it interesting that of any American course I can think of that somewhat parallels Oakmont in terms of bunkering approach it would be Garden City post-Travis revisions.  

What would you say were the "many good courses" the Fownes' had played that existed in the US prior to 1903 that would have influenced their thinking on Oakmont?  
« Last Edit: April 25, 2015, 11:56:24 AM by MCirba »
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
The Brooklyn Daily Eagle article I posted from the spring of 1906 on the other thread stated;

"The course as laid out was the product of years of valuable experience on the part of several experts and needs only development to become well nigh perfect."

....

For instance, who exactly where the "experts" who laid out Oakmont who already had "years of valuable experience"?   Where did they receive that experience?


Mike:

This is one small example of the specious reasoning you've been applying in these threads.  The BDE article does not state that it was the experts that actually laid out Oakmont, just that their valuable experience aided in its creation.  Yet you've jumped to the conclusion that those experts actually laid out the course.

Sven



"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
Sven,

Isn't that specious.  ;)   Are you taking Parsing lessons and not telling us?  ;) :D

Seriously, how do you think those "several experts" contributed to the creation of Oakmont in 1903 and who do you think they were?
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Any answer i'd have would be a guess, and i'd prefer not to continue the recent trend of posting speculation that with only the passage of time becomes confused for fact.
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0

It seems possible to me that Oakmont was the first course to be built with the idea that it would be a living, evolving thing that would take many years of tinkering to perfect.  



As far as Ross, I'd have to check but I don't think he had done much in terms of routing at Pinehurst by the time Oakmont was designed in 1903, had he?  Had he done his revisions to the #1 course by that time?    That being said, I do think Fownes would have benefited from some of the ideas going on down there in terms of the bunkering initiatives described in the Travis article and I do find it interesting that of any American course I can think of that somewhat parallels Oakmont in terms of bunkering approach it would be Garden City post-Travis revisions.  

What would you say were the "many good courses" the Fownes' had played that existed in the US prior to 1903 that would have influenced their thinking on Oakmont?  


I thought #1 was done in 1900, and the first 9 of #2 in that same general time frame?

Myopia? - bunkering added as need?

The  "many good courses"  they played would at least be the ones used for the US Ams that they played in prior to constructing Oakmont. Another would be Ekwanok, and I tend to think that they would generally be playing the best courses available for the time.

I don't think they book-learned routing skills, or were divinely inspired.  :)     
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Yet, I would suggest that there was something very different in the way Oakmont was created and then evolved than what happened at most courses at the time.
You have suggested this, and you have offered conjecture after conjecture about what this "difference" might have been.  None of your theories have been supported by facts.  

You have started with your desired conclusion, and you have been unsuccessfully trying to twist the facts to fit that conclusion ever since.

Quote
It seems possible to me that Oakmont was the first course to be built with the idea that it would be a living, evolving thing that would take many years of tinkering to perfect.
Here we go again.  Where is the evidence supporting this theory?  What about all the other courses that had already significantly evolved before Oakmont even existed.  Like many of your other theories, we don't have to go to far into the history of Golf Course Architecture in America to see that this theory is unsupportable.  Look at Shinnecock, for example.  Or Myopia.  A more challenging study might be to try and find courses that had not "evolved" early in their existence.

As for who the various experts might have been, have you stopped to consider the possibility that they may have been some the same "itinerant" professionals you regularly disrespect?
« Last Edit: April 25, 2015, 07:21:45 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

MCirba

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'm surprised that you fellows don't want to dig any deeper on the early origins of a course basically retaining the same routing for the past 112 years that is still generally acknowledged as one of the best courses in the country.  That's ok, I'll add more as time permits but this is more fun as a collaborative exercise.   Perhaps I'm the only one who doesn't know all there is to know about Oakmont.  ;)
"Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent" - Calvin Coolidge

https://cobbscreek.org/

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'm surprised that you fellows don't want to dig any deeper on the early origins of a course basically retaining the same routing for the past 112 years that is still generally acknowledged as one of the best courses in the country.  That's ok, I'll add more as time permits but this is more fun as a collaborative exercise.   Perhaps I'm the only one who doesn't know all there is to know about Oakmont.  ;)

1/3 of the posts are from you, 2/3 from others, plus, a lot of digging and a lot of information on the early origins of the course has already been put into this thread.

What do you feel is lacking or missing, and what hasn't been looked into?    
« Last Edit: April 26, 2015, 12:58:48 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon