[BCrosby]

"Scientific" architecture meant different things to different people, as noted above. It seemed to fall out of common use by 1915 or so. I'm not sure it is a useful beginning point for sorting out what Fownes was doing at Oakmont.  

Bob

[Sven Nilsen]

A couple of nuggets to discuss:

1.  When Oakmont opened it had 8 par 5's and a par 6 for a total par of 80.  Perhaps Fownes foresaw some of those holes evolving into long par 4's with the advent of the new ball, but perhaps he just had a preference for par 5 holes.  There were longer courses in existence on an average distance per shot basis.

2.  Any discussion of the holes being laid out scientifically can only refer to the hole lengths, as the bunkers were laid out at a later date.

3.  By all accounts, Fownes had a plan in mind prior to actually finding and purchasing the land for the course.  Yet there is still discussion that he worked with the natural landforms.  Sounds to me like the course was crafted, rather than found, and that the talk of naturalism is a bit misplaced.

The Pittsburgh Press - Feb. 7, 1934

[MCirba]

Sven,

Thanks for sharing that article.  I'll try to put together some related thoughts in the morning.

[MCirba]

A couple of nuggets to discuss:

1.  When Oakmont opened it had 8 par 5's and a par 6 for a total par of 80.  Perhaps Fownes foresaw some of those holes evolving into long par 4's with the advent of the new ball, but perhaps he just had a preference for par 5 holes.  There were longer courses in existence on an average distance per shot basis.

2.  Any discussion of the holes being laid out scientifically can only refer to the hole lengths, as the bunkers were laid out at a later date.

3.  By all accounts, Fownes had a plan in mind prior to actually finding and purchasing the land for the course.  Yet there is still discussion that he worked with the natural landforms.  Sounds to me like the course was crafted, rather than found, and that the talk of naturalism is a bit misplaced.

Sven,

Really interesting article, thanks again.

To your points;

1) The 80 wasn't the par at Oakmont, it was the "Bogey Score", although with scores of 90 shot by both H.C. Fownes and George Ormiston on Opening Day, even that may have been a bit low.

2) Completely agree, and I've been taken to task by everyone from Bob Crosby to Melvyn Morrow regarding usage of "scientific" so I must be wrong.   I think you're correct that what the term means in the Oakmont origin articles I posted was a very purposeful intent to create golf holes requiring certain clubs to be played, sort of an early "every club in the bag" with an emphasis on the longer ones.   In fact, the articles Joe and I posted say almost exactly that, vis a vis "The golf course was developed with the best standards, having been laid out scientifically with the purpose of making every hole perfect as far as the number of shots is concerned."

3) I'm not sure if you've been to Oakmont Sven, but I think you'd find it far from crafted, particularly in terms of locations of green sites.   And I'm not sure that there is much validity to the assertion that having an overall plan for lengths and balances of golf holes on a course is limited by much but total overall acreage.   For instance, George Crump knew very clearly what balance and lengths of golf holes he wanted for his "ideal course" at Pine Valley, even if he didn't know exactly where each would be located.   Similarly, CB Macdonald pretty much knew a lot of the ideal template holes he wanted to place at NGLA, although arguably in some cases like the Road Hole he did craft them a bit to get the desired imitative result.    Macdonald also provided Merion with an ideal balance of holes for their purposes which they seem to have followed loosely, although they extended a bit beyond his recommended "6,000 yard" course.   I don't think any of those cases led to a course that wouldn't be described as utilizing natural features.

Finally, a question for you.   What is the first course chronologically that you're familiar with where it was purposefully built without any (or very few) bunkers with the intention that they would be added later after actual play was carefully observed?   Thanks!

Here's a related article you may find of interest;

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike:

Here's the USGA's page on Fownes discussing 8 par 5's and a total par of 80.

"Oakmont opened in 1904 and featured eight par-5s, one par-6 (the 560-yard 10th) and a total par of 80."

http://www.usga.org/news/2010/May/Fownes--The-Oakmont-Architect/

I'm also not sure what to make of your attempted comparison of the Chicago and Oakmont routings from earlier in the thread.  The courses were laid out nearly ten years apart.  Even though you use a 1901 routing for CGC, they were not contemporaneous designs.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

The first mention of Fownes going to Pinehurst that anyone has found was in 1904, after Oakmont was already routed and that routing exists today virtually intact.  

The 1904 date is patently false.

Chris Buie's book The Early Days of Pinehurst contains a 1901 quote from Fownes discussing the various experts and enthusiasts one would come across at the resort.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike:

I'm not sure what your point was on the Fowler ideal course (and I'm curious as to the date which seems to be some time after the creation of Pine Valley).  There were a number of articles written during the first couple of decades of the 20th century discussing "ideals."  MacDonald's is the one we discuss the most, but there were others.  I recently posted a piece from 1898 by W. Girdwood Stewart which contains many of the tenants of strategic golf.

In addition, on the point of whether or not the 80 number was a bogey or a par assignment, here's a June 1910 Golf Magazine discussing the standard distance/par correlations.

[John Connolly]

Sven,

Great find the yardage par/bogey parameters for 1910. Do you think the WGA mirrored the USGA? How have those yardages changed through the years and where can it be sourced?

[Niall C]

Bob

I agree with your comment on use of scientific and indeed I don't recall reading an explanation of what it meant or even an architect using the term. It seems to have been mainly commentators/writers who used the term, perhaps because it was a term that was in vogue in the world at large ?

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

[BCrosby]

Niall -

As far as I can tell "scientific" design was used to mean one, some or all of the following:

- an inland course
- an inland course designed to have hole lengths requiring multiples of "full shots"
- an inland course designed to have hole lengths requiring multiples of "full shots" and cross hazards at appropriate intervals
- an inland course designed to have  cross hazards at appropriate intervals
- a course with greens and tees built by a human
- a course that required the removal of trees and other vegetation to build
- a course that required earth-moving
- a course designed by a human and/or built to a plan
- any feature of a course designed by a human

No doubt I've overlooked other usages of the term. It is interesting and revealing that that term seems to disappear (more or less) from the literature at about the same time older Victorian design 'axioms' fell out of favor.

Bob  
 

[MCirba]

Mike:

Here's the USGA's page on Fownes discussing 8 par 5's and a total par of 80.

"Oakmont opened in 1904 and featured eight par-5s, one par-6 (the 560-yard 10th) and a total par of 80."

http://www.usga.org/news/2010/May/Fownes--The-Oakmont-Architect/

I'm also not sure what to make of your attempted comparison of the Chicago and Oakmont routings from earlier in the thread.  The courses were laid out nearly ten years apart.  Even though you use a 1901 routing for CGC, they were not contemporaneous designs.

Sven

Sven,

I'm not sure I'd take the author's modern interpretation of the "bogey score" of Oakmont as synonymous with "par" when it first opened.   Plus, she quotes liberally from GolfClubAtlas so that in and of itself is suspect.  

Regarding the attempted comparison of Chicago and Oakmont routings, it's meant to show that at the time Oakmont was designed and built, most of what was believed to be superior architecture in this country was of the straightforward, cross-bunkered and cross-bermed type.   Even through most of the first decade of the 20th century most experts at the time named Myopia, Garden City, and Chicago as the preeminent American golf courses.  

Myopia was largely similar to today's course by then and men like Alex Findlay believed it to be the best course in the US.   However, Garden City wasn't improved by Walter Travis (with his re-bunkering and green modification plan) until after 1906 and I believe Chicago Golf Club stayed relatively static through this period.  

In contrast to what else existed in the US in 1903, it's tough to imagine today's routing (even if the greens were lifeless, which they weren't) at Oakmont not being among the very preeminent designs in this country from inception.

[MCirba]

The 1904 date is patently false.

Chris Buie's book The Early Days of Pinehurst contains a 1901 quote from Fownes discussing the various experts and enthusiasts one would come across at the resort.

Sven

Sven,

I'm not sure where the confusion lies regarding Pinehurst and Fownes.   My information comes directly from Chris Buie who emailed me last month when I started the thread.   I trust he won't mind me sharing and perhaps he'll weigh in further;

Regarding your Oakmont thread, I've wondered where Fownes got his
knowledge, as well. It was almost unbelievable work for 1903.
FYI, the earliest he is recorded to have been in Pinehurst is 1904.
The main question to me is did HC Fownes visit GB/I prior to building
Oakmont? It almost seems as if he had to.
What do you think?

[Sven Nilsen]

The 1904 date is patently false.

Chris Buie's book The Early Days of Pinehurst contains a 1901 quote from Fownes discussing the various experts and enthusiasts one would come across at the resort.

Sven

Sven,

I'm not sure where the confusion lies regarding Pinehurst and Fownes.   My information comes directly from Chris Buie who emailed me last month when I started the thread.   I trust he won't mind me sharing and perhaps he'll weigh in further;

Regarding your Oakmont thread, I've wondered where Fownes got his
knowledge, as well. It was almost unbelievable work for 1903.
FYI, the earliest he is recorded to have been in Pinehurst is 1904.
The main question to me is did HC Fownes visit GB/I prior to building
Oakmont? It almost seems as if he had to.
What do you think?

Mike:

Regarding Chris Buie's information, here is the quote from page 10 of his book:

"Considering the fact that Henry Fownes largely went in the opposite direction [discussing how Oakmont was more penal than Pinehurst] it is curious that his affections for the winter resort were so effusive.  Here is Fownes in 1901 - two years before Oakmont began construction:

"There is something in the air of Pinehurst that makes it insidiously attractive; all who breathe it want more of it.  Here, golf is the sport of sports; experts are counted by the dozens and enthusiasts of all kinds by the hundreds.""

As for whether or not Fownes traveled abroad, I am generally not a fan of speculation.  He may have, but there is nothing telling me he must have.

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Mike:

It seems to me that you are arguing that a course that wasn't fully bunkered until well after it was laid out was supposed to have been a strategic masterpiece from the get go.

We have no idea what Henry Fownes' thoughts were on how the course would be bunkered in 1903.  

As I stated earlier, the course had the bones to be great, it just didn't have the polish until later on.  And pinning a 1903 date as the start date for the thoughts that went into the final product is a specious argument until we know more.

As for the comparison between the Oakmont and Chicago plans, what I see is a simple stick routing of a course in its infancy and a more detailed plan of a course that had ten years of history.  

Sven

[MCirba]

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

Sven,

There are no significant differences between the schematics of Chicago Golf Club between the 1898 drawing by a member who joined that year and the 1901 drawing in "Golfer's Green Book".  

I suspect it was largely that way from inception, as I can't imagine looking at the rudimentary bunker plan that much was added due to careful observation of play.

As far as Chris Buie, perhaps he can weigh in and clear up the matter as to the date.   I'm just pretty certain that there was nothing much to see in Pinehurst from an architectural standpoint before 1903, wouldn't you agree?

[Sven Nilsen]

As far as Chris Buie, perhaps he can weigh in and clear up the matter as to the date.   I'm just pretty certain that there was nothing much to see in Pinehurst from an architectural standpoint before 1903, wouldn't you agree?

For starters, there was a golf course that didn't follow the Victorian model of cross bunkering. 

And its spelled "Nilsen."

Thanks,

Sven

[MCirba]

Mike:

It seems to me that you are arguing that a course that wasn't fully bunkered until well after it was laid out was supposed to have been a strategic masterpiece from the get go.

We have no idea what Henry Fownes' thoughts were on how the course would be bunkered in 1903.  

As I stated earlier, the course had the bones to be great, it just didn't have the polish until later on.  And pinning a 1903 date as the start date for the thoughts that went into the final product is a specious argument until we know more.

Sven,

No, that's actually not what I'm saying and I think perhaps I'm not explaining myself well.

What I'm saying is that a bunkerless Oakmont in 1903, knowing the use of the natural land forms there and the under-rated routing that largely exists to this day had to be as good a golf course as virtually anything that existed in the US at that time, save perhaps Myopia Hunt.   I say that knowing there wasn't a single artificial hazard yet introduced, much less a strategy formulated by Fownes at that time.

Yes, it was polished, improved, modified, etc. through the next few decades, but from a moment in time, 1903, in comparison to what else existed, I think it had to be remarkable and superior in contrast to virtually everything else in the US at that time.

Hope that clarifies my point.

p.s. I corrected my spelling of your last name above.   Sorry for the error.

[Ed Homsey]

Mike--Though not relevant to the discussiion of Fownes and Oakmont, I must respond to your comment about Garden City Golf Club, and when it was "improved".  You indicate that it wasn't improved by Travis until after 1906.  I believe that Travis began making changes to the course prior to 1906.  In the July 1900 magazine, Outing, Travis describes the "very great improvements" made to the GCGC course that included the lengthening of several holes and "addition of several new hazards".  He does not claim that he was responsible for the changes, but who would have, given his status at the time?  Barker?  Emmet?

I'm wondering if you're not giving sufficient credit to other courses that existed prior to 1903?

[MCirba]

Hi Ed,

I believe that it was Travis himself who stated that his work at Garden City and improvements and suggestions to the bunkers and greens began in 1906.   Please see the following first paragraph;

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

I'd be curious to hear anyone bring other courses circa 1903 that were architecturally meritorious in the United States?

Thanks!

[Sven Nilsen]

Ed:

Excellent point.  

Oakmont came about right at the turning point in American architecture.  If it had been built 5 years earlier, it would have most likely been a very different golf course.

There were two key paradigm shifts taking place:

1.  Distance - the new ball demanded longer courses.

2.  Design - the old Victorian style was fading away, with a new style of design stemming from the great inland courses of the UK.  Those ideas, particularly a move away from cross-bunkering and towards strategically placed hazards.  Travis was at the forefront of this movement, as were others like John Low.  The Oxford-Cambridge Golfing Society tour of the U.S. most likely had a significant impact as well.

Where Oakmont fits into this is a good question.  In 1903/04 just after having been laid out it would have been a very long golf course that would have been a good test for the best players in the game (even at a par of 80).  It was still a new course and would have been in very rough condition.  It became a better course as it was tweaked by having bunkers added and moved and the greens improved over the years.  

I have a hard time calling a course that had yet to realize its potential one of the greatest in the land.  Should we heap the same praise on any of the early Victorian designs that would evolve into what we now consider a classic?  Did Oakmont simply benefit from having been laid out on a plot of land that allowed for its later expansion and did not suffer the invasion of real estate interests?  Like Pinehurst #2, which started in the same year, was the greatness due to an initial vision, or did it arise out of tender caretaking and tinkering?  

American Golfer - Nov. 1903:







Here's an Oswald Kirkby article (Outing Magazine) from later on discussing the best courses in the East:

[Sven Nilsen]

Hi Ed,

I believe that it was Travis himself who stated that his work at Garden City and improvements and suggestions to the bunkers and greens began in 1906.   Please see the following first paragraph;

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

I'd be curious to hear anyone bring other courses circa 1903 that were architecturally meritorious in the United States?

Thanks!

Mike:

Ed is correct that Travis' involvement with work on GCGC started well before 1906.  The May 1900 Golf Magazine article on the course includes him as one of the parties responsible for its current layout.  It is in 1906 that he started implementing his thoughts on bunkering and green contours, which is completely irrelevant to this thread, as that type of work took place at Oakmont after 1906 and continued for a number of years as pointed out by Jim Kennedy in the other thread.

Sven

[BCrosby]

Sven -

Thanks for posting the two articles. As Bramston points out, Myopia was the course singled out by the OCGS as most like a British links course in the summer of 1903.

The story of when and how America 'got' the revolution in golf architecture then in full swing in Britain (thank you John Low), Leeds and Myopia should be given important roles. A problem is that Leeds, unlike Travis and MacD, wrote so little on the topic.

Bob    

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven -

Thanks for posting the two articles. As Bramston points out, Myopia was the course singled out by the OCGS as most like a British links course in the summer of 1903.

The story of when and how America 'got' the revolution in golf architecture then in full swing in Britain (thank you John Low), Leeds and Myopia should be given important roles. A problem is that Leeds, unlike Travis and MacD, wrote so little on the topic.

Bob    

Bob:

What the Bramston piece, and others, point out to me is that the ideas were in the air in America at the beginning of the century, and were just waiting to be implemented.  I don't consider Fownes to have been at the forefront of this conversation, although he was undoubtedly involved.

Sven

[BCrosby]

Have you come across a drawing of the Myopia that Low, Alison and Bramston would have played in 1903?

Given the current 2nd hole (then the 1st), I'd guess that even though the OCGS group liked the course, it was hardly free of typically Victorian features at the time.

Bob

[Sven Nilsen]

Have you come across a drawing of the Myopia that Low, Alison and Bramston would have played in 1903?

Given the current 2nd hole (then the 1st), I'd guess that even though the OCGS group liked the course, it was hardly free of typically Victorian features at the time.

Bob

Here's the closest I have, from the April 1905 Golfers Magazine:

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()