[Niall C]

Pat


I discussed it, as did others. Unfortunately the thread then became a personal opinion poll on Melvyn. Now I appreciate that you don't think a lot of him however to accuse him of continually lying is pretty strong stuff and at the very least should be backed up with evidence or justification for that statement. To do anything less reflects badly not only on yourself but also the site. I don't think it reflects badly on Melvyn as I doubt many take much store in unsubstantiated and general statements as to a persons character.


Niall

[Jim_Kennedy]

...I don't agree with Melvyn 100% on every issue and I know he can sometimes be dogmatic and didactic in his personal approach, but I thought the IMO piece was presented in a constructive and factual way.   He provided plenty of contemporaneous evidence to support his views and if others think he's in error I'd just like to see them provide countering factual information.

Thanks.

Mike,
   I'm not questioning any of Melyvn's work pertaining to the 19th century, but I do question the idea that nothing new or of any import has been done since that time. There are presently something like 250,000 golf holes in the USA, and that doesn't take into consideration the many thousands that were lost between 1900 and 2015. Can any  reasonable person believe that nothing creative or original has been constructed over the span of 1.15 centuries?     
   
And what is a "Golden Age"? A common definition describes it as a period in a field of endeavor when great tasks were accomplished. Is there really only the one, the Old Tom era, or does it equally apply to the early part of the 20th century?  To discount that period, and potentially the one we're in now, would be as erroneous as discounting the efforts of the few standouts from OTM's age.     

Geoffrey Cornish wrote that "Golf course architecture is an art form and as such proceeds in circles", and there are more chords in that circle than Melvyn  can imagine.

[Sven Nilsen]

It is the view that there is "only one way" that is troubling to me.

Not sure why there can't have been a Golden Age in the UK and a separate one in the US.

They didn't build the same types of courses in each place.  We're talking about land in the UK that allowed for courses to be found, and land in the United States that required courses to be built.  Neither method is right or wrong, and each has its own separate set (or subset) of skills.  You could spend years arguing over whether or not Tom Morris was a better architect for nuancing a course out of wind swept dunes, or if that credit should go to a guy like Pete Dye who could craft a playable and interesting course out of a Florida swamp.

I'd go as far to say that the Golden Age of inland UK golf occurred well after the Golden Age of links golf, and the Golden Age of American links golf may have just started.

I'll stop now before someone jumps in and tells us that there is only one type of land suitable for golf, and everything else is flog.

Sven

[MCirba]

Jim/Sven,

I would agree with you both regarding an "inclusive" approach to appreciating great golf architecture, whether related to time period or the links/inland questions you both cited.   

Where I particularly value Melvyn's insight, perspective, and research however is related to the architecture pre-1900, which for years most of the golf world had viewed as something again to dark ages, or medieval times.   Check out the intro to the Cornish/Whitten books, or even the division of time periods on one of this site's introductory pages.   I certainly didn't know 1/10th of how architecture was done prior to 1900 before people like Melvyn (and to a degree the late Tom MacWood) shed light on it here with their research.

So, rather than argue the differences these days, I'm taking the good and leaving the rest behind.   The more facts that come to the surface, the better, and I think this site is a great resource for those of us with great interest in architectural lineage and history.

[Jason Thurman]

My intuition is very good.  Slang as in **ur** is all that's needed when addressing you.  I unlearned what history was taught to me in school.  I'm sure you believe TR confiscating land unconstitutionally was okay  .  I'm fairly confident I could dust you off in a history debate.  Hiding behind grammar is what people do when they fail to make any worthwhile points.

I vote we include a history debate as part of the scoring at the next Midwest Mashie.






I suspect I'm in the minority among the posters in this thread, as I actually read Melvyn's piece. A few thoughts:


* Sure it gets old hearing Melvyn talk about Tom Morris sometimes, but does the man really get his due as a course designer? I would venture that most of us see him as a good golfer for his time who occasionally stuck some sticks in a random seaside cow pasture and called it a golf course. How many included him on their GCA Mount Rushmore in the thread a few years back? Was the number higher or lower than the number of GCAers who think FDR is on the real Mount Rushmore?
* While many would see a false dichotomy when Melvyn insinuates that the strategic school of design excludes difficult hazards, I think he might have a bit of a point when he points out that many of the golfers deriding the penal school of design are more concerned about their score and ego than the game's sporting elements. Golf courses are intended as fields of competition at the most fundamental level, and Old Tom understood that as well as anyone. We too often dismiss courses from the penal school outright, or even worse, lob the "penal" epithet at courses that offer plenty of strategy simply because they overwhelm our errant games on an initial play.
* I don't really think anyone considers the 19th century the "dark ages" of architecture, right?
* Considering that I'm probably less fond of Donald Ross than virtually anyone on this site, I must admit that I smiled when I read Melvyn's accusation that he accomplished little in Scotland. The implication I read is that Ross thrived in the US only because he could find regions where he didn't have to compete with the clearly superior designs of men like Tom Morris.

[Daniel Jones]

I finally got around to reading this..certainly a thought-provoking read. I can only imagine the time and energy that went into this, and for that, cheers to you Melvyn.


What I'm left wondering, while literally wearing a t-shirt with a picture of OTM, is similar to what Sven said above...


Can't we all just get along?


Surely there's room enough in this beautiful game of ours for two (or three.. or four..) "Golden Ages."

[Jim_Kennedy]

* Considering that I'm probably less fond of Donald Ross than virtually anyone on this site, I must admit that I smiled when I read Melvyn's accusation that he accomplished little in Scotland. The implication I read is that Ross thrived in the US only because he could find regions where he didn't have to compete with the clearly superior designs of men like Tom Morris.

Perhaps you and Melvyn should read up on Ross, you would both have a better understanding about his progression. 

Start here, it's only a few pages: 

http://www.donaldross.org/resources/documents/gca_donald%20ross%20misunderstood.pdf

[Philip Hensley]

Was the number higher or lower than the number of GCAers who think FDR is on the real Mount Rushmore?

FDR was only a Doak 2.

[Pat Burke]

Interesting read.
I for one, am a huge fan of The Old Course.  Played Carnoustie, Lytham, and the Old Links.  Fascinated by the
challenges presented that were so different than what I was raised on in the New Jersey/New York courses I grew up playing.


I am the third generation of golf professionals in my family.  I for one sometimes get confused by what many may consider the
argument of the First Golden Age of Old Tom, and the Next Golden Age which produced the courses of Tillie, Dr MacKenzie, Donald Ross and others.  My parents and grandfather raved about the history of the great courses of Scotland, but they included Turnberry and others to the places they treasured.
The love we had for Winged Foot, Mountain ridge, Garden City, Hollywood etc was never seen as an afront to the greatness of what came before them, but more an appreciation and next step in the spread of a great game.  Much like Beethoven, Mozart, and other great classical composers gave way to generations of musical developments (good and bad), I can still get teary eyed listening to my daughter's orchestra playing a beautiful piece of classical music, and then take her to a Jacks Mannequin concert at House of Blues and enjoy both experiences.


My greatest golf experience was my week on the Old Course in 1995, but my trips around Kingston Heath and the sandbelt still make me long for returning to Melbourne.  My rounds with my family at Deal G&CC in New Jersey, still make me smile, and remember how lucky I am to have the family I grew up with in this game.  Music now marks how lucky and blessed I am with my wife and daughter now.  I have had a blessed personal life in golf and music, and both of those generations are my own Golden Age.  There is always room for more!!


Great article Melvyn

[Jason Thurman]

* Considering that I'm probably less fond of Donald Ross than virtually anyone on this site, I must admit that I smiled when I read Melvyn's accusation that he accomplished little in Scotland. The implication I read is that Ross thrived in the US only because he could find regions where he didn't have to compete with the clearly superior designs of men like Tom Morris.

Perhaps you and Melvyn should read up on Ross, you would both have a better understanding about his progression. 


Start here, it's only a few pages: 


http://www.donaldross.org/resources/documents/gca_donald%20ross%20misunderstood.pdf

I'm actually quite well-read on Ross and own multiple books on his life and architecture in my library, including Golf has Never Failed Me and Discovering Donald Ross. The truth is that he did very little design work in the UK and that his apprenticeship with Old Tom was more focused on clubmaking than on design, as your own linked article states.


The statement in Melvyn's article is:

The golfers and designers that the late Tom MacWood mentioned have a place in the history of the game of golf, of but do not IMHO deserve the same accolades as others. I will give you an example that many may not be happy with but is true – at least as far as the UK is concerned. Donald Ross achieved greatness in the USA but he accomplished little while he lived in Scotland even under Old Tom’s & Sutherland’s influence.

I'm a fan of Ross relative to the average golfer, but I don't give him nearly the worshipful credit than many around this site do. When inpired, his work is outstanding - I count Holston Hills, Pinehurst #2, Beverly, and Broadmoor among my favorite courses anywhere. At other times his work is depressingly straightforward and void of whimsy or quirk, particularly when he literally "mails it in" and designs only from a topo map. I see an implication in Melvyn's statement that Ross lacked the talent to measure up to Old Tom and some of the other designers from Melvyn's Scottish Golden Age, and thus had to go to America to be considered great in a land where the standard had not already been set so high. Despite my amusement, I'll admit that this sentiment is probably a bit unfair. I doubt Ross had any idea that he would someday become known as a course architect when he left for the US and I suspect his lack of work in Scotland has more to do with the fact that the Atlantic Ocean separated Ross the Very Busy American Architect from the British Isles. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Melvyn is correct regarding the largely American body of work that Ross assembled, and it's at least a thought-provoking argument when Melvyn suggests Ross the Scot's lack of success in Scotland reinforces the thesis that Old Tom Morris and Allan Robertson deserve more accolades.

[Sven Nilsen]

Flawed premise leads to flawed theory.  News at eleven.

Ross didn't move to the U. S. to become an architect.

[Sven Nilsen]

Jason:

What you fail to appreciate is that not every project is the same.  Clubs got what they paid for, and the only "mailing it in" was because the scale of the project necessitated it.  And not every club was blessed with an ideal site and wasn't go to move earth to make one.

There was a reason Ross was the most highly paid architect of his day, and not every club wanted to or could afford to pay for the seven course meal.

Or was this one of those moments you were saying something so stupid we were supposed to assume it was a joke.  Its tough to tell.

Sven

[Dan Moore]

Ross was only 26 when he came to America from Dornoch where he was serving as the professional, clubmaker and greenskeeper after serving an apprenticeship under Old Tom. Hardly surprising he wouldn't have done much design work at that point in his career. Among his first responsibilities when he arrived in Boston was to update the existing Oakley Country Club course. 


MM has an interesting thesis on the Golden Age, one well worth considering. Clearly Old Tom was among the greats in architecture however I think MM misses an important point.


The Golden Age of Colt, Macdonald and Ross et al developed in response to golf's need to move inland from seaside locations as golf exploded in England and expanded to the US in the 1890's. Early inland efforts (with Tom Dunn the unfortunate bete noire) were less then satisfactory by most accounts until Park Jr. stripped the heather at Sunningdale and Colt developed the turf and architecture to create the first inland masterpiece. The Golden Age as we know it was in response to the difficulties in adapting golf to inland locations where it became necessary to design and construct golf course features on land that was not naturally suited to golf. This became a much more elaborate affair as the design often meant clearing the land, installing drainage, irrigation and constructing most features including tees, hazards and greens using the latest developments in agronomy and earth moving equipment. This was a major leap in architecture as the "lay-out" of the holes was merged with planning and construction into an integrated process. That to me is what CBM meant by his claim that he was the first real Golf Architect even if I think Colt beat him to the punch at Swinley.

[Jason Thurman]

Flawed premise leads to flawed theory.  News at eleven.


Ross didn't move to the U. S. to become an architect.

Right, which is why my post clearly states:




"Despite my amusement, I'll admit that this sentiment is probably a bit unfair. I doubt Ross had any idea that he would someday become known as a course architect when he left for the US and I suspect his lack of work in Scotland has more to do with the fact that the Atlantic Ocean separated Ross the Very Busy American Architect from the British Isles."


Stick to copying and pasting, Sven. You're much better at that than you are at actually understanding what you're reading. As for Ross mailing it in, I get it. I just don't know why I'd go out of my way to play it.

[Niall C]

Flawed premise leads to flawed theory.  News at eleven.

Ross didn't move to the U. S. to become an architect.

Agreed. I think it unfair of Melvyn to criticise Ross for not doing much while in Scotland, presumably referring to course design, when there is no evidence to suggest he was trying to get in that line of business. As for the influence of Sutherland and Morris on Ross, what evidence is there that either had much if any influence on Ross with regards to GCA ? Did Old Tom employ Ross to work in his workshop or did he take him on as an apprentice golf course architect ?

As a professional golfer Ross played in several tournaments with the likes of JH Taylor, Willie Fernie and Archie Simpson, all noted architects of the era, but that doesn't mean they influenced him in any way on course design.

Niall

[Tony_Muldoon]

 
Thank you Melvyn, like others I thought your tone is this piece was balanced on the side of a passionate advocate, well done it made for an interesting read.
 
I would just add a few points in response.
 
1
 
You have previously sent me a cutting from the Scotsman(?) announcing works to be done at North Berwick and from memory 4 names were mentioned. Two of them being Old Tom and Hall Blythe? Does that add anything to your article or am I barking in the wrong forest? (I will continue looking for it, but changing computers has cost me.).
 
2
 
Old Tom was known for his generosity of spirit. In that vein would you not continue your research into the "First Golden Age of Golf Design"? I enjoy reading about your discoveries but don't see why I should worry about which was the true golden age.
 
3
 
You have two newspaper cuttings about Whitley Golf Club. The first 4/8/1890 announces the formation of the Club and says it will be of 9 holes "each of a sporting character." The second announces that the course opened on 10/10/1890. and you add that this indicates "the course two took months to design and build".  Even if you accept that the former means the course had been fully designed (which it only implies in a general sense) you can't conclude from this how long the work was in progress, whereas you imply its all one process. To be a bit anal about this, if the course had been fully designed prior to the annoucement on 4/8th and work was already in progress, then the process took longer than 2 months! But the two announcements prove neither argument.
 
I fully accept your general premise that its' a fallacy that courses were staked out Friday and opened Saturday and know that it will be hard to find irrefutable evidence in the majority of cases. But it does seem that's the task you've set yourself and you need to be careful what inferences you make.
 
Good luck with your researches.
 

 
 

[Sven Nilsen]

Flawed premise leads to flawed theory.  News at eleven.


Ross didn't move to the U. S. to become an architect.

Right, which is why my post clearly states:




"Despite my amusement, I'll admit that this sentiment is probably a bit unfair. I doubt Ross had any idea that he would someday become known as a course architect when he left for the US and I suspect his lack of work in Scotland has more to do with the fact that the Atlantic Ocean separated Ross the Very Busy American Architect from the British Isles."


Stick to copying and pasting, Sven. You're much better at that than you are at actually understanding what you're reading. As for Ross mailing it in, I get it. I just don't know why I'd go out of my way to play it.

Here's some more copying and pasting, the statement with which you followed up the quote above:

"Nevertheless, the fact remains that Melvyn is correct regarding the largely American body of work that Ross assembled, and it's at least a thought-provoking argument when Melvyn suggests Ross the Scot's lack of success in Scotland reinforces the thesis that Old Tom Morris and Allan Robertson deserve more accolades."

My reading comprehension skills normally include reading the entirety of a thought.  Seeing as the two sentences ran back to back, seems to me you meant them to be read in conjunction.

Stick to the NBA Jason, at least you know a modicum about all the players.

[Jason Thurman]

Yep, I stand by both statements. The insinuation that Ross didn't design in Scotland because his talent didn't measure up to Old Tom's or Allan Robertson's is probably unfair. I also found it interesting.


For the record, Ross is the Lenny Wilkens of golf design. An excellent playing career with a post-playing career characterized by extraordinary volume, a few very real highlights, and a thick portfolio of workmanlike but less-than-extraordinary work.

[Jim_Kennedy]

For the record, Ross is the Lenny Wilkens of golf design. An excellent playing career with a post-playing career characterized by extraordinary volume, a few very real highlights, and a thick portfolio of workmanlike but less-than-extraordinary work. - Jason Thurman

We all have our preferences, our likes and dislikes, but I honestly cannot say that I've ever met another person who would classify Ross this way - except Melyvn.   

[Jason Thurman]

Fair enough Jim. I just prefer the artistry of Mackenzie and Maxwell or the audacity of Raynor, personally. I admire the elegant and practical construction of Ross' features, and the sound strategic principles that guide his work. His routings always feel fantastically intuitive. But sometimes I just want a little more spice or flair. I actually find that I sometimes want a routing to go in an unintuitive direction - to take on a difficult piece of land in a way that doesn't make sense but turns out wonderfully. Ross rarely does that, in my experience. He rarely designs a bad hole, but also rarely gives me the feeling that I'm playing something I haven't seen before.


To tie this somewhat back to the original topic, I can't envision Ross ever designing something like Old Tom's Dell Hole at Lahinch. Ross is great, no doubt, but you could also argue that he was the first player-turned-architect to really embrace the modern concept of "fairness" and holes laid out in front of the golfer. I haven't played in the UK so I haven't seen an Old Tom Morris design, but it's interesting to me that he seems to have resisted the same impulse. Old Tom was a fantastic competitive player, and yet he still embraced the unpredictable architecture that so many strong players after him avoided in the interest of bolstering the strong player's ability to carefully plan and control his shots. Perhaps he had no choice working in all those rolling dunes without heavy machinery, or maybe he even spotted a competitive advantage in the complexity. He did win all four of his Opens on his own design at Prestwick, after all.

[Jim_Kennedy]

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f140/buffalogolfer/club/club6-4.jpg

[Jim_Kennedy]

[Jason Thurman]

[Mike_Young]

Melvyn,
I tend to lean toward Jason's thinking of Ross never intending to be identified in golf as a golf course architect.  Do you think Old Tom considered himself a golf architect?

[Tom_Doak]

For the record, Ross is the Lenny Wilkens of golf design. An excellent playing career with a post-playing career characterized by extraordinary volume, a few very real highlights, and a thick portfolio of workmanlike but less-than-extraordinary work.

A "few" highlights?  Ross' 50th best course is better than the single best design of most living architects.  His 100th best course might be, too.


You've taken the early lead in the "ridiculous post of the year" category.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()