Fit for Purpose in the Old Days

[Niall C]

"It is to be kept in view, too, that the links are to be laid out for use of a certain class of golfers. If all are beginners it is a mistake to make the course too difficult at first, as it will diminish their pleasure and possibly disgust them with the green: but as they get more expert the links can be made more difficult by lengthening the holes and similar devices

"On new greens which are of a rough nature, the holes should be made shorter to begin with, until the ground is walked down, and they can afterwards be lengthened by putting the tees further back: for, of course, the putting-greens cannot be removed save at great expense"

Both of the above quotes are by Willie Park Jnr from 1896. I find two things interesting about the above quotes, firstly the suggestion that many of these early designs were temporary in nature in so much as possible future changes were allowed for, and secondly the suggestion that courses were set out for specific class of golfers eg beginners. I would hazard a guess and say that many of Willie Parks thoughts and methods wouldn't have been too far different from his contemporaries like Fernie, Campbell and indeed Old Tom.

This particular era of golf course architecture of course latterly got knocked by the later golden age architects. Given the boom in golf at the time which mean't most players were beginners, do you think those comments are fair, or do you think that maybe these really old guys were simply laying courses that were fit for purpose. After all, how many golfers would there be now in America if every course back then was built like Pine Valley ? Would golf have survived ?

Thoughts ?

Niall 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

I am going from memory, but I recall reading somewhere that Old Tom replaced some of the gorse with turf at TOC and was roundly criticized for making the course much too easy to play. 

I have postulated often that the trend to making courses both playable and fair started the day the first course opened (and in the case of "fair" the day the first dollar/pound was lost on a golf bet, which had to be no later than the second day golf was played......)  Both have been a slow, ongoing battle and trend, and as our lives get easier, I think its only natural that golf got easier, too.  Not to mention, those frugal Scots had to be as non plussed at losing golf balls in general, and especially after hitting it where the golf course told them to!

[Peter Pallotta]

Niall - thanks much, what a good series of questions. Those quotes/ideas are new to me, and yet in one sense at least they are not surprising, i.e. I think that one of the most important things the golden age (as normally understood) ushered in was a self-conscious recognition/belief that what those GA architects were doing was in part 'art', and a worthy and potentially lasting one, and one based on principles and ideas/ideals that were worthy of discussion and analysis.  In other words, the GA architects took themeslves and their craft more seriously -- while I think the earlier architects, while knowing they were doing something good and decent and valuable, were less self-conscious about the work and more practical and utlitarian. I often use a musical/jazz analogy and I think it holds here: the first jazz men were mostly just making music, and music that people could dance too -- that's what they were being paid to do, and the better they did it the more they worked and got paid. It wasn't until after the war and then into the late 40s and early 1950s (and the 'study' of jazz, and the emerging schools) that jazz men like Monk and Gillespie and Davis and Coltrane etc recognized and embraced the fact that theirs was an important and uniquely american art form, worthy of respect and attention.

Peter  

[Niall C]

Jeff

I was thinking more of the relatively crude and simple nature of some of those early courses. Not to start up a Myopia debate here but the sort of simple course Campbell would have done at Myopia assuming that he did indeed lay out a course. A course that was relatively simple and crude by later standards. Crude in the way greens and tees were built, the way bunkers and other hazrads were laid out and generally the crudeness of how the course was kept. MacKenzie and others referred to it as the dark ages I believe. The point I'm trying to make being that these type of courses would have been adequate for the class of golfer in the 1890's but not for the more seasoned golfers of later years.

It strikes me that these guys never really thought they were producing the finished article when they were laying out a course and that to judge them on the standards of "finality" that MacKenzie preached is doing them a dis-service.

Peter

I think you're quite right, the golden age boys were able to build on the earlier standards and focus on thge artistic side of design where as the earlier architects seemed to be entirely ulitarian and practical in the way they went about their works.

Niall 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jeff

You have played TOC I presume therefore know first-hand the area as where the Whin was removed, thus seeing how that has helped play. The Victorian Ages designed courses not for Champion Status as that did not exist back then, they designed courses for the average golfer in mind.

It took general 3months to design and course prior to it being opened, then many reports have been published stating that with much use over the next 12 months or so the course will improve with usage. Also remember that hazards (usually bunkers) were added after the course had opened some 3-6 months afterwards. After the first year it would become obvious which holes would  require modified to accommodate and/or to bypass the poorly drained fairways due to either exceptional or normal weather conditions.

On top of all this the cost to open a course was paid for by the local club members, money was in short supply, so land to lease was also limited and hence why many started off around 9 Holes in length.

The sportiness of the course was what attracted new Members and new members meant money and prosperity for the club which would - as soon as possible – invest in a Club House. AS the clubs prospered they extended to 18 holes or sought sites with that potential, yet no course was complete, never to be modified again on the Opening Day.

The Scottish System while desperately short of money but with massive of interest from local people spilling over into Town Council, who also from an early start noticed the benefit to its town the community at large. 

I would add one further point, the courses were not as basic or crude as some seem to believe. The New Course at St Andrews had all its Green re-turfed from the start, not by labourers but guys (the Coburn Brothers) who knew their business and went on to do wonders at other clubs. Other clubs also underwent many changes before they formally open the door officially. The Victorian Courses were not as basic as you may think, certainly not to the standard we expect to day, as that standard did not exist.

The Dark Ages is actually a very ignorant term to use and actually speaks volumes of the individual who used it. To this day my surprise in looking at the History of Golf is why these so called Golden Age Architects though so poorly of their predecessors, when if we study the mid Victorian Designers we seek innovation, the addressing an age old problems with a total fresh insight understood I presume from being able to play the game with some consistency with the introduction of the gutty.

There is still more to publish on the Victorian Age Designers - The Real Golden Age Guys.

Melvyn   

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

No doubt they were not producing a finished product as is demanded today.  I have a 1960's era copy of the NGF planning and building the golf course book, gleaned from many articles.  Even then, the idea that you got the basic course open and added bunkers, drainage, etc., improved turf as you could, was in vogue.

Also no doubt that the great wealth the USA amassed after best surviving WWII accelerated the rate of change, and the demand for ever more completed product at opening day.

Melvyn,

Thanks for the input on TOC.  I don't look at any aspect of TOC as being the dark ages.  It has been at or near the forefront of most golf design movements since it was opened.  There have been many trends and countertrends at almost any time in the history of golf course development, and we are talking about over 500 years of history there.

Philosophically, I wonder if the GA guys really dissed the Scots, who they were trying to emulate as much as the literally hundreds of golf courses built by all types in the 1890's in the US (I think there were 907 by 1900, trying to recall a TMac stat correctly)

Oddly, some of the Scot pros who did early USA layouts were quite geometric, when they came from a great tradition of golf design.  Is it not a natural question to ask as to why they went away from their classic roots?  Is that not a valid criticism from the GA guys, even if most of why they wrote it was to sell their own "brand?"

Just a New Year's thought.

[Niall C]

Jeff

When I referred to the some of the design as being crude I was actually referrng to the geometric design elements. Crude in that there was no attempt to make the work appear natural. I don't think the Golden Age guys were specifically slagging off the Scots its just that a lot if not most of these early guys were Scots. The courses like TOC that the golden age boys seemed to think so highly off kind of evolved I would suggest and that much of the formations on there that make it interesting are natural.

I think there problem was with the courses which weren't laid out on ideal links turf but on relatively flat inland ground. Many of the features eg. green, tees, bunkers would have to have been formed and probably would have been geometric. At least thats the way I read it. Geometric or not they still would have served a function. After all video was wonderful and until someone invented DVD's.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

It is a wonder how some could go so backwards from what they must have seen at the best courses in Scotland.  Maybe then never travleld to TOC?  If they had seen those links courses, even having perhaps grown up on inland courses, either there are a lot of long remodeled GBI courses that were geometric, or they ignored the more natural features that had evolved on the best courses.

It is worth noting that CBM was even somewhat geometrical in copying the links, although old photos show nowhere near as much as Seth Raynor was in his later interpretations.  For Raynor, perhaps we can blame his engineering background.

It may be related that the geometric vs natural debate occurred roughly the same time in road and city planning, with even such hilly cities as San Fran getting the grid pattern, when its seems patently obvious that fitting the city to the hillsides would have been much, much better.

For whatever reason, it appears the geometric had to hard a hold on 19th century American design, but it boggles the modern mind to figure out why it took CBM and later golden agers to fight it in golf, Ohmstead to fight it in city planning and later, Wright to try to "beat the box" in architecture.

I am sure someone has studied those phenomenoms in those other fields, but I haven't seen much in golf.

[Niall C]

Jeff

I like to think of these early guys as being like the first cave painters, well before someone learned the trick of painting using perspective.

As for why it took so long for golf courses to be created in a more natural form, thats a very good question. Perhaps it was because golf was the first sport where the playing area wasn't formed in any sort of rigid or set layout ?

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Niall,

The real mystery to me is how it went from natural to geometric and back.  Others wonder how it went from natural, to increasingly man made and now is starting back the other way.  It is a process, influenced by technology and culture (the man made part) but for the life of me, I still don't understand the influences of the early Scot pros who seemingly forgot all they had seen.

Perhaps the "new world" mentality, or the idea that links were made natural, but as golf moved inland they had to be built was predominant.  And by built, it meant "regular form" like cities.  I just don't understand the thought process they employed.

Your comparison of cave art is apt.  Most endeavors start out intuitive, and get more scientific, as the world around gets more scientific.  You wuold think pure art would be immune, but it isn't.  The one constant of human evolution is moving forward.

I wonder if there are art historians out there clamoring for artists to draw without perspective, because it is somehow more "pure" to ignore all that has been learned, and do it the old way?

[Niall C]

Jeff

I suppose the answer why these early guys didn't produce "natural" looking courses is maybe because they simply weren't attempting to. Maybe they were just designing an interesting and challenging obstacle course. After all golf is just a game and what other game/sport utlises nature or art to the extent golf does now. For instance when was the last time you saw a "natural" looking baseline on a tennis court ? I suppose the wonder is that golf didn't go the other way and adopt a more rigid format for its courses.

Niall

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sorry, I do not agree with your view of past designers, I feel you are showing a clear lack of basic understanding of the history, not to mention engineering ability of that time.

Bruce started trying to reclaim land from the sea. The barges he fill with boulders are shown on the photo below and are located to the left of The British Golf Museum adjacent the Car Park. Old Tom continued the process on his return to St Andrews and through his efforts was able to widen the fairways between the West Sands and his Shop allowing for the two independent fairways and new holes for the 1st & 18th Holes on TOC.

So much for no earth moving or understanding topography pre 1890’s

Land Recovered from the Sea

 
The barges are under the sand to the right of the bench in the following photo

 
Water colour of the 1st & 18th Fairways pre 1890 Showing the work undertaken by OTM to the side confronting The West Sands

 
Aerial shot of the whole area today


This was also the age of major engineering works with the railways carving itself through our landscape, hill and rivers. The Forth Road Bridge was opened in 1890
 

So please tell me why do so many people believe that the Victorian Age when discussing Golf is meant to be so slow and backward, when in reality it was far from that – it was a great Golden Age for Golf and much about the game was firmed up by the time the Haskell ball arrived. Earth was moved, new Greens stripped and resurfaced with turf before the course opened and placing of bunkers when it became aware of the clubs Membership ability to play the game. Thus wasting no money in correctly siting said bunkers.
 
WE still need to understand the past to help us move forward, never underestimate the ability and intelligence of past generations, because we were supposed to have learnt from them.

Melvyn

[Jeff_Brauer]

Melvyn,

We are referring only to the backwards steps that were obviously taken in some parts of America after the start in Scotland.  We are not speaking of any universal truth about the whole age.  I have stated that there are always trends and counter trends in design, not one universal truth that summarizes perfectly an era.  I also realize the net result of those varying trends is slow forward progress.

Thanks for the photos and reminders.  Having studied railways a bit, I have been amazed at how much earth they could move in those endeavors in the 1860's and forward.  Golf course earthmoving pales by comparison in almost any era, but especially back then in most cases, probably because the economics of railroads, which were kings of the economy, were so vastly superior.

It is interesting that the start of the old course is built on reclaimed land.  It can add that to its list of firsts!

[Niall C]

Melvyn

Was the construction of the Bruce Embankment an attempt at golf course design even in part ? I think at best you would call it a widening of the playing area, no ? Also the widening of the first and eighteenth fairways produced the flatest part of the golf course as evidenced in those aerials maybe supports the suggestion that it wasn't a particulalry successful attempt to reproduce "nature" if indeed there was any attempt to reproduce a natural looking playing surface, fair comment ?

In any case I think what we are discussing here is not ancient links courses where golf evolved over ideal land for golf but new flat sites which required new construction to provide the golf course and the form of that new construction. If you recall the simple routing plan of the Kelvinside course that Old Tom and Willie Fernie laid out, they utilised existing features such as roads, rail tracks and indeed slag heaps to provide interesting obstacles and to define strategy. Now arguably thats true minamilism 

Niall 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Niall

The first phase under Bruce is difficult to say but it was to encompass and protect The new R&A Club House. As for the second phase, undertaken by Old Tom most certainly as it allowed the 1 &18th Holes to be redesigned which I feel reflected most significantly upon the impact of the TOC in the 19th Century. Although much soil was moved, far more than many will understand, this is still the era that later designers describe as the Dark Ages and who apparently achieved little.

The Bruce Embankment gave the world TOC as we know it today, it opened out the course to play in its current reverse mode and add to this the double Greens and wide fairways,  transformed TOC into THE Course all wanted to copy.  Remember read the old reports when clubs wanted to expand to 18, TOC was the model, certainly not Musselburgh which was still only a 9 hole course. Then there was the constant battles against Nature to try and keep the Double Greens facing the Eden Estuary from being washed away after each storm. Thanks to OTM works between the 1860-1880’s at this end of the course helped the Eden to silt up allowing the Greens to survive. Again how much earth was moved, who knows but it was in the name of Golf and design and maintenance of the course.

I feel that we need to think carefully before we jump to support comments from the likes of T Simpson. We should perhaps seek out the courses which still retain much of the work of OTM and others. Compare the crude line drawings with of the day with the real routing and final course design, remembering James Braid dislike of changing a design just to stamp his name on the course. Thanks to James Braid much of the 19th century Designers work is still available to be seen as he believed that if it is not broken it does not need mending.

WE do history an injustice by not accepting that these guys were more switched on about golf than many a later or modern designer. They live their lives in the boom time of Golf, they did not just utilised many of the design feature we still use today, the bloody invented it. Yet they did it for the good of the game and we are still talking about some of their designs to this day i.e. The Road Hole, The Redan Hole - this list just keeps going on and on.    These 19th century Designers knew their business, more so than the late 1920-30 guys who were given it on a silver plate.

Melvyn

[Niall C]

Melvyn

There's no doubt that the early guys could shift earth and lay turf with the best of them even with the limitations of only using manual labour but what I'm talking about is the design element and that was what Simpson et al were talking about also. If one of the golden age boys (or indeed a modern day architect) had been involved in what is now the first fairway it would probably have a fair bit more "rumple" and probably a bunker or two all in the cause of making it look more "natural" and adding strategy.

With regards to Old Tom courses, which ones would you say still have enough of Old Tom still in them to be able to consider his worth as a designer ? I'll nominate Killermont which pretty well has the same routing and the same hole strategies from Old Tom's design. Indeed where they have lengthened the course by moving tees back it has been to the detriment of the individual holes IMO. Overall I think the routing makes the best use of the land however what makes the course as much fun to play now is the fact that a number of the par 4's are driveable, a slightly dog-leg par 3 which originally was a short par 4 as well as other half par holes. Some would probably see that as a weakness but personally I see it as a positive, however its hard to give Old Tom the credit for something that has come about because of advances in technology.

As for Braid, thats the first time I've read anything about him being shy at tweaking a course. The man was a one man industry when it came to designing and building bunkers. I would hazard a guess that the majority of courses in the central belt of Scotland have Braids finger prints on them somewhere which is saying something given that he lived most of his life at the other end of the country.

Your point on the template holes is a good one however how much of it was the architect creating something and how much was it them largely taking advantage of a natural landform ? Granted both require design input but certainly easier to work with whats there when its rolling linksland than when its flat or gently undulating farmland.

Niall 

 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Niall

WE have reports that the 19th Century Guys did not do that or could not do this, yet we seem to have instances of the very thing they did not apparently do being done.

AS for design element Simpson & Co learnt it from the previous generation, developing and expand it probably, but he just took it to is next stage. AS for your comment I feel you are looking at modern photos and presuming that they have never been changed yet is that not the very thing that we are discussing. What makes you feel changes have not been made, again should we not look to all the old holes that survive then judge not just base it upon Killermont. Anyway we were not privy to the exact nature of the brief that the club requested and we must also remember to think within the appropriate Timelines.

AS for Old Tom he used many turf dykes on his inland courses to mimic the contours of the links courses. Over the years these have either been removed or just a shadow of their former selves. The point I am making in that HE DID think and PLAN along these terms and it was not just the likes of Simpson and co 30-50 years later. So I feel in OTM case he certainly was ahead of many later designer bearing in mind that there was not much else before him to let him make temples. It’s difficult to say but looking to OTM course perhaps Bridge of Allan (http://www.bofagc.com/ ) might be a starting point. Don’t forget which ever course you are looking at is with your 21st Century Golfing Experience, perhaps a Hickory game may bring you more in-line with past trends and course performance.

AS for Braid, it is a well known fact about his reaction to existing sites. Some today believe he took a fee for doing very little on existing courses apart from pulling back the Tees and some minor suggestions to changes to the hazards. There is a report of his trip up to Brora in the 1920’s  when he received a fee for£25 for part of a days work. That the design that is still more or less played upon to this date. Before I go into the short report I believe that Brora of today is more or less closer to the Sutherland 18 hole design than the Braid design of 1920’s. I also believe that OTM accompanied Sutherland to Brora and there set up a course around the 1880’s when he was working on Dornoch. There are comments of golf being played there before the formation of Brora as a formal golf club, but Brora Golf Club course was designed by Sutherland of Dornoch.

Right back to the extract from the article;
It has been said that there are two very good reasons to visit Brora in the very north of Scotland beyond even Dornoch itself. The first is the famous fishing tackle shop and the second a distillery that produces the Clynelish Malt Whisky. Golfers worth their salt know that, convincing as both reasons undoubtedly are, there is yet a third for which to venture this far north.

The links of the Brora Golf Club form one of the finest examples of Scotland’s rich heritage of lesser known golf courses to which those who would be true to their golfing souls have to make a pilgrimage at least once in their lifetime.

Apart from being a perfect base for a tour of the golf delights of the Highlands, Brora offers traditional links golf that has changes very little since James Braid was called in to upgrade the golf course in the 1920’s. The Five times Open Champion took the train north to Brora from London, walked the course accompanied by Mr A W Sutherland, a member of the committee and returned south on the next train.

The master architect’s fee for his trouble was £25, plus of course his expenses, and the resulting upgrade of the layout was probably the best investment the Brora Golf Club made after it was founded in 1891 when Old Tom travelled not quite so far from St Andrews to lay out the original first few holes.

(Excerpt from Chapter 5 Brora Scotland’s Hidden Gems from the book ‘Scottish Golf Book’ by Malcolm Campbell).

I was at The Royal North Devon Golf Club last September where Braids name was mentioned and to my shock many reports seemed to confirm that this was his MO when upgrading a course where he spent little time there but took a big fee. Many believed this was more a standard that an exception on upgrades although on new he was more hands on.  As for my opinion re Braid I feel obliged to him for leaving so many of OTM Greens, hazards and holes intact.

I sometimes wonder if the likes of CBM, Ross, Braid, Colt or even the Dr. A Mackenzie would have played golf let alone considered designing courses if it was not for the work of the likes of Allan Robertson, Old Tom Morris, George Morris and Charlie Hunter. Once the basics have been established its easy to continue moving forwards, even if it means utilising hundreds of template holes which in itself send out an interesting message that they seem to get a lot more than just right if we still have to keep copying them.

Melvyn

[RSLivingston_III]

Great tread, everything I expect GCA.com to be. I look forward to wrapping this information with some theories involving the B&I and re-addressing it for the group to beat up on.

[Niall C]

Ralph

Welcome to the party, so far its just me Melvyn and Jeff. Look forward to reading your comments.

Melvyn

I think we probably agree on quite a lot here. Firstly, that the golden agers probably learned more from the early guys, either consciously or subconsciously, than some of them would admit. Secondly, I am very conscious of the danger of looking at 19th century courses through the prism of 21st century thinking. Thats what this thread is about really. In evolutionary terms its arguable that the leap from 1890's design to golden age design was probably greater than from the golden age to the present day, and that the golden agers were perhaps guilty of judging the early guys on the wrong basis. Just a thought.

Your comments on turf dykes is a good illustration of the point. Old Tom was presumably mimicking the function of hazards as found on the links while golden agers also developed how these hazards looked.

The problem I find however with understanding the early guys work is finding examples of it still in existence. I mentioned the example of Killermont because we know what Old Tom did, we know what Braid did in the arly 1920's which was a redo of the bunkering, and we know what Dave Thomas and son did in recent years which again was redoing the bunkering. Apart from that its had little alterations done which makes it worth looking at as an example of Old Tom's work. However it is one of Old Tom's last courses and at least in routing terms is more akin to modern design with a complete absence of crossing holes and routing which comes back to the clubhouse midway through the design.

I've not played Bridge of Allan but will try and give it a look see over the next wee while.

Brora - I note Malcolm Campbells report however the earliest comment I have on the course is an article (from 1892 off the top of my head) including plan of John Sutherland laying out a nine hole course which he extended to 18 holes a few years later. The initial nine hole routing at least goes clockwise while the course, as designed by Braid, now plays counter clockwise so unless Sutherland completey rerouted the entire course in extending it, its very much a Braid design.

Braid - I think its entirely likely that Braid visited clubs and walked the course and gave them a bunkering plan all in one day. I've seen a copy of the one he did for Killermont and it not only plots the position of the bunkers but gives brief description how he wanted them to be built ie. height etc. Bear in mind also that he almost always used J.R. Stutt to undertake the work which would have made things easier. BTW, how would you classify Braid, early guy or golden ager ?

Niall

[Melvyn Morrow]

Niall

Yes I think we do agree on many points.

The strange thing for me is the amount of copies or template holes shipped all over GB and the world by the 1895, be it via Scottish immigrants or designers called into assist and to develop the game in these area. If CBM utilised them on his NGLA, then clearly they were use much far afield than just GB proving that there must have been much merit in both the design and play of these holes. So if template holes were utilised back then that would go a long way in giving credit to the original designer(s) who produce many of these said holes pre 1880, knocking the criticism of the late Golden Age Architects, or the very least proving that many talked thorough their backsides. Why copy something that was considered as basic, unimaginative as T Simpson stated Their imagination took them no further than the inception of flat gun-platform greens, invariably oblong, round or square, supported by railway embankment sides or batters . .   

Something does not seem to ring true, why first of all call Holes like The Road Hole or the Redan great holes  – then perhaps Redan was not rated highly by Simpson and Co because it was considered by one or two to resemble a gun platform. Actually should we not be questioning Simpson for his total arrogance and clearly lack of understand when it comes to design and certainly the history of Golf Course Design.

Template holes disprove many of the so called Golden Age Architect understand let alone knowledge of their industry and clearly questions should be asked of their motives. 

As for Brora all I have re the 1906 extension is the following article from The Scotsman



As for Braid, I like him. My guts say he is pre Golden Age but my heart screams that is should be considered a true Golden Age Designer and certainly not an architect. I leave that title to Colt who is far to clinical than the warm blooded golfer and designer that was Braid.

MY point has always been that real DESIGNERS lived and practised their art in the 19th Century. They did it well as many of their basic ideas are still with us 150 years later. Their designs have been copied and exported to all the corners of the Earth so why do Simpson and Co dislike their predecessors so much. Could it be that they realised that they were using many of the ideas and plans previously used by the likes of Old Tom and others at a time when Templates were regarded as simple coping the ideas of others?

MY take is that each generation hopefully adds to the greater knowledge; however this is difficult to maintain if some in a generation seek to destroy the reputation of long dead guys for their own ends or hide their embarrassment.

Some more photos posted on another topic but relating to The Bruce Embankment and the amount of soil moved to create todays finished photo (last one below)
The Bruce Embankment

The Reclaimed Bruce Embankment – 19th Century Designers never moved much soil. The facts are that many still do not know what they did for GCA.

An Aerial photo of The Bruce Embankment at the turn of the 21st Century   

 
Melvyn

[David_Tepper]

Love the line "visitors generally had complained about the unfair nature of some of the holes."

Nice to see that not much has changed about golfers in 100 years!