[Tom_Doak]

Was reading one of my lesser-known books today . . . THE BOOK OF THE LINKS, 2nd edition 1950 . . . and stumbled across this passage from the Introduction, by Bernard Darwin:


"We so often see a committee torturing itself to get their course, as they think, more worthy of distinguished visitors, only to find those visitors, at any rate in summer-time, getting home with a drive and a pitch as easily and contemptuously as ever.  The policy of stretching holes and courses to their utmost has gone as far as it can without having really achieved its end.  If the fact of there being less money to spend on green keeping now puts a check on it, so much, to my mind, the better."

[Ben Sims]

A lot to think about there. I’m trying to unpack it and this is what I came up with:  Courses inanely lengthen holes even though players can still get home with a simple pitch shot. There’s no end to the march of distance in the game. One good byproduct of these changes is less money for green keeping.


That about cover it?


I can’t say he was off by much. The distance stuff speaks for itself. But in regard to renovations, seems a lot of them are interested in jacking up the visual interest and that results in additional maintenance. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily result in reduced green keeping standards now does it?

[Tom_Doak]

A lot to think about there. I’m trying to unpack it and this is what I came up with:  Courses inanely lengthen holes even though players can still get home with a simple pitch shot. There’s no end to the march of distance in the game. One good byproduct of these changes is less money for green keeping.

That about cover it?

I can’t say he was off by much. The distance stuff speaks for itself. But in regard to renovations, seems a lot of them are interested in jacking up the visual interest and that results in additional maintenance. Of course, that doesn’t necessarily result in reduced green keeping standards now does it?

His comment about "less money to spend on green keeping" stemmed not from the cost of renovations, but from the comment being made in the UK in 1950, when the postwar recovery did not leave clubs a lot of $ to get greens running at 12 on the yet-to-be-invented Stimpmeter.


He was hoping the lack of stupid money would put a stop to further lengthening of courses, if I am reading this correctly.


Unfortunately, there is oodles of stupid money floating around the top clubs in the USA and in the UK nowadays.  Darwin might not be pleased.

[Phil Young]

Tom, if building a new tee behind the existing one to simply lengthen the hole is what he is talking about, and that is how it appears to me, how is that a renovation, especially if the holes he is referring to, are still being played in the same fashion with a drive and pitch?
      Not having a copy of this book, does he go further and suggest that a better way to address the problem as he sees it to be addressing the "policy of stretching holes and courses to their utmost has gone as far as it can without it having really achieved its end."
      I highlighted the last part because, based only on what you've quoted from the book, is it possible that he is trying to encourage clubs to spend their money in a wiser manner by redesigning the hole(s) that evidently have become far too easy for the "distinguished visitors" who view them "as contemptuously as ever?" Wouldn't that be the end that he wants to see achieved?

[Tom_Doak]

Phil:


I suppose he could have been saying what you have in mind.


My interpretation was that he thought clubs were wasting money on a losing battle [chasing length] that had no impact on their members' enjoyment of the courses anyway.

[Simon Barrington]

Very interesting and timely quotation from the past.

This is a time where the "Small Ball" (1.62") flew further than the "Large Ball" (1.68") especially when windy.
(Recall Hogan famously adapted to win the 1953 Open at Carnoustie using the "Small Ball")

Also Fairway Irrigation was far less prevalent in the UK than the US back then.

So perhaps the chase for protection from length was more accute in the UK at that time?

I agree that the quote is pretty damning (in a classically British understated way) of Green Committee's having far too much money burning a hole in their pockets, and that certainly is the case now post Covid-Boom and VAT Refunds from Govt.

British Golf Clubs have seldom had such a good cash position, and we are seeing considerable spending being made, but not always on the things that matter, and often this is spending which challenges the heritage and unique design of courses.

When money is scarce better (more considered) decision making occurs, by necessity.

[Ronald Montesano]

I don't understand this interpretation

"One good byproduct of these changes is less money for green keeping."

of this quote

"If the fact of there being less money to spend on green keeping now puts a check on it, so much, to my mind, the better."

with the "it" meaning the lengthening of holes.

My read was that there simply was little money for greenkeeping (which may or may not have been a positive for Darwin) at the time, which placed an indirect check on the lengthening of courses. I interpreted the words to mean that greenkeeping should come before renovation/lengthening.

[Ben Sims]

I can see my error in comprehending what Darwin was on about. And like all great golf writers, he *was* on about something.


Theres certainly a hyper-liquidity moment happening in golf. I think it can be beneficial in some ways, but in other ways perhaps not. I hope this sudden ability of many clubs to capitalize on their desire for relevancy doesn’t take negative toll on the courses themselves.

[Sean_A]

I don't understand this interpretation

"One good byproduct of these changes is less money for green keeping."

of this quote

"If the fact of there being less money to spend on green keeping now puts a check on it, so much, to my mind, the better."

with the "it" meaning the lengthening of holes.

My read was that there simply was little money for greenkeeping (which may or may not have been a positive for Darwin) at the time, which placed an indirect check on the lengthening of courses. I interpreted the words to mean that greenkeeping should come before renovation/lengthening.

That’s how I read it. Just maintain the course and stop mucking about with changes. Less money may resolve the issue as Darwin sees it. He’s not wrong. It’s human nature to change things and that happens when money is available.


Ciao

[Richard Fisher]

Here Darwin is continuing a theme he expounds on p197 of Golf Between Two Wars (1944), describing attempts to lengthen Aberdovey significantly for a Welsh Amateur Championship (1936, probably, or perhaps 1931) and being rendered dull as a result 'and much of the old charm had gone'. A players' revolution caused the plans to be abandoned 'and the course was restored to its original extent, to the general content'. BD had been lamenting the 'decline of the second shot', it's good to remember, since the advent of the rubber-cored ball...

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Darwin wrote this more than 100 years ago.


"Longer drives foster longer courses, longer courses foster longer drives, the two are interrelated and that relationship is cyclical."

[Tim Gavrich]

By "distinguished visitors," was Darwin referring to general visiting golfers or competitive ones? I take him to mean the latter.


It's interesting how in many respects the best aspects of course renovations - bunker reduction, water reduction - came out of the Recession. Some of what is being built and done now reminds me of the early- and mid-Oughts, but with sounder strategy and different-shaped bunkers.

[Niall C]

If you read the full introduction you get a better idea of the context. Darwin had written the Introduction for the first edition of the book 17 years before in 1933. He refers to that in the 1950 introduction and he goes on to discuss the changes since 1933; the improvement in scoring; and some of the reasons for it eg. "in 1933 the steel shaft was only 4 years old; it has improved since then and men have mastered it more thoroughly."


Darwin is making the argument that over the period as play got better, largely due to equipment, courses correspondingly got longer in an attempt to maintain the challenge which in his view was a wasted effort. He refers to the "perennial striving after length in courses is a vain thing, and that interest and pleasure are more worth having." That's why he's glad of the forced austerity caused by WWII.


While agreeing with Darwin that "interest and pleasure" are the things to be valued more than length, I can't help feeling if it wasn't for the desire to "improve" and stretch courses that the golden age of gca would have been very much stifled during the 1920's and 30's.


Niall   

[Simon Barrington]

If you read the full introduction you get a better idea of the context. Darwin had written the Introduction for the first edition of the book 17 years before in 1933. He refers to that in the 1950 introduction and he goes on to discuss the changes since 1933; the improvement in scoring; and some of the reasons for it eg. "in 1933 the steel shaft was only 4 years old; it has improved since then and men have mastered it more thoroughly."

Darwin is making the argument that over the period as play got better, largely due to equipment, courses correspondingly got longer in an attempt to maintain the challenge which in his view was a wasted effort. He refers to the "perennial striving after length in courses is a vain thing, and that interest and pleasure are more worth having." That's why he's glad of the forced austerity caused by WWII.

While agreeing with Darwin that "interest and pleasure" are the things to be valued more than length, I can't help feeling if it wasn't for the desire to "improve" and stretch courses that the golden age of gca would have been very much stifled during the 1920's and 30's.
Niall

Great context Niall.

[Thomas Dai]

Suggests having access to money can be a bad thing?
If so it’s something I believe has been said herein too.


Atb

[Tony Ristola]

Phil:


I suppose he could have been saying what you have in mind.


My interpretation was that he thought clubs were wasting money on a losing battle [chasing length] that had no impact on their members' enjoyment of the courses anyway.

I'd concur with that.


The average guy today probably doesn't hit it much further than in 1950, especially as courses then weren't irrigated and they were using the small ball.



He'd have a cardiac today.


I'd be curious if men like him would have scolded the governing bodies for letting it all get so absurd.


Would be interesting to have listened to him discussing this with Dr. Mackenzie had he been around... for he commented about allowing room for future lengthening.

[Niall C]

Tony


For a large part of his golfing history Darwin was part of the governing body.


Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()