Terrific find, Sven.
Perhaps TB didn't want to give away trade secrets or perhaps the article was written as froth for a non-golfing readership, but TB's discussion of the factors he considered when laying out a course strikes me as fairly rudimentary. He places great weight on hole lengths, as Victorian designers once did. Discussion of other design issues is pretty thin. For example, his concerns about bunker placement seem to turn on the impact that bunkers have on speed of play. Odd.
By 1919 there had been a great deal written about gca, including bunker placement. Low, CBM, Taylor, Simpson, Travis, Colt, Fowler - all the usual suspects - addressed the topic. TB's discussion sounds like a throwback to an earlier era, as if the two preceding decades of thinking about gca had not happened. But again, perhaps I am being unfair and the piece is not representative of his thinking.
Bob
Bob:
A couple of quick points:
- His thoughts in the article on bunkering and speed of play related solely to the first hole, with the idea of getting players going on the course. I think its fair to assume that he espoused the idea of easing you into the round. I'd also suggest that outside of his thoughts on the lengths of holes for the first few holes (as noted in the article), he was much less constrained in his use of the land than some of his contemporaries, who espoused ideal lengths for all 18. Where CBM and Raynor had to fit 18 separate puzzle pieces on to a piece of property (something they were very good at), Bendelow seems to follow a simple pattern for starting the course, and then lets the land dictate the rest. My guess is that if his simple formula wouldn't work, he'd find another alternative.
- If there was one major point I took away from this read it is that Bendelow tried to work with what the land gave him. Instead of forcing cross bunkers or symmetrical features on to the land, he discusses identifying natural hazards and using them to their best advantage. The one major constraint that he did put on the project was locating the clubhouse first, which very well could have precluded finding the very best 18 holes possible.
- For the most part, Bendelow wasn't building courses for those with deep pockets. Most of his work was for municipalities spending tax dollars or clubs with limited budgets in small towns. As evidenced by the fees he collected, there was a great deal of economy in his methods. This extended to creating a design that could be easily implemented by the club upon his departure (give another read to the instruction letter for Marsettawa posted earlier in the thread).
- I believe this was very much a fluff piece, and it doesn't surprise me that they asked Bendelow to participate as he was still considered the leading expert in the field at this point.
You seem to suggest that Bendelow's design philosophies didn't evolve, that he was stuck in the "Victorian" mode. I'd recommend you play (or read up on) Olympia Fields South, a course built in the middle of his career, and let me know if you still feel the same way. If there was anyone who saw the game of golf change over the years, it was TB. From changes in design philosophies, to changes in equipment, he was at the forefront of the game on many fronts (there were probably very few people who saw as many or more courses than him), and would have been very aware of how architecture was evolving. Like many of his contemporaries, Bendelow was also a student of the great holes from abroad, having seen them as a youth and having made at least one visit back to Scotland over the years.
I keep coming back to that early Travis article where he discusses the Willie Dunn school and Bendelow as the successor to Dunn's methods. I think that article sells his abilities and accomplishments short, or simply highlights the most basic projects he worked on. There are holes and features he constructed still on the ground at many of his courses that suggest he could find interesting holes without having to utilize a Victorian bunker scheme, that he understood how to use elevation changes to their most compelling use and that he could build greens that contained a great deal of interest. The 6th and 7th holes at OFCC South by themselves should be enough to convince anyone that his work was up there with the other greats of this era.
Sven