GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
GCA WINTER BOOK CLUB TOPIC 1: RELEVANCY!
Tim Gallant:
It is finally here! Welcome to the first topic related to our GCA Winter Book Club selection: The Links by Robert Hunter
Before we get into the topic, I have to say that I really enjoyed reading the book, and on a second read, I felt there was a lot of thought-provoking ideas, theories and statements. It seems to me that Mr. Hunter was not a shy guy, and was quite sure in his convictions.
In terms of his prose, I found the book to be easy reading, and the language that he used to explain complex subjects to be quite simple. I’d be interested to know how you found the book purely from an enjoyment perspective - was it a fun read, or did it feel like a struggle?
Right! Now onto the good part. The discussion!
The Edition I have is from 1926, and a lot of what Hunter wrote about felt applicable today, but some things have certainly moved on, and we now live in a completely different world than the one that the author lived in when he penned The Links. Not just in terms of golf course architecture, but what we expect from golf and how we interact with the sport has changed.
Therefore, I thought we could intro our discussions with the following question:
What relevancy do the writings of Mr. Hunter in The Links have on golf and golf course architecture in 2020?
To kick off discussions, I have just a couple (edited way down), of interesting points that relate to my question of relevancy.
* On page 37, Hunter states ‘I have watched architects struggling desperately to get yardage and in order to get it, sacrificing without compunction holes of real quality. In today’s race to extend classic courses, I believe this is still a relevant observation
* I’ve been a broken record on this point for a while, but here is the quote from Hunter on page 43: To arouse this zest, each hole should have a character of its own. Its physiognomy should be quite distinct from that of its neighbours, and it should be one not easy to forget. Its personality should awaken your interest and cause you to question how best to approach it. Preach Robert!
* Hunter’s words on the UK’s links courses is still relevant and true: We should, however, not forget that some higher Power presides over links-land, and to those inclined to be critical that Power hands down an ultimatum much like this: There is the green which generation after generation has played. There are its pronounced slopes, its sharp ridges, its blind approach, and its other violations of your so-called sound principles. However lamentable all this may be, there it lies, and shall lie. Play it or leave it as you like.
* Hunter describes some bunkers as being there to help players avoid a worse fate. Do we give this enough attention? With the above being true, I also believe there are a number of statements that are made that I don’t feel should be taken literally, but maybe more just as a guideline.
* Hunter objects to hidden bunkers. I think hidden bunkers need to be more relevant today as it creates doubt.
* Hunter states on page 41 that the last holes should be the most demanding and difficult. I’m not sure I agree. I believe you should take what the land gives instead of trying to fit difficult holes into a certain part of the round. Overall flow is more important that demanding placement of holes.
* Page 67, Hunter states ‘three-fourths of the area (on greens) should be made available for cutting the hole.’ Hogwash! Give me #4 at Sandwich, or give me death! Also, I’m ok with aiming outside the hole on 3 footers (See Oakmont & Myopia)Now over to you! I’m excited to hear what others thought as it relates to the above, and more general observations. What feels particularly relevant today? What feels dated? What did you like that he wrote? What jarred with you? Calling to all those who responded in the initial thread, it would be fantastic to hear from lots of people. Especially if you didn’t like the book or some disagree with some particular statement, it would be worth debating!
Blake and Kye will follow with two additional topics in the coming weeks, so if you are disappointed by the first topic, fear not! Wiser words are on the horizon!
Now away we go!!
Colin Macqueen:
Tim,
You quote Hunter " ....some higher power presides over linksland ..... However lamentable all this may be, there it lies and shall lie..."
I was intrigued by this passage as it smacks of Behr's philosophy of Nature being very much a part of good golf architecture and the way Hunter writes this is very "Behr-esque".
Hunter also seems to be channeling Behr when he writes we need to " ......mould all over this golf course landscapes to refresh the soul as well as suitable playgrounds for the devotees of this noble game."
And again when Hunter talks about sea-side versus inland golf "...the sportsman when battling with Nature makes no complaint. But immediately he is faced with problems of a human origin, he feels justified, if he finds them too difficult, in turning upon their creator with murder in his heart." Pure Behr in my opinion!
There are others and I wonder if Hunter and Behr did have communications and resorted to "beard-pulling" over a whisky or two! They were certainly in exactly the same era so not impossible. Does anyone on the forum know of any interaction between the two?
Cheers Colin
Tom_Doak:
Forst, I had forgotten what a wonderful writer Hunter was. Like Darwin, he makes everything so much more personal and vivid!
As for a particularly relevant quote, you chose one that also struck me:
There is the green over which generation after generation has played . . .
So we had better soften it using our new green mapping technology as we install SubAir so it will be playable at 14 on the Stimpmeter!
I realize that Hunter was writing about the links, not classic US designs which were just being built as he wrote. But many of those hallowed links greens he wanted to preserve (even Prestwick!) were no older in 1926 than Prairie Dunes is now.
I wish that modern designers and golfers had the same respect for their elders as Hunter did. But they don't.
Peter Pallotta:
From the edition I have, I might conclude that 'The Links' is more relevant today than it's been since the day Hunter wrote it.
My edition (from around 1990) has an introduction by John Strawn (now director of global golf advisors, then writing on behalf of the USGA, i.e. its own edition of 'The Links').
Interestingly, he hardly mentions or explores the 'architectural importance' of The Links at all -- not once save for in his very last paragraph does he evaluate or reference its value to the art&craft of golf course architecture. (Indeed, he claims that in Hunter's obituaries and even his own later work, his writing on golf -- i.e. The Links -- gets barely a mention.)
Instead, in giving a recap of Hunter's life, he seems focused on a particular kind of social-political commentary: I lost count of how many times he pegged Hunter a 'millionaire socialist' or a 'silly parlour socialist', or included little asides like "Hunter liked to think of himself as brave".
As I say, the only mention of the book's architectural significance/worth comes right near the end, when Strawn notes that then ASGCA President Art Hills deems 'The Links' "the bible of design".
I found it fascinating, how much the 'lens' through which such a book was looked at has changed over the years, from then and now. Then, even under the USGA's 'watch', nary a recognition/celebration of the seminal nature of the work. Rather, in perhaps its 'faux populist' sort of way, Strawn-the USGA appeared more interested in noting the 'contradictions' of a very wealthy man.
Compare that (just for one comparison) to the approach/assessment of a 'post 1990 architect' like Tom D, above.
Blake Conant:
If building a case for relevancy, I'd start with the fact that we're still having many of the same discussions almost 100 years later! Frustration with technology/bodies of power/golfer's attitudes/poor golf design... all are still discussed and debated today.
On the flip side, I had forgotten how sound Hunter's construction and design advice was. Same as MacKenzie, some of his guidelines have proven not to be hard and fast rules, but what a great foundation to lay for the design of courses. Many golf architects throughout time would've been better off just blindly following all of Hunter's rules.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version