Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Kyle Harris on March 01, 2005, 01:30:24 PM
-
Does anybody on here know of Willie Park, Jr.'s trips to the US? I know he made one in 1922... but were there any others?
Also, anything notable about his design work or his rendering style?
-
Kyle: He was at Royal Montreal in 1912, and I'd be surprised if he didn't get to the U.S. at that point. That said, there are a lot of Park courses in Canada (Weston, Hunt Club, etc.).
-
Tom MacWood will probably know the details, but I think Park was based in North America for a number of years during the 1920s.
As my friend Robert points out above, he did a lot of early, revolutionary work in Canada at places like Calgary G&CC, Ottawa Hunt, Weston in Toronto, Montreal's Mount Bruno, and elsewhere.
-
His most notable designs in the U.S. are probably The Maidstone Club and the North Course at Olympia Fields. Although Tom MacWood did post some comments a few years ago, there has been relatively little discussion of him on this board, probably because not many people know much about him and many of his courses have been modified a lot. I think he was also a forerunner in the development of inland golf in England. Known as a great putter.
Jeff Goldman
-
According to Jim Finegan, Willie Park made several short visits to the US at the turn of the century. He arrived in 1916 for an extended period. Finegan said that Willie Park, Jr. laid out 40 courses in 17 states and 20 Canadian courses in 5 provinces.
In our area:
1908 Philmont South
1919 Berkshire
1923 Greate Bay
-
Kyle -
The following excerpt is from Willie Park Jr's book - The Game of Golf. This provides a little insight into his philosophy.
Page 200
very sparingly laid down, because they are likely to prove what has not inaptly been termed 'levellers'— that is to say, the ball can be driven on to the green in two strokes by anybody, and it may be that. at such holes, if not guarded, there is little advantage in getting away a good drive, because, even if the drive is foozled, any ordinary player can put his ball on the putting-green with his second stroke. The result is, that one man who has driven a good shot may have a short approach to play, while another who has got a bad drive, or who has foozled his stroke, will only have a longer approach to play, and his mistake will thus cost him very little. Of course in this case there is an advantage in having to play the shorter approach; but, generally speaking, a mistake ought to pay a greater penalty than merely increased length of approach. If there be judiciously placed hazards, such an objection cannot hold good, as a foozled drive is practically certain to be punished. It is not possible to lay down ideal distances, because so much depends upon the nature of the ground. For instance, on a flat or on a seaside links, where the ground is hard and the turf short, a ball can be driven much further than on a hilly or heavy course, because it has a considerable run after alighting, and it is possible to get away a long second stroke owing to the ball lying clear; while on a heavy inland course, where the grass is long, the drive is all carry without any run, and owing to the interference of the grass it is not possible to get
Page 201
away along second stroke; and on a hilly course, the nature of the ground may considerably diminish the distance of the drive; consequently, on courses of the nature first mentioned the holes may be made longer than on courses such as those last indicated. It is to be kept in view, too, that the links are to be laid out for the 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.
The tees should be placed on level parts of the course, with, if anything, a slight slope upwards in the direction to be played. If there be a hillock or rising ground or any obstruction requiring to be driven over in front, the teeing-ground should be kept far enough back to enable the ball to rise over it in the course of its flight. Provision, should be made for changing the teeing-grounds frequently, to prevent the turf on them being worn out, and to permit ground previously used to recover.
The selection of putting greens is a much more
Page 202
difficult matter. The variety of places on which they can be formed is infinite. They may be on the level course, or in a natural hollow or basin, provided it be sufficiently large and shallow, or they may be placed on the tops of large ‘tables.’ All of these are good positions, and the more variety that can be introduced the better. The putting-greens should be as large as possible; and while the ground should be comparatively level, it is not desirable that it should be perfectly flat like a billiard-table, but should rather be of a slightly undulating character. It is absolutely essential that a putting-green be firm and smooth, and the turf close and short, so that the ball will roll on it and not ‘bobble' or Jump, as it certainly will if the turf be brushy and uneven. If natural putting-greens cannot be made on the course as it stands, then they must be dug up and laid with suitable turf; but this should only be done as a last resource. It is a very bad piece of ground that will not improve sufficiently to make a fairly good putting-green, under proper care, and with due cutting and rolling and top-dressing. A strong attempt should always be made to bring the natural turf into condition before resorting to the lifting and turfing of a putting-green. Many will be surprised to find the improvement that can be effected on any ordinary turf with proper treatment and care. If large enough putting-greens cannot be made at any particular parts of the course, it may be necessary to have relief
Page 203
putting-greens on to which the hole can be changed when the regular greens show signs of tear and wear. The putting-greens and teeing-grounds should, as previously pointed out, be in proximity to one another.
With regard to hazards, I would begin by stating that there should not be any hazard out of which the ball cannot be extricated at the loss of one stroke, and that all hazards should be visible to the golfer when he stands at his ball before playing his stroke. A bunker that is not visible to the player is always more or less of a 'trap.' Sand bunkers are undoubtedly the most legitimate hazards. When there are natural bunkers, it may be possible to place the holes so that these can be made use of, but otherwise they must be formed, and in all cases they ought to be big enough and deep enough and broad enough to prevent the possibility of a ball either rolling through or jumping over. It should not be possible for a ball to lie in such a position in a bunker that a stroke at it cannot be made so as to play the ball out in one direction or another, and the corners should not therefore be sharp and angular, but rather rounded off. The hazard should be sharply defined, so that there can be no doubt as to whether or not a ball lies in it. When bunkers are made, it is very usual to form the soil taken out into a cop in front, or behind, and sometimes in the middle. When such a thing is done, the cop should not be made high but rather broad and it should not have steep
Page 204
sides. Among various kinds of hazards are to be found walls, trees, water, fences and hedges, whins, etc. Trees are never a fair hazard if at all near the line of play, as a well-hit shot may be completely spoi1ed by catching in the branches. An occasional wall or fence or stream of water or pond to be crossed cannot always be avoided, but I do not recommend the making of such hazards merely as hazards.
The placing of hazards is a matter of great difficulty, and their positions should be such that a golfer who is playing a good game should never visit them. The positions should be varied. There should, for example, be at certain holes hazards that must be carried, and should be carried, from the tee; these should be placed at such distances from the teeing-grounds that, while a well-hit shot will carry them, a topped or half-topped stroke will get in. At other holes the hazards should be placed so as to punish badly played second strokes; at others, again, the hazards should guard the putting-greens in front, and there may also be some hazards placed behind the greens. In neither of these cases should the hazards be too near the green; in the former it should be possible to loft well over the hazard, and yet lie near the hole, and in the latter it should only be a ball much too strongly played that is punished. There is a, great cry nowadays that every hole should have a hazard in front requiring to be lofted over, but I think it is possible to carry a system of this kind too
Page 205
far. It ties players down to pitching all their approaches instead of making them exercise their judgment as to whether the ball should be lofted or run up. No golfer will deny that there should be hazards in front of some holes, but I think that at others there should be a clear road, with hazards judiciously placed on either side to punish wild shots. To loft a ball with an iron is comparatively easy to any player except an absolute novice, but it is not so easy to keep to the proper course. Erratic play should always meet with punishment, and I would counsel hazards being laid down on each side, not of the putting-greens alone, but also of the line to the hole, to catch pulled or sliced balls. I know that a bunker on the line of play, and into which a good stroke may get, is frequently considered a trap; but this is an opinion which I cannot altogether endorse, if the bunker is visible to the player, and there is sufficient room to avoid it, it cannot properly be called a trap. Golf as a game of skill requires that a player should be able to place his ball; and if he sees the hazard, and knows there is the danger of getting in, the proper thing for him to do is to drive his ball to one side or other of the difficulty.
Although blind holes (i.e. holes at which the player does not see the flag) are objectionable, they cannot always be dispensed with; but an endeavor should be made to place the hole in such a, position that it can be seen in playing the approach. Having to play.
* Please note, all bold and underlined words and phrases were done by Forse Design to highlight a certain portion of the excerpt and are not found in the original manuscript.
-
Kyle -
Aside from Willie Park's book we also suggest checking out a number of his courses. Some are unknown but that does not detract from the quality. Willie Park was a master at creating woderfully undulating strategic greensite. His greens certainly emphasized the ground game and proper attacking angles. Proper approach angles were enhanced with strategic fairway bunkers. As Ron and I have worked on and studied Park (and Alexander Findlay) courses we realize these guys were true pioneers. Both Findlay and Park were master green designers. I am also including a brief portion of a letter we recently sent to a Park club. This will provide more insight.
You may wish to check out Maidstone, Berkshire Country Club (PA), Glen Ridge (NJ), Calgary G & CC, Rolling Road (MD), New Haven CC (CT)........
From recent letter -
We regard your architect as one of the pioneers who laid the foundation for all good American golf course design. Mr. Park created interesting courses and, especially, superbly undulating putting surfaces. He has not received the accolades due to a man so talented and who played so key a role in the development of course design in the early 20th century. Mr. Park is fast rising on our list of favorite architects. The more of his work we see the deeper our appreciation becomes of his abilities in golf architecture. His pioneering work preceded much of that done by Donald Ross, A. W. Tillinghast, Seth Raynor and the other fellows of the early 1900’s. His book, The Game of Golf, was written in 1896. The design principles were quite sophisticated for the time as golf had just barely gotten off the ground in the United States.
We quote The Architects of Golf by Cornish and Whitten on Willie Park’s life.
“The name Willie Park, Jr., is one of the most respected in the history of golf. He was a multifaceted personality, a talented and prolific golf architect, one of the greatest golfers of his day, an entrepreneur and businessman, a club maker, inventor and author.” An accomplished golfer, “he won the British Open in 1887 and 1889 and also was runner-up in 1898.” He started his design career as “he laid out links and courses with his father and Uncle (Mungo) and later on with construction assistance from brothers Mungo II and Jack.” After previous visits to North America, “he finally returned to the United States in 1916, course design being his main vocation, and he established a base in New York and later a branch office in Toronto. Willie spent the remainder of his professional life in North America, designing or redesigning over seventy courses. Mr. Park personally visited nearly all of his courses periodically during construction. Willie Park, Jr., was surely one of the virtuoso golf architects.”
The best golf architectural book on Willie Park’s life and work was published by the Maidstone Club in East Hampton, New York (Long Island), down the road from Schinnecock Hills. It is called the Maidstone Links, written by David Goddard. To procure your own copy, we suggest you call the head golf pro at the Maidstone Club. His name is Edin Foster and his phone number is _______________.
Attached to this letter is a copy of a section of Mr. Park’s book, The Game of Golf. This blurb is very enlightening regarding his approach to bunkering, hazards and other various topics. Also included in this package are various photographs from some fine Willie Park Jr. courses. We wanted to include these in this package because they are very illustrative of some of your architect’s fine work. He was known for having a very good short game. The enclosed photos reveal that he was a master of creating interesting contours on putting surfaces.
-
JNagle,
Thanks for your posts and the time. I am trying to get an idea of his activities in early 1920's here in Pennsylvania... specifically with the Penn State White Course and a few others. There are still some holes from the White Course that are relatively unchanged from the original Willie Park design and they're some of my favorite in golf.
In the "Final Four" thread, the stretch I mentioned from the White Course are all Park... absolutely great greens.
Either way, reading your posts gave me some great insight into his design theories and what not. I'd love to get on Maidstone sometime.
-
Kyle
Willie Park first came over in 1895...did a quick tour and laid a few courses in between exhibition matches. He came back in 1916 to stay. Starting in 1919 he made annual short trips back to the UK, but he lived and worked here....that is until he went mad and was hospitalized in Scotland shortly before he died.
His rendering style looks a lot like Ross's (actually W.Johnson)...he was an excellent artist. I'd say his green designs were his signature.
JNagle
The Game of Golf was written in 1896, do you think it accurately reflects Park's later design philosophies?
-
I have a recollection that he also designed a course in Battle Creek or Grand Rapids Michigan. Maybe Ralph Livingston can help...
-
Best place to see Park's work is Montreal:
Beaconsfield - great routing (back nine in particular) with a Thompson rebunkering. Cooke has made recent changes.
Mount Bruno - great lay of the land layout with MacBroom bunker job
Islesmere (White/Blue) - excellent collection of holes mostly intact although two holes on the red are part of the origional 18
Laval-sur-le-lac (green) - one of the better projects with better land; Strong had done some wonderful bunker work that enhansed the course.
Whitlock
Other notes:
Ottawa Hunt - major renovation/overhaul by MacBroom removed almost all of Park's work
Weston Park routing, too sick to finish, so Charles Alison was brought in to bunker the course
Suggest you check out Red Run in Michigan as another good example of his work.
Parks of Musselburgh is a wonderful read.
-
From Battle Creek CC's website:
"With the reorganization of the Battle Creek Country Club in 1919, and the purchase of nearly 200 acres of land on Goguac Lake, club members were now ready to build the 18-hole golf course they had been seeking since golf was first introduced to Battle Creek. The Officers and Board of Directors wasted no time in hiring the most renowned course architect of the era, Willie Park, Jr.
Willie Park, Jr. was born in Musselburgh, Scotland in 1864, and was an
outstanding player. Like his father, he won multiple British Opens, in 1887 and
1889. He was especially known for his putting- a part of the game that would
become a primary focus in his later golf course design work. He and his father
established a ball and club making business, and developed and patented a
number of different types of clubs. Park was also an author, and was the first
professional to write an instruction book, The Game of Golf published in 1896,
followed by The Art of Putting in 1920. Ultimately, however, Willie Park, Jr made
his greatest contribution as a golf course architect. While other designers of his
day were simply routing holes over existing terrain, primarily seaside links, Park designed inland courses on land not already conducive to golf. He molded holes out of otherwise unattractive land, and made them look like they had always been there. In so doing, Park became known as the pioneer of modern golf course architecture.
The most famous of Park's pioneering efforts is the Old Course at Sunningdale, located 20 miles west of London, built in 1901. He was also a principal in the first modern residential resort golf community at Huntercombe in Oxfordshire. As golf began to take hold in the United States, Park made trips here to promote his club making business. Later, as golf-related business in Europe came to a standstill as a result of the outbreak of World War I, Park came to America in 1916 to earn a living as a golf course architect. From 1916 until 1923, Park had a hand in designing nearly 50 courses in the U.S. (see list) His most famous work in this country is probably Olympia Fields in Chicago, site of a U.S. Open, a U.S. Senior Open, and two PGA Championships.
Michigan was also a frequent source of business for Park, and in September of 1919, he came to Battle Creek, staying at the Post Tavern Hotel. He was joined by Frank James, a golf course construction supervisor from the same New York based firm that employed Park, and J.G Kanter, an agent of the London-based Carter Tested Seed Company, who would later supply over 900 bushels of dwarf grass seed from New Zealand. The three men met with Steve Rathbun and Dr. W.T. Bobo from the club to begin the design and construction of the new course. While the property presented fewer challenges than many of the other courses they had built, there were some. Much of the new soil required was to be brought in from New Jersey and chemically treated to give it the proper moisture holding qualities. Then there was the task of filling, and tilling, the swamp and lowland areas that would later become holes 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14.
Following his initial surveying and measuring, Willie Park, Jr. was quoted as saying, "The Battle Creek course will be just 100 yards longer than the famous St. Andrews course. The total length of the course will be 6,574 yards." The length of each of these holes, as originally constructed was:
No. 1 .... 450 yds. No. 10 .... 540 yds.
No. 2 .... 390 yds. No. 11 ... . 376 yds
No. 3 .... 550 yds. No. 12 .... 160 yds.
No. 4 .... 155 yds. No. 13 .... 336 yds.
No. 5 .... 86 yds. No. 14 .... 386 yds.
No. 6 .... 402 yds. No. 15 .... 555 yds.
No. 7 .... 393 yds. No. 16 .... 130 yds.
No. 8 .... 130 yds. No. 17 .... 320 yds.
No. 9 .... 490 yds. No. 18 .... 425 yds.
After his initial visit in September, Park returned to Battle Creek a month later to complete the design. Construction, under the supervision of Frank James, began immediately and the first holes were seeded in the early spring of 1920 and were available for play that same summer. These first holes were what are now Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17 and 18. As a temporary ninth hole, a tee area was designated behind number 18 green, with the current 9th green serving as the hole location. The second phase of construction involved reclaiming a considerable amount of land from the marshes and swamps. In the fall of 1920, that area was ready for seeding, and was scheduled to be ready for play in the summer of 1921.
Local newspaper accounts of Willie Park, Jr.'s time in Battle Creek contain several quotes from the most famous course designer of his day. "It was one chance in a million to find a piece of land like that so near the city. It is the finest piece of ground I have ever seen, and it will be one of the best in America when it's finished. It will be a thoroughly up- to-date course, and a championship course."
"The sandy, loose soil makes the finest kind for golf courses, and the location is not too hilly, just rolling enough to make an ideal course".
In response to Steve Rathbun's comments on the severe nature of the former Country Club site, Park said, "Golf is not an old man's game, as some people think. In a hard match, the young man will always have the advantage of condition and endurance."
Park designed courses on the basis of the game he learned in Scotland. His design of the Battle Creek Country Club course shows many of his beliefs:
"Lateral bunkers are advocated and useful, but too many of them tend to make this course
narrow, which is not desirable. Bunkers must never be sited, as they frequently have been, in
the area in front of the green where a good approach should land in order to go to the green."
- That is why only the Par 3's {and the modified 17th hole) at Battle Creek are fronted by
hazards of any kind. Every other hole is open in front.
"Hazards are obstacles to be avoided- bunkers, trees, hedges, whins, heather, water, etc. Their
positions should be such that a golfer who is playing a good game should never visit them.
Hazards should catch badly struck or badly placed shots."
- Relatively few of the greenside bunkers at Battle Creek abut the greens. Most are shallow,
and sited away from the putting surface. They capture only very poor shots. Bunkers are
used more to "frame" holes than to dictate the line of play.
"The challenges of the golf course should be subtle rather than overt, and length should not be
a premium."
- Although there are a few blind shots at Battle Creek, the landing areas are generous and
fairway bunkers are few, and length, in most cases, is not an issue. The challenges are in
hitting approach shots to the correct portion of the greens- and the next shots required if the
approach is poor.
"Putting greens may be sited on the level course, in natural hollows and basins- providing these
are large and shallow, or on the top of large tables."
- Most of the greens at Battle Creek are built on large tables. They slope from back to front,
and many contain substantial humps or are tiered. The elevated greens present difficult
shots for those who miss the green on either side, and even more difficulty for those over
the green.
The Battle Creek Country Club 18 hole golf course was completed on schedule and opened for play on Sunday, July 24, 1921. The design was a classic example of Willie Park, Jr's principles of course architecture. After more than 80 years, and the tinkering of numerous greens committees, it remains one of the truest examples of his work in the United States.
In 1923, Park fell ill with what was considered to be an unknown form of Dementia, from which he never recovered. His younger brother took him home to Scotland where he passed away in May of 1925 at age 61."
Joe
-
Jim Nagle:
I saw what the last post of yours said about the Maidstone book of David Goddard's being one of the best books on Willie Park Jr. Mike Cirba lent me his, I still have it and I read it cover to cover carefully. I've played that course loads of times over the years, it's sure one of my favorites anywhere and I thought I knew a lot about its heritage. Well, after reading David's (who's been very helpful with us at Shinnecock) I realized I wasn't even close. My God what a complex evolutionary tale Maidstone's golf courses is---David did an incredible job of piecing it all together. It was a really admirable work on Maidstone but I don't know that I'd say that book is one of the more informative ones on Willie Park Jr himself. It seems that some of what might be attributed to Willie Park Jr might just legitimately go to his brother John, who I believed worked at Maidstone for a time. The thing you sort of gather from David Goddard in that book is that Willie was definitely a man on the run---it's easy to see why he might have basically worked himself to death.
But what I really learned from David's book on Maidstone is how much fill Park cut out and moved on those really great holes of #6, 7, and #9 (one of my real favorite par 4s in the world). I had no idea of that at all. To look at them you sure wouldn't have suspected it and to think he dropped the entire fairway on #9 maybe ten feet to generate the fill to build #7 is just amazing to think about.
-
Tom Paul,
How comprehensive is that book?
By comprehensive, I mean detailing his travels and work...
-
Tom MacWood:
If Willie Park jr got back here in the middle of the war in Europe in 1916 then why did you say that would've been so difficult to near impossible for Harry Colt to do? A bit of inconsistent logic, don't you think? Although at the time it probably seemed like a reasonable thing to say simply to support your point! ;)
-
Kyle:
The book is really comprehensive on Maidstone not necessarily Willie Park Jr. Goddard basically had to speculate on his time at Maidstone because unfortunately all Maidstone's early history material that may've had to do with him there is gone!
-
TE
Impossible, no. Extremely improbable, yes. We discussed Park's circumstances (and Colt's as well) about a week ago...did you forget already or did you just block it out of your mind? I worry about you.
Kyle
The Maidstone book might be the most comprehensive club history I've read from an architectural point of view.
-
Tom MacWood,
Do you know anything of his designs in PA?
I know of:
Philmont South
Berkshire
PSU White Course
And a few out by Pittsburgh, any others you can add?
-
Kyle
The courses I'm aware of that Park designed or redesigned:
Indiana (Pa)-9
Berkshire
Green Valley
Pittsburgh Field
Chartiers Hts.
Youghiogheny-9
Penn State
Philmont
-
"We discussed Park's circumstances (and Colt's as well) about a week ago...did you forget already or did you just block it out of your mind? I worry about you."
Tom MacWood:
No, there's not a need to worry about my memory---I tend not to forget a thing you say on here. The only thing to worry about is the accuracy of some of the things you say on here! We did discuss it a week ago because I brought it up. I was just reminding you that you tried to make it look like Colt could not return to the USA and PVGC again because of the war in Europe. And of course you said that quite a bit before a week ago. When you make those kinds of blanket statements and blanket generalizations I think it's important to remind the folks on here they might not mean what you try ot make them sound like! ;)
-
As a member of Huntercombe, I am not sure I recognise the description of it as the "first modern residential resort golf community". The barrage of adjectives conjures up the vision of a luxury gated community somewhere warm like Florida, with lots of retirees living on the property! The current reality is of a very low-key, traditional, unmonied club where short socks are not permitted, foursomes are preferred and golf carts almost never seen! I am no student of his courses but the description of him as a builder of interesting putting surfaces certainly applies to Huntercombe which has some wonderful greens.
-
TE
We all make mistakes....of course not all of us have a deranged fact checker with a vendetta following us around 24 X 7. By the way I'm not really interested in who did what at PV, my focus is on the psychology of the Philadelphian. :)
Phillip
Huntercombe rarely comes up, which is unfortunate considering its place in golf architecture history. It was also indirectly (perhaps directly) responsible for Park's eventual migration. It ruined him financially...his fiscal tailspin eventully concluding in Edinburgh Sheriff Court in a bancrupcy examination, prior to his exit to the States.
Despite its negative consequences, Park continued to list Huntercombe near the top of his accomplishments.
-
Tom MacWood,
Pyschology of a Philadelphian, as per Mike Schmidt: "In Philadelphia, there is the thrill of victory, and agony of reading about it the next day."
-
Fascinating info that Tom. I am not sure the Huntercombe centenary history records the impact you describe! Perhaps my memory fails me - I must go back and check. Possibly such a sorry conclusion was considered to be at odds with the celebratory spirit considered appropriate for a centenary event.
-
Park, Jr. did some very good work in Connecticut at Shuttle Meadow CC, Madison CC, New Haven CC and Woodway CC in Darien.
I felt for a long time that Woodway was one of the top three courses in the State. I used to play there a bit and one of their members Bob Hopkins, I think, was working on a Park, Jr. biog. I don't know if he finished it or not. You could call the Club ot the Pro Mike Ballo.
-
"TE
We all make mistakes....of course not all of us have a deranged fact checker with a vendetta following us around 24 X 7. By the way I'm not really interested in who did what at PV, my focus is on the psychology of the Philadelphian."
Tom:
Well, that's fine of you to admit that we all make mistakes---we sure do! As far as having a deranged fact checker following us around 24/7---well I guess all I can say on that is welcome to GOLFCLUBALTAS.com, the purist architecture site that pretty much forces those on it to take responsibility for the things they say and conclude on here or be subjected to a textual brawl on here that could rival the best Friday night barroom brawls in Dodge City!
As far as no longer being interested in who did what at PV, I can't say I blame you on that! So now you're more interested in the pyschology of the Philadelphian, are you? That might be an interesting subject! Are you going to write about that from the Ohio Ivory Tower surrounded by all your informative old newspaper and magazine articles and perhaps some old photos or are you going to venture out in the big bad world and actually come to Philadelphia for the first time in your life and see it up close and personal and perhaps even meet one of those odd Philadelphians who may even be in on a George Crump glorification campaign and a Crump death conspiracy? Maybe you could even come out to the country and see Aronimink's restoration and talk to a member about how they like it. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, you've implied you don't really care about things like that. ;)
-
Phillip
I don't believe the Huntercombe history takes Park's personal history that far, at least the one I have read. I believe the authors name is Adams.
Adams also wrote 'The Parks of Musselburgh', which is very good and goes into greater detail on his life.
Willie was a very interesting man and a real pioneer in golf architecture.
-
Tom MacWood,
I have to agree with you, again. Willie Park is arguably "the pioneer" in golf course architecture. It seems his original works at Sunningdale and Huntercombe really set the stage for everything to follow.
-
"It seems his original works at Sunningdale and Huntercombe really set the stage for everything to follow."
It sure does! Cornish and Whitten treat this subject pretty darn well, I think, in the beginning of their book---and that seems to be the conclusion they reach. If they aren't right about that who could one point to who created a really quality golf course away from the linkland first or before Park's Sunningdale and Huntercombe? Old Tom Morris? Not even close!
-
"It seems his original works at Sunningdale and Huntercombe really set the stage for everything to follow."
It sure does! Cornish and Whitten treat this subject pretty darn well, I think, in the beginning of their book---and that seems to be the conclusion they reach. If they aren't right about that who could one point to who created a really quality golf course away from the linkland first or before Park's Sunningdale and Huntercombe? Old Tom Morris? Not even close!
Well, Tom, you are wrong again ;)
....Prior to WPJr.'s work at Sunningdale and Huntercombe, OTM had produced the following quality inland golf courses:
--Alyth
--Dunblane
--Ladybank
--Lanark
--Royal Burgess
--Stirling
Have a nice day! :)
-
Rich,
I think Park's pioneering work in the heathlands is much more sophisticated than Old Tom's early inland course designs.
No?
-
Jeff
Don't know, as I've not played any of WPJr's heathland courses. I did belong to a pre-1900 WPJr course (Burntisland)for a couple of years )so I know what he can do), and I have played a sampling of the heathland courses (so I know how good they can be), and......
.....I stil think that the courses I listed above are "quality" courses, even through the WPJr/Heathland prism. In fact, if Ladybank were located in Surrey and had a few Royals as members, we'd be singing its praises, rather than dissing it, as we tend to do now. IMO, of course...... :)
Cheers
-
Rich
I don't know too much about those courses, but it is always difficult to evaluate Old Tom because most of his courses were altered at some point...sometimes significantly.
TE
Park's contribution was acknowledged long before Cornish and Whitten. Certainly at the time, those courses were recognized as being revolutionary, but from a historic point of view it goes back (at least) to Guy Campbell's chapter in the 'History of Golf in Britain'...around 1950.
-
Tom
So were Willie's......... :)
-
Rich:
Those courses you mentioned really got some early attention in architecture like Sunningdale and Huntercombe did, didn't they? Dream on blindly pal!
-
"TE
Park's contribution was acknowledged long before Cornish and Whitten. Certainly at the time, those courses were recognized as being revolutionary, but from a historic point of view it goes back (at least) to Guy Campbell's chapter in the 'History of Golf in Britain'...around 1950."
Tom MacWood:
Why is it that you always seem to read something into things that just isn't there? I didn't say Cormish and Whitten were the first to point out the significance of Willie Park Jr, I merely said I think they treated out his significance very well in their book!
-
Tom
You are dreaming, old buddy, and since, as the Chinese say:
"Man with eyes always closed will never wake up"
you will probably never get it, alas........
-
Rich
Some were, some weren't...no one was immune to redesign.
The difference, Willie Park II created inland designs that emulated the natural qualities of links golf, and he spent time and great effort developing these courses...as opposed to the fomulaic cop designs, usually on a flattish field somewhere and normally laid out in a single afternoon.
There is a good reason Old Tom got no respect as a course maker from the likes of Garden Smith, Horace Hutchinson, Bernard Darwin, etc....even though they loved him personally.
-
Tom
To me, Ladybank and Alyth and Stirling (and, I'm told, Lanark) "emulate the natural qualities of links golf" too. You can't really choose between Ladybank and Swinley Forest in terms of architectural quality, IMO. Could it not possibly be that courses built in and around London for the toffs by Teuchters like WPII got much more attention from people like Darwin than workingman's courses in the hinterlands of Scotland built before those guys were hardly born?
Just wondering.....
-
Rich:
Obviously, one can tell sometimes I don't agree at all with some of the things Tom MacWood says but I sure do in his post above about Old Tom Morris's place in developing a breakthrough in architecture outside the linksland---eg in comparison to Park's significance that way. And I completely agree with Tom MacW in his point of the comparision of "time in" if you even know what that means.
If you really did know the essence of this stuff you'd probably understand why there's no comparison simply in the fact of how little time in Morris devoted to the course's attributed to him compared to Park at architectural break-through courses like Park's Sunningdale and Huntercombe.
-
Rich:
Your point about Morris's courses or that Morris may not have gotten attention or respect from some of the best architectural analysts and writers on architecture of the day is also seemingly ludicrous and I totally agree with Tom MacWood on his common-sense assumption on that. Old Tom Morris was most certainly not someone who wasn't noticeable to any of them---in that he probably was the most famous man in all of golf in a sense back then. If he'd actually done some really good breakthrough architecture outside of the linksland I hardly think it would've escaped notice---even if the course was some "working man's" course as you said. Good architecture is good architecture and I doubt there was so much volume going on back then that something good would've escaped the notice of those comprehensive early golf and architecture writers.
-
Exactly how much time did OTM devote to Ladybank ,Tom? How much did WPJr. spend at Huntercombe? Which course is better (since I assume you've neither played nor seen either of these courses, you are going to have to use MacWood's techniques of comparison here.... ;)).
Thanking you in advance.
-
Rich
Old Tom's Ladybank consisted of six holes straight out, which were then played in reverse to get home.
The major golf magazines of the day were based up in Scotland, Garden Smith was a Scotsman. Darwin and all were familiar with Old Tom, they had seen is act in the south as well.
-
Since I have gotten Tom I and Tom II to agree, I feel that this day was a successful one for me. :)
-
Rich:
Me seeing and playing these courses is not the point at all, although it doesn't surprise me that you're misguided enough to think so. This isn't about my analyses of what those courses and the significance of their architects are 100 and some years later this is about what those who lived and played golf in that region and anaylzed and wrote comprehensively about architecture in those days and contemporaneous to when they were built and when their architects lived and the significance of what they did.
This isn't about what my opinions of the significance of those courses and their architects is---as Tom MacWood just said, this is about the historic record of what the likes of Hutchinson, Campbell, Smith, Darwin et al felt about the significance of those courses and the significance of thier archtiects.
-
Tom
I'll keep that comment about "Me seeing and playing these courses is not the point at all" next time you try to rake Tom MacW over the coals for commenting on courses he has not played or even seen.
BTW--don't take what the old dead guys said in the blush of their (and golf's) nyouth as gospel. If history were only written by contemporaries, it would really all be bunk.......
-
"Tom
I'll keep that comment about "Me seeing and playing these courses is not the point at all" next time you try to rake Tom MacW over the coals for commenting on courses he has not played or even seen."
Rich:
You really don't understand much do you? Is it possible for you to get anything remotely right? When I mentioned Tom MacWood needing to play or at least see a course before intelligently commenting on it we were talking about a restoration project that was done in the last two years not what contemporary critics thought of Park Jr vs Tom Morris's architecture over 110-120 years ago!
God, you're dense!
-
"BTW--don't take what the old dead guys said in the blush of their (and golf's) nyouth as gospel. If history were only written by contemporaries, it would really all be bunk....... "
Jeeesus, what a statement! They may not have gotten everything chronicled accurately contemporaneously but they sure as hell did about a thousand times better job of it than someone like you is capable of doing now!
As Tom MacWood said, you may be looking at some of those courses attributed to Morris today but how do you know what you're looking at is Morris? Have you done a comprehensive design evolution study of all those courses you listed? Don't bother to even answer that----you wouldn't even know how, particularly since you think everything written contemporaneously has to be bunk!
God are you dense!
-
Tom I
How do you know if you are looking at Park (assuming you have ever played a Park course, or even not, if you continue to follow the MacWood school of non-experiential analysis.... ;)). How do you know if you've played a Crump? Do you dare to eat a peach?
-
Rich,
Going to have to give mad credit to you for the TS Eliot allusion...
-
TE & Rcih
I reckon I've seen as many courses as you two gents...and I'm half your ages!
I don't consider documenting the architectural history or evolution of a golf course the same as analyzing its playing characteristics. I don't consider sharing a course's historic reputation or historic importance the same as judging or rating its playing condition today.
I played Bethpage, Yale and Hollywood this past summer and loved them all...it doesn't change anything I wrote about those courses prior to my visit...comments which were in historical evolution or reputation mode.
-
"Tom I
How do you know if you are looking at Park (assuming you have ever played a Park course, or even not, if you continue to follow the MacWood school of non-experiential analysis.... ). How do you know if you've played a Crump?
How do I know? Because I don't follow Tom MacWood's 'non-experiental analysis', as you say, and that's precisely why I recommend that he follow a "experential analysis". How do I know if I've played a Crump. Considering Crump only built a single course and I just might know it's creation better than anyone there is I don't think that's too hard for me to know if I've played a Crump.
Tom MacWood:
You think you've seen as many golf courses as I have? That's the most preposterous statement from you yet. If you'd seen as many golf courses as I have and your half my age you wouldn't have been home or at work a single day in your young life. ;)
-
It is also about time someone mentioned that Tom MacWood discussed Willie Park Jr. beginning in part IV of his great series on Arts and Crafts Golf posted on this site.
-
Jeff
I've read Tom's work and I assume that TEP has. I do not question Tom's research abilities. I just wonder if he has ever played any of Willie Park's UK courses, heathland or otherwise, and if so, what he thinks of them, particularly in relation to any of OTM's inland courses.
I also ask the same question of TEP, but I know he's played very little golf outside of the east coast of the USA. ;)
-
JeffG:
Someone emailed me the other day and mentioned that Tom MacWood’s five-part A&C Movement article is an impressively researched article. I always thought so---there sure are a lot of names and such in it. But that emailer said in his opinion it was all sound and fury and what about the five-part article’s assumptions and conclusions? So I read the whole thing again with that in mind—eg his assumptions and conclusions! And I agree with the emailer that there sure are some odd assumptions and conclusions and it also leads me to believe they’re a lot more than a little off-based! So I emailed Tom MacWood and said I’d like to do a counterpoint one of these days to his assumptions and conclusions in that five part A&C Movement article. He said by all means do that. I can’t do the whole thing now but here’re some highlights.
Tom MacWood concluded this about Horace Hutchinson;
“But his impact can not be overlooked; his simple theories still hold true. Horace Hutchinson is the father of the art of golf-architecture.”
Horace Hutchinson is the FATHER of the ART of golf architecture??!! Why is that---because he wrote about it? But what did he build? Very little indeed! What did he innovate? Did he tell Willie Park Jr. how or what to build at Sunningdale and Huntercombe? Did he tell the great Heathland architects what to build and how? Are you kidding me?---what he did is report on what they were doing. He reported on what Macdonald was doing at NGLA and Leeds at Myopia and obviously much that was going on in Europe. But how did that albeit comprehensive reportage get Hutchinson onto the pedestal of being the “FATHER of the ART of golf architecture”?
The answer is simple---it didn’t!!
And then Tom MacWood suggests that perhaps the term “Golden Age of Golf Architecture” is not specific or descriptive enough and what this entire era really should be called is “Arts and Crafts Golf” or “Arts and Crafts golf Architecture”.
And why does Tom MacWood conclude that? It seems because the Arts and Crafts movement shared space in the highly popular magazine “Country Life” with golf architecture articles written by the likes of Darwin and Hutchinson and others and that they actually knew some of the proponents of the “Arts and Crafts Movement” such as Rushkin and Morris and then Tom provides about two hundred other names I suppose to try to prove there was some massive connection between golf architecture and a building architecture and crafts movement or philosophy that was based on a very strong influence of naturalism and regionalism in reaction to the dehumanizing influence of “classical” architecture with its ultra balance that was not the basic look of Nature----and perhaps also on the deleterious effects on human labor and human condition of the Industrial Revolution.
This created what Tom MacWood calls “Arts and Crafts golf” and apparently “arts and crafts golf architecture”!
Why---because it was a movement that’s theme was naturalism? There’re a lot of things whose theme is naturalism but that doesn’t mean they all are the primary influences of early golf architecture! What about the incredibly strong early influence of the linksland in early golf architecture, transposed quite early to the amazing early heathland courses by those early architects? What really influenced them and what they did? Was it primarily Country Life and Hutchinson? Come on---give me a break!!
It was the linksland that influence them. That’s why linksland influence was constantly mentioned throughout the entire era of before and during the “Golden Age of Golf Architecture”!
What now---will Tom MacWood try to conclude that it was really the Arts and Crafts Movement that influenced early linksland and linksland golf architecture? Frankly it wouldn’t surprise me!
Have you ever seen any architects of the early Heathland era ever mention the “Arts and Crafts Movement” as any influence at all on what they did? Have you ever seen any architects from the “Golden Age of Golf Architecture” mention the “Arts and Crafts Movement” as any influence at all on what they did? Forget about influence, have you ever heard them mention it at all in relation to golf architecture?
Horace Hutchinson, basically a golf architecture reporter, albeit a comprehensive and extremely effective and respected one, as the FATHER of the ART of golf architecture? The Golden Age of Golf Architecture with its reliance on naturalism and its foundation and principles in the early linksland courses as something that should be relabeled “Arts and Crafts Golf and Architecture”?
Give me a break! That emailer was right, I think, having carefully reread that five part article on the Arts and Crafts Movement. There’s a lot of names in there---reams of them, it’s a lot of what that emailer called “sound and fury” but the assumptions and conclusions of what it all means in its influence on golf course architecture misses by a mile, in my opinion, and obviously in the opinion of that emailer.
Read the five part “Arts and Crafts Movement” again and see what you think. Those great early architects were massively influenced by the early linksland and its natural randomness---at least they sure did mention it and write about it a lot and they sure all seemed to label it as their architectural influence---look at how many of them said that! So one should ask, if they mentioned it so much didn’t they mean it? . If they were influenced by the arts and crafts movement they sure as hell were silent about it, and why was that? Probably because although they may’ve been aware of it---it really didn’t influence what they thought and did in golf architecture.
-
Rich
No heathland W. Park courses...only Sylvania, Ashland, Marion, Congress Lake and Maidstone here in the states. I haven't been to Japan either. What's your point?
TE
When I was researching the A&C piece Hutchison's importance was a surprise to me as well. In fact the father of the modern game of golf wouldn't be too far off the mark. If it wasn't for old HGH (and Balfour) its difficult to say if the game would have become what it has.
I'd highly recommed his autobiography (his life in golf) and his book on golf architecture (the first if I'm not mistaken) and his photo essays of the great courses of GB and Europe (published in the 1890s)
-
"TE
When I was researching the A&C piece Hutchison's importance was a surprise to me as well. In fact the father of the modern game of golf wouldn't be too far off the mark."
Uh, huh, I see. The big secret of the true inflluence on golf and architecture that none of the best architects of that time wanted to reveal for some reason!!!! I guess they thought, hey, let's see if we can keep this con for as many decades as possible so even one of the true expert researchers/writers 100 years later will be completely surprised along with everyone else! Hmmmmm! Interesting idea, indeed.
So Tom, are you saying that Willie Park Jr and the Heathland architects as well as perhaps C.B Macdonald had to sort of wait for Horace to sorta, kinda, tell them what to think and what to do before they could do what they did? That's funny because I thought guys like Leeds, Macdonald, Crump, Wilson, Tillinghast et al basically just went back to the linksland and heathlands to look at that great architecture and to sketch it and it's principles such. I didn't know they went back there to read Hutchinson's book and learn from him what they should do.
Let me ask you that question again. If the Arts and Craft Movement was so prevalent, and so written about in a popular magazine like Country Life why is it that no golf architect mentioned the influence of the arts and crafts movement on what he did and thought? Why was it that so many of them mentioned the linksland, its raw naturalness and particularly the strategic prototype of TOC that was so much of an architectural influence on them? Why would so many of them say that then and why nary a mention of the A&C movement as an influence?
Do you think they like all got together and agreed to keep the real influence on them (the A&C movement and Horace Hutchinson) a secret so some guy in Ohio could figure it out and reveal it a hundred years later?
Interesting thesis but more than a little bizarre and off-base, in my opinion. I guess there's just no telling what some will conclude despite so much evidence to the contrary.
-
TE
You are entitled to your opinion, but I can't agree with you.
Willie Park-Jr. had been designing golf courses for over a decade when he began the projects at Huntercombe and Sunningdale. His earlier designs were no different then the rest of the Victorian stuff. Hutchinson was the first to look at golf architecture with a critical eye (and to write about it as a critic). A couple of years prior to Huntercombe and Sunningdale he was writing about the need to emulate nature and get away from the static, geometric designs that were prevalent. He advocated looking to the seaside links as models for inland golf (although he conceded inland golf could never quite reach that level). His thoughtful analysis combined with his stature and platform made him the premier voice on the subject at that key moment and IMO the father of modern golf design.
There wasn't an early important golf architect he did not influence, including Park, Fowler, Colt, Abercromby, Macdonald, Simpson, MacKenzie, Ross, Braid, Taylor and likely Hugh Wilson. Not to mention his influence upon Darwin.
The Arts and Crafts movement, like many artistic movments, was identified years after it concluded. Golf architects referred to the founders of the movement, men like Ruskin and Morris. If you study that era, you will see the it was an aesthetic movement that affected all branches of design and really all aspects of life, including the desire to relocate in the country. Once you relocate in the country, country activities become important...one of which is golf!
Why don't you present your own view on early golf architecture in an In My Opinion piece?
-
Tom MacW
Your statement that Willie Park Jr.'s "....earlier designs were no different then the rest of the Victorian stuff" is just not true.
One example that I know well (as a player and a former member) is Burntisland's Dodhead course, which Willie built in 1896, effectively "writing over" a 6-hole course that had been built in 1891 (that replacing the old links course, 2-3 miles away, which had been in existence from the earliest days of golf in Scotland, and can still be seen--it is a local park).
While Dodhead is not a great course, it is NOT anything like the "Victorian" courses that are pooh-poohed by you and others. There are some superb natural greensites (particularly 4, 5, 6, 8 & 14 (double), 9, 15 and 16), and some finely crafted ones (if I can use that term....) including 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13 and 17. The bunkering is natural and restrained. The routing is ingenious on a restricted piece of land (Park wanted to build a 15-hole course, but OTM convinced the club that they should have 18 holes!--one of the few of the big guy's GCA mistakes!).
If you ever visit Burntisland, you will see the folly of your theory. This was first-class GCA--before Sunningdale and Huntercombe.........
Prior to his work in England, Park also was responsible for courses such as Duddingston, Gullane #2, Murrayfield, Old Ranfuly, and Western Gailes. I do not know the complete architectural history of these course (as I do with Burntisland) but I would be astonished if Willie's efforts at these fine places were ".....no different then the rest of the Victorian stuff." Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion?
Let's face, it, Tom. You just do not know anything about Willie Park's early career except what you read into what other's have said. In Plato's parable, you are looking at the shadows of the fire from within the cave, and not the fire itself
I hope you do get the chance to come over to the UK and do some real field research. To see the fire. If and when you do, I suspect you may find that, in this case, you have really and truly got it wrong.
You may also learn that GCA in Scotland around the turn of the last century was alive, well, prospering and happily oblivious to the "Arts and Crafts" movement. :)
-
Rich
"Let's face, it, Tom. You just do not know anything about Willie Park's early career except what you read into what other's have said."
Were you alive back then? I didn't realize you were that old. You sure set a tough standard for historians. Could you please forward me your rememberances of conversations you had with Willie and your recollection of his work circa 1895?
Have you read Hutchinson's Famous Golf Links?
I don't know anything about that course did be honest with you, but I don't believe Bruntsfield Links was an inland course. To my knowledge none of the Victorian work survived past WWII...wasn't it all altered or destroyed.Are you still playing on these courses? No wonder you have twisted notion of golf archtiecture.
I would beg to differ about Scotland being oblivious to the A&C movement at the turn of century.
-
Tom MacWood:
One of the problems with your five part "Arts and Crafts Movement" article is you pretty much fail to make a connection between Willie Park jr, the early golf architectural influences on him and Horace Hutchinson. Did Hutchinson influence Park jr's early ideas on golf architecture? If they did why don't you point out how, where and why? Even the timing of Park Jr and Hutchinson's careers don't really match!
For some reason you just assume that Willie Park jr's early work or his early ideas on golf architecture were what you refer to as "Victorian". Rich is right, why would you assume that? And if you do, then prove it! What do you know of his early ideas and the early influences on him?
What we do know is Willie Park jr was from the linksland, and as so many have described before the primary architectural influence on those early Scottish architects such as the Parks was the linksland courses themselves with their largely pre-architecture naturalness and randomness, and not "Victorianism", Horace Hutchinson or the English Arts and Crafts movement. Read Cornish and Whitten's Chapter 2 again in "The Architects of Golf". In my opinion, and seemingly in the opinion of most interested in this kind of thing, they chronicle the evolution, histories and influences on these people a whole lot better than you have with your completely forced insertion of this massive influence from an arts and crafts movement which is scarely, if ever, even mentioned in all the histories and evolutions of this early era, as well as the later era of the "Golden Age of Architecture". Your A&C movement influence of GCA, to me, is simply a classic example of an attempt at revisionist history in architecture, and in our opinion it just doesn't fly---not even close. It's just not supportable by facts, and frankly not even supportable by what you included in your own article.
Again, even in your five part article on the "Arts and Crafts Movement" you don't even make a connection between Park Jr and Hutchinson (or the A&C Movement) you simply seem to assume it and gloss right over or past it.
I think we can now understand why---because the connection and influence just didn't and doesn't really exist! It's not exactly a matter of people back then being aware of something like the A&C Movement, I'm sure we can be fairly certain many of those people back then were "aware" of a lot of things that didn't have a major influence on their golf architecture.
Your articles truly are massively researched with all kinds of extraneous information like who the headmaster of the school Hutchinson went to school was, what he believed in and his connection in some way to perhaps the ideas of Rushkin or Morris (A&C Movement). But that kind of attempt to massively connect everything and anything to me is like the classic "conspiracy theorist" who often attempts to prove that if anyone ever even met someone else they must have been massively influenced by him.
To me this is of no real difference from the "stretch" you either were or still are trying to make with the manner of George Crump's death and some connection to the club's glorification of Crump at the expense of Harry Colt's attribution by the club or others to the architecture of PVGC.
I know that club really well, the architecture, then and now, and plenty of members for years, and what they feel about PVGC, Crump and Colt. I feel confident that from the teens through to today if any of them read some of your opinions on the place and what they feel about things they really would wonder where this guy is coming up with this stuff.
You most certainly have a right to your opinions but in my opinion, and apparently in the opinion of others, some of yours are massively off-base and really unsupportable. But I'm sure that's no reason to you that you shouldn't continue to hold them! And the reason you generally seem to give most everyone for the accuracy of your assumptions and conclusions is only that you feel you are an 'expert reseacher/writer who's been doing this a long time'! That may be so but I'll always prefer to judge the accuracy of what you write and not just assume you're accurate because you keep saying you are! ;)
-
Rich
"Let's face, it, Tom. You just do not know anything about Willie Park's early career except what you read into what other's have said."
Were you alive back then? I didn't realize you were that old. You sure set a tough standard for historians. Could you please forward me your rememberances of conversations you had with Willie and your recollection of his work circa 1895?
Have you read Hutchinson's Famous Golf Links?
I don't know anything about that course did be honest with you, but I don't believe Bruntsfield Links was an inland course. To my knowledge none of the Victorian work survived past WWII...wasn't it all altered or destroyed.Are you still playing on these courses? No wonder you have twisted notion of golf archtiecture.
I would beg to differ about Scotland being oblivious to the A&C movement at the turn of century.
Tom
I never said Scotland was oblivious to the A&C movement. I posited that GCA in Scotland was, and absent of any evidence to the contrary I still believe that.
Bruntsfield Links is, in fact, inland, but then again we were not talking about Bruntsfield, but rather Burntisland ( I know a lot of the letters are similar, so it might be confusing....). Burntisland is also inland, although some of the land is a "raised beach" in geological terms (VERY raised--about 300 feet above sea level, which is about 1/2 mile away as the crow flies.).
Vis a vis my knowledge, actually playing on courses normally trumps just reading what somebody else might have said about them. The fact that you admit that you have not played any of Park's pre-Sunnningdale courses makes your assertions about such work meaningless to the serious student of GCA. IMO, of course.
-
Rich:
First of all, an early Willie Park jr course would have to be fairly similar to the way it was back then when he built it to have much meaning to this conversation, don't you think? If it wasn't, what possible meaning would it have to this conversation? We're talking about a potential influence (or not) well over a hundred years ago---not familiarity with a course now. Wouldn't you think it would be necessary to see it the way it was in some photo or whatever then to determine what might've influenced the look of it and the way Park jr built it?
I see Tom MacWood has asked you to prove that HH was NOT the father of the art of golf architecture---to prove that HH and the A&C Movement was not the architectural influence on Willie Jr, and was not the major influence on the entire "Golden Age of Architecture". I don't know about you but I'm generally into trying to prove something did happen--not trying to prove something didn't happen. How do you prove something that never happened?
It'd probably end up being a bit like the dialogue I had with Tom MacW not long ago over his contention he could prove George Crump blew his brains out;
"How can you prove that Tom MacW?
"Because it's true."
"How do you know it's true?"
"Because it's a fact."
"How do you know it's a fact?"
"Because it's true."
How do you know it's a fact and true?"
"Because I proved it."
"How did you prove it?"
"Because it's true."
Is that the kind of dialogue one generally has with a self-proclaimed expert golf architecture researcher/writer?
-
TE
I’ve read chapter 2 of C&W’s book,…it is very good. I’ve also read Park’s ‘The Game of Golf’, Hutchinson’s ‘Famous Golf Links’, ‘Golf Greens and Greenkeeping’ (edited by HH), Guy Campbell’s chapter on the history of early golf course development in ‘History of Golf in Britain’, ‘The Book of the Links’ (edited by Suttons) and several hundred articles in early British magazines (before and after the turn of the century)…just to name a few.
Horace Hutchinson was the most widely read (and published) golf writer in the 1890’s. Willie Park would have had to be living in a cave not be influenced by his writing. HH was the first to look at the state of golf architecture with a critical eye...around 1897.
In 1896 Willie was writing about cop bunkers, hedges and stonewalls as legitimate hazards. In 1897 HH was condemning cop bunkers et al. 1898/1899 Huntercombe and Sunningdale projects begin and the rest is history. Draw your own conclusions.
I have no desire to diminish the tremendous influence Willie Park had upon golf architecture...just the opposite. He made the first breakthrough of that era...setting everythin in motion. My essay devotes several pages to his important contribution. The essay also devotes space to the contribution of HH, which IMO are underappreciated today.
I give major credit to HH because he was an outspoken promoter of Park, Fowler, Colt, Abercromby, Paton, Low, Muir Ferguson...he had an extraordinary platform, and he took advantage of it. He was also an extraordinary man...that is why people like CB Macdonald and Bernard Darwin were drawn to him.
Regarding HH and Morris there is no conspiracy. HH knew Wm. Morris.
The headmaster angle was simply exploring how he came to know him (and his artistic roots). HH wrote an excellent essay on Morris…you should read it.
HH also knew the Archbishop of Canterbury, Oscar Wilde, John Sargent, WG Grace, and Prime Minister Balfour, a good friend and golf partner. There were few men (if any) who were better connected. He also knew Willie Park. He competed against him on many occasions. He followed his competitive career (and he was on hand for the famous Vardon v Park matches). You should read HH’s golf memoir, he devotes a chapter to Park and his famous matches, and he credits him in another chapter on inland golf design.
Park opened a golf shop in London in 1896…he was in the city often (he eventually moved there when he was building Huntercombe). In fact he was involved in design work at a London course prior to Sunningdale and Huntercombe. – Wimbley. (I'm thinking about including it in a possible Victorian photo quiz designed for you and Rich). JH Taylor was one of Park’s closest friends; JH Taylor was a protégé of Hutchinson. It was small world.
After reading your recent comments on my A&C essay, it almost seems like you’ve got one eye on the A&C essay and one eye on my yet to released Philadelphian expose…that’s not a good way to read and affects comprehension.
Rich
Like I meant to say. I don’t know much about Bruntisland. What was Braid’s contribution when he was engaged there in 1910? When the course was ‘substantially improved’ in 1933—who did it? Do you have details on the change that was made in 1953? Do you really think this course slipped under the radar?
-
Tom MacW:
If you're going to write these articles perhaps your first response shouldn't always be to take what others say critically about them personally.
I certainly don't have one eye on the A&C Movement and one eye on this Crump suicide issue you floated. I merely have both eyes on the assumptions and conclusions you sometimes make.
I'm certainly not trying to diminish Horace Hutchinson, he certainly was a prolific and highly respected writer and critic of his and that early time, and he certainly was a man that most all in that world knew. You're right, he did have an impressive platform which clearly allowed him to report on what was going on in architecture during his time. He certainly was a knowledgeable man on many things to do with golf---one can see from Macdonald (his book) that he depended on HH for many things, certainly for opinions on rules and certainly to trumpet his NGLA. Certainly HH's reporting was a platform but that by no means indicates he actually influenced the seminal architecture of men like Macdonald, Colt et al and Park jr. Perhaps they influenced him as he reported on what they were doing! The only incident I've ever seen about HH actually influencing the architectural thought of any of them in that early architecture era was when Macdonald mentioned HH's advice to throw pebbles on a surface as a way of creating random green contours.
I'm glad you've read all you reported in your last post. Why don't you cite a few pertinent remarks by some of these early architects you claim were all so influenced by the A&C movement that they actually were influenced by that movement. If it's even 1/100 as voluminous as the references they all made to the influence on them of the linksland I might begin to consider some of your assumptions and conclusions but not until. Is there any remark by any of them that they were actually influenced in their architecture by the A&C Movement? Have you ever read any one of them that've actually said that?
The record of what influenced them is long and voluminous. I just seriously doubt some strong influence you think you've found a 100 and some years later that was never mentioned at the time it happened. That to me just seems pretty illogical!
No problem with you having this opinion, but I can't see it's convincing.
-
Even Sunningdale, in it's very early days, was somewhat "Victorian" in its feature design. These pics are from very early on in Sunningdale's life (before 1904), and probably before Colt had really started to work on the course.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Sunn1.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/Sunn17.jpg)
-
"If you're going to write these articles perhaps your first response shouldn't always be to take what others say critically about them personally."
TE
Just an observation...you started by questioning the A&C article and ended in some kind of bizarre merger of A&C and Crump. It seems that every other post you make has something about me and Crump or some other subject and Crump...some might get the impression you are consumed by Crump. No worries. Carry on.
If you are interested in exploring HH's influence on architecture beyond what you've read in my essay, might I suggest a library. It is amazing what you can learn there.
The essay speaks for itself regarding the connection between the A&C Movement and golf architecture, if you aren't satisifed, so be it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. You can't please everyone.
-
"TE
Just an observation...you started by questioning the A&C article and ended in some kind of bizarre merger of A&C and Crump. It seems that every other post you make has something about me and Crump or some other subject and Crump...some might get the impression you are consumed by Crump. No worries. Carry on."
Tom MacWood:
No bizarre merger at all. If you can't follow a couple of points in a single post about how some of us feel about some of your recent mis-assumptions and poor conclusions about both Crump's death and the A&C Movement's influence on the Golden Age of Architecture then I'm sorry for you.
"If you are interested in exploring HH's influence on architecture beyond what you've read in my essay, might I suggest a library. It is amazing what you can learn there."
It very well may be amazing what can be learned. But if you actually have read such a library then I think it's pretty amazing how distorted you managed to make a fairly obvoius golf architecture history and evolution.
"The essay speaks for itself regarding the connection between the A&C Movement and golf architecture...."
It most certianly does---it speaks to the fact you almost totally failed to make a cogent connection between the A&C movement and golf architecture. Just for the helluva it, since I've already asked you a few times, why don't you simply find a few references in some library where one of those architects ever actually mentioned the A&C Movement as an influence on his architecture? How many times can we find these architects mentioning the linksland as the influence on their architecture----hundreds, thousands of times?? ;) Did you miss that in your reading??
"....if you aren't satisifed, so be it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. You can't please everyone."
Don't lose any sleep but I'm certainly not satisfied with your conclusion---it's simply unsupportable. Pleasing people isn't the point anyway on this site---but analyzing architectural history correctly sure is.
-
Paul:
Victorian? Man, you guys just see whatever your agenda is at any time don't you? Take out the steps and planks and it doesn't look much different from Macdonald/Raynor---and I thought Tom MacWood said all those guys were totally influenced by Horace Hutchinson and the Arts and Crafts Movement! Or did he really mean they were all influenced by Queen Victoria? Or was it Napolean? ;)
-
Well it certainly ain't the natural look!
-
"Well it certainly ain't the natural look!"
You're sure never going to hear me say MacDonald/Raynor are great examples of the "natural" look although I bet Tom MacWood would say that, as he's already said all of them including MacDonald's architecture was influenced by HH and the A&C Movement!! ;):)
Paul, since Tom MacWood wouldn't answer my question (for an obvious reason ;) ) would you ask him to cite you just a couple of little examples where some of those early architects even mentioned the A&C Movement as an influence on them? And if he can't find any examples would you ask him why he thinks that is? :)
Tom MacW says;
"...some might get the impression you are consumed by Crump."
Uh huh. Well, it sure wasn't me who called Merchantville NJ in the first place in an attempt to find out if Crump blew his brains out 87 years ago (to try to make some bizarre case that that's the reason PV glorified Crump to minimize Colt) and pissing off a number of public officials in the process!!
-
You are more than capable of fighting your own battles! ;D
-
Fair enough. Then don't answer, but would you venture your own guess as to why he continues to avoid that question? Oh, never mind, if you don't want to venture a guess I can understand why that would be too. He isn't much at answering simple questions about the things he writes though. So far he's managed to tell me its amazing what I can find out in a library, that I'm deranged, on a vendetta and consumed by Crump! Some intelligent answers those are! ;)
-
Tom MacW
Braid visited Burntisland in 1922, not 1910. He made two changes, moving the greens at 9 and 11. Two other of his ideas were not accepted. There was no revision of the course in 1933, much less "substantial improvement." Nor was there any change in 1953. Where do you get such information? Maybe you should get a new radar? ;) John Salvesen (then working with Steele, Cotton and Pennink) was brought in in 1986, and he made some changes, most notably at what is now the 5th hole, changing an impossible blind 230 yards to a green sharply sloping away towards a quarry to a 150 yard drop shot hole to the same green but at a right angle to the previous tee). Some other suggestions of his were also rejected. The burghers of Burntisland are pernickety about their golf course.
All this comes form the club's history, which leads off the section I am summarizing with the following words:
"Although the course has undergone a number of changes, there is little doubt that Willie Park would recognise most of his design."
And, BTW, there is not a single cop bunker, hedge or stonewall as a hazard at Burntisland, unless you include the stone haha in front of the geeen at the very unique 10th ........
PS--regarding being under the radar, I am reminded of the old phrase that to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail. Burntisland, humble as it may be, is not a nail so stop trying to hammer it!
PPS--are you implying that WPJr. became a convert to the Arts and Crafts movement shortly after moving to England. somehow I can't see him reading Country Life and sitting in Morris' house sipping pink gins with Oscar Wilde, but I could be wrong!
-
"All this comes form the club's history, which leads off the section I am summarizing with the following words:
"Although the course has undergone a number of changes, there is little doubt that Willie Park would recognise most of his design."
Rich:
Then there probably is good reason to come and play and analyze the course by such as Tom MacWood or me if one is so assuming as to label it "victorian" as Tom MacWood just did without ever seeing it. Tom MacWood obviously thinks he's very facile at analyzing the details of golf courses without ever actually laying eyes on them.
"PPS--are you implying that WPJr. became a convert to the Arts and Crafts movement shortly after moving to England. somehow I can't see him reading Country Life and sitting in Morris' house sipping pink gins with Oscar Wilde, but I could be wrong!"
It appears he is implying such a thing. It appears he's saying not just Park jr but the entire varsity roster of the Golden Age architects were converted by the A&C Movement somehow. Isn't it interesting how Tom MacWood continues to avoid responding to the simple question that if that was so where is a single reference by any of them to that effect? In his voluminously researched five part A&C Movement article I don't believe I see a single reference by any of them to the A&C Movement. It's just a long laundry list of this guy knew this guy, this guy's headmaster was this guy and he knew Rushkin at some point and Rushkin advocated a philosophy of "naturalism" and regionalism in building architecture and crafts! Many of those great old early architects who began to take the art away from early rudimentariness and geometric shapes certainly referenced "naturalism" in architecture but I'm pretty sure the A&C Movement didn't have a monopoly on "naturalism" or "naturalism" in golf architecture. To say such a thing is pretty slighting of the obvious model of the natural linksland courses which most all of them have left us with a record that that was their basic model for naturalism.
As far as sipping pink gins in Morris's or Hutchinson's house with Oscar Wilde I don't really see Willie Park jr doing that, and certainly not C.B. or Alister but I wouldn't put it past Devie Emmett!
-
Rich
According to the Braid's architectural biogrpahy he altered 5, 9, 12 and 18 in 1910. In Archie Compston book on Scotish golf (1936) the course was substantially improved in '33, no architect given. The course was lengethened in 1953.
The course evidently fell below Willie's radar as well. The man was a master of self promotion and never listed the course on his advertisements. You'll find it on his coomprehensive list. His landmark courses are listed first in a prominent postion (Sunningdale, Huntercombe, etc), then comes a list of important designs, then comes the rest in alphabetical order...Burntisland is part of the last list of footnoted courses. Did Willie ever share with you his opinion of the course?
It appears you and TE see the Arts & Crafts movement like one sees the Faternal Order of Moose. They were not wearing antlers and giving one another secret handshakes.
One of the reasons it took historians a long time to identify the A&C movement was the fact it didn't have a definable style, it was more or less a philosophical movment...encouraging individual expression, regional style, etc , etc. It was also unique because it touched so many diverse art forms...from art and architecture to furniture, pottery, textiles and jewelry. Its difficult for some to comprehend the A&C movement because of its unique nature....I reckon you and TE fall within that group.
I'd guess half the practioners placed within the movement today never uttered the phrase A&C movment.
-
Tom MacW
Not sure why Braid said 1910 and the club historians say 1922. Maybe Braid had been nipping too much at his TEP hip flask when he wrote that! In any case, the holes are the same, just re-numbered (in 1987, after the change to the 5th (previously 11th) I had mentioned). The 1953 changes were just tee extensions. 400 yards was added to the course at various times from 1936 to today. Archie Compston's book seems to have been mistaken, as the club history makes absolutely no mention of this in a book which is fairly detailed on the changes that have and have not been made. Authors do make mistakes, as I am sure you are aware.
As to why Willie didn't feature Burnstisland in his promotional material, we can only speculate. My guess is that as he was selling his services to people in England and the USA, Burntisland would have no meaning to his clientelle. So why feature it in his promotional bumpf? Even though the club is the 9th oldest in the world (1797) the course has never been considered more than a fine workingman's course, and is hardly known outside of Fife (as are most courses in West Fife, including MacKenzie's Pitreavie).
As for Willie and the A&C movement, all I was saying is that it is very unlikely, given my understanding of British social mores, that a workingclass hero like Oor Willie would be welcomed (or be even interested by) a "movement" started by English toffs and for English toffs. That Morris was a champagne socialist doesn't change my opinion. I could, of ocurse, be wrong as I have never spoken to either Willie. Maybe if you have channeled into him you could enlighten us.
I don't see A&C as a Moose Lodge wannabe, but as just one of a number of art movements of the time, with relatively little influence in the wider society. I am grateful that it helped shaped CR Mackintosh and brought us Country Life, but beyond that I just find it an historical curiosty.
I respect that you do feel differently, but I do not think that in your essays and other comments you have proven any significant relationship between the Golden Age of GCA and the A&C movement, other than their synchronicity. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a common fallacy. But, that's just my opinion.
Slainte
-
Tom:
Nice try but that's a complete rationalization, although I wouldn't expect you to be aware of that.
I'm just fascinated by the A&C movement, and have been for decades, certainly well before becoming interested in golf architecture. My grandfather built a tremendous A&C style house in Isleboro Maine around the turn of the century. They generally referred to it as an English Cottage vernacular although it's huge. It is most definitely a remarkable example of A&C building architecture.
Building architecture, furniture, crafts etc is where one saw the A&C Movement---certainly in some clubhouses for golf clubs but your attempt to assign a major influence of the A&C Movement on early golf course architecture or Golden Age golf architecture is simply a major league stretch, to say the least.
Naturalism and regionalism was certainly a hallmark and major impetus of the A&C Movement in building architecture and arts and crafts but I'm afraid golf architecture simply took its influence of naturalism from another place altogether and you seem to totally miss that fairly obvious fact in your attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole by assigning the type of influence of the A&C Movement to golf architecture before and during the Golden Age of golf architecture.
Don't get me wrong---I'm impressed by all your research and production of so many names and dates and examples of A&C building architecture. It's just that your conclusion that it was such an influence on golf architecture as to be worthy of calling Horace Hutchinson the father of the art of golf architecture and to be worthy of relabeling "Golden Age Golf Architecture"---"Arts and Crafts golf architecture" is just completely off-based. A bit of a flat joke, actually, in my opinion.
And your mention of the Order of the Moose is hilarious too. What exactly is that about? Those early architects were not hesitant to describe and write about what and where influenced what they did---they all wrote about it frequently---so the influence on them in the form of naturalism has always been well ascribed, defined and explained.
Your overlooking of that obvious fact, evolution and history in your attempt to ascribe it to something else is nothing more than common revisionism.
-
"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a common fallacy."
Richard:
That is really good---and I sincerely mean that--no joking at all this time. Not for a very long time will I again call you an ignorant slut! That short latin phrase, in my opinion, and obviously in yours, totally sums up what Tom MacWood has done with his conclusion in that five-part article he wrote on the influence of the A&C Movement on early and Golden Age Golf Architecture!
"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" (a formula designating the fallacy of assuming something has caused an event merely because it preceded it).
Applying the fact that there is virtually nothing and never has been from those architects assigning any influence to the A&C Movement on their architectural ideas along with applying the formula of "Post hoc, ergo, propter hoc" pretty much designates and proves the fallacy of Tom MacWood's assumptions and conclusions.
Let him respond to you and me until the cows come home with strange retorts like the Order of the Moose which makes virtually no sense at all other than some vague attempt to explain why all the architects of the Golden Age who were massively influenced by the A&C Movement decided never to admit that fact! ;)
Oh sorry, Tom, I guess you did say it was so "philosophical" that perhaps all of them were only subliminally although never concsiously aware of the A&C Movement infuence! ;) :)
Jeeesus!
-
"As to why Willie didn't feature Burnstisland in his promotional material, we can only speculate. My guess is that as he was selling his services to people in England and the USA, Burntisland would have no meaning to his clientelle."
Rich
Your guess would be wrong. Below is an advertisement designed to attract clients from both England and Scotland. You can separate Willie's architecture into two disctinct periods, Before Sunningdale and After Sunningdale. Before Sunningdale he was actively laying out courses, quite a few in fact, but it was only in hopes of creating clientel for his equipment enterprises...more or less of the wam, bam, thank you mam type. Burntisland is defintiely BS.
I've always wondered to myself why did Hutchinson, Darwin, Guy Campbell and company overlook Burntisland as the landmark design that sparked a revolution...its a good thing you appear to be remedying this injustice.
You don't appear to have much appreciation for Willie's sophistication....how much do you know about the man? He was as comfortable mingling with the Vanderbilts and Astors as he was with his caddie Old Fiery.
It doesn't appear you are a fan of Robert Lorimer (another Scot), very sad, or Greens and Greene, FL Wright, Baillie Scot, Lutyens, Voysey, Ruskin, Stickley, Jekyll, Maybeck, Ashbee, Gimson, Grueby or Van erp either. At least you are consistent...you look at the A&C movment very much like you look at the so-called golden age of golf architecture.
(http://homepage.mac.com/tmacwood/.Pictures/parkad.jpg)
-
"You don't appear to have much appreciation for Willie's sophistication...."
Rich:
Do you believe this guy and his on-going lack of logic??
No, Tom MacWood, it would seem it's you who have no appreciation for Willie Park jr's sophistication in golf architecture or where he derived it, despite what history tells us of him. A Scot linksman, born, weaned and raised generationally in that great melting pot of golf's early naturalism---The Scottish linksland! Forget your fixation on the A&C Movement which as Rich hilariously described probably was a bunch of aristocratic toffs for aristocratic toffs! (What's a "toff" Rich?)----you're simply conveniently overlook the most important influence of all.
Rich--have you ever seen a greater name dropper in the annals of golf architecture analysis than Tom MacWood. I truly think he must feel that makes him sound intelligent or something. It's his assumptions and conclusion that seem to give him away! ;)
-
"Those early architects were not hesitant to describe and write about what and where influenced what they did---they all wrote about it frequently---so the influence on them in the form of naturalism has always been well ascribed, defined and explained."
TE
That's correct. Most were influnced by nature and the traditional links. Just as SF architects were infleunced by indiginous wooden structures in the Bay area, and Iriving Gill was influenced by Spanish and Indian structures, and William Price was influenced by old Quaker and Colonial Penn. architecture, and Macintosh was influenced by traditional Scotish buildings, and van de Velde by Flemish tradition, and Saarinen the Finnish, and the De Stihl architects the Dutch tradition. Do you see a consistent pattern?
-
"Oh sorry, Tom, I guess you did say it was so "philosophical" that perhaps all of them were only subliminally although never concsiously aware of the A&C Movement infuence!"
TE
I know art and art history is difficult for you to digest, but you must get beyond your mental road block.
Just because Vitruvius never claimed to be Classic architect, doesn't mean today we do not reconginze him as such. Just because Rembrandt, didn't have 'Dutch Baroque Artist' on his business card, doesn't mean he isn't considered a Dutch Baroque painter. Just because MacKenzie, Ross or Flynn never wrote or uttered the phrase Golden Age architect, doesn't mean we don't refer to them in that way today.
Open your mind, I know you are capable...see The Philadelphia School of Archtiecture.
-
"Do you see a consistent pattern?"
I do indeed Tom! It's a fundamental pattern, the distinction of which I've been trying to make to you for some months now apropos of the ongoing discussion between us on this subject of the A&C Movement's influence on golf course architecture.
None of those men are golf course architects---they're building architects and artists of other art forms than golf course architecture. And that's precisely the point I've tried for so long to make to you which you never seem to get.
Don't forget what the great Max said about art in golf architecture;
"The medium of the artist is paint and he becomes its master but the medium of the golf course architect is the surface of the earth over which the forces of Nature alone are master."
The artistic medium of those you mentioned is wood and brick and steel and glass and various other manufactured mediums----and none of which restrains their artistic practioners in their 'freedon to fancy' (Behr) as the golf course architect is restrained by his medium----the surface of the earth.
This is a fundamental distinction in golf architecture from other art forms you seem constantly unable to comprehend!
It's too bad!
-
"I do indeed Tom! It's a fundamental pattern, the distinction of which I've been trying to make to you for some months now apropos of the ongoing discussion between us on this subject of the A&C Movement's influence on golf course architecture.
None of those men are golf course architects---they're building architects and artists of other art forms than golf course architecture. And that's precisely the point I've tried for so long to make to you which you never seem to get."
TE
There is that artistic mental block again. You have problem appreciating how an artistic movment might move from one medium to another. For example, the Pre-Raphealite artists were influenced by Gothic artistic tradition, Stickley furntiture Shaker tradition, Jekyll and William Robinson traditional cottage gardens.
"Craftmanship has merit, but it becomes worthwile only when it is creative, and this it can be only when it is imbued with an idea that has some higher purpose" ~~Max Behr
"intellect with its craftsmanship triumphs over emotion with its skill." ~~Max Behr
Those quotes could have easily come from Ruskin or Morris. The next time you travel to the USGA HQ you should make a side trip to Behr's home...it may alter your thinking.
-
"No, Tom MacWood, you don't know any such thing as that. I grew up around it all my life, I'm from New York and have been exposed to some of the greatest art and art history most all of my life. While it, or endless details of it perhaps has not been my greatest interest in life it surely has been one."
That's funny...you told a mutual friend you really didn't know much about Art and the A&C movement.
Name dropping. :'(
Shame on me...I even stole your favorite name--Max Behr.
-
(http://homepage.mac.com/tmacwood/.Pictures/parkad.jpg)
TomM,
Isn't this an ad for WP SENIOR? (re the W. Park and SON company name). Do you have a date for its publication?
If it is, it kind of begs the question of WHO was taking CREDIT for WHAT, doesn't it?
FBD.
PS Can any of our Noo Yawk contingent tell us what is now on West 23rd Street where WP JUNIOR had his shop?
-
I don't know the exact date, but based upon the courses, it would have to be around 1910 or 1911.
Old Willie Park died in 1903. He wasn't involved in any of these courses (they are all AS, after Sunningdale).
-
"That's funny...you told a mutual friend you really didn't know much about Art and the A&C movement."
Well, perhaps that mutual friend thought I was completely drunk too! ;)
Yes, name dropping---in its highest and most hilarious form. Simply review a few of your very own posts from today on this thread. There are some who know and then there're some who try to act like it by endlessly dropping names such as yourself.
You think me constantly mentioning on here Max Behr and his philosophies is name dropping? My God. If someone like you had any real idea about Behr and his philosophy on naturalism in golf and architecture it sure would be a plus!
-
TE
Different friend...although he may have thought you were drunk too. :)
-
Tom MacW
I'm not sure about 100 years ago, but today, advertising that you had built a "Scotch" course would NOT be an effective advertising slogan to the north of England.....
-
"TE
There is that artistic mental block again. You have problem appreciating how an artistic movment might move from one medium to another. For example, the Pre-Raphealite artists were influenced by Gothic artistic tradition, Stickley furntiture Shaker tradition, Jekyll and William Robinson traditional cottage gardens.'
Tom MacW:
I have no mental block at all about this. You've simply failed rather completely in your conclusion the A&C Movement had the kind of influence on golf architecture you claimed it did in your article and you've apparently failed rather completely to recognize the obviousness of what did. It's as simple as that!
-
For you Colt experts out there, last night a friend of mine was reading me a passage from Hawtree's book on Colt where Hawtree had Colt in North America around 1911-12 and again in 1914, and he mentioned he visited PVGC twice. Hawtree apparently made no mention of Colt over here in 1913. That doesn't appear to square with the record at various clubs, particularly Pine Valley. One of you should tell Hawtree something is amiss.
-
That would be kind of tough...he's dead.
-
"That would be kind of tough...he's dead"
Oops, sorry to hear that. Well, then, according to some of our expert reseracher/writers on here who is it who might be considered the world's expert on Colt who's still breathing? Or could someone on here confirm that Hawtree's book is incorrect in stating that Colt was in North America in 1911-12 and again in 1914 and that he visited Pine Valley twice as that Hawtree book apparently says?
-
Tom Paul:
I have Toronto GC's history book in front of me. Quote from the book: "The club brought (Colt) from England in the spring of 1911..."
Hamilton's club history book, which is also here in front of me, states that Colt arrived at Ancaster, Ontario around April 10, 1914 to layout out that club's new course.
-
Jeff:
Well, thanks very much for that. It seems like I've been asking for a few years on here if Colt ever returned to America after 1913 and it seems heretofore that they've all said they didn't think so. I'd always assumed that he came to North America only for that one few months trip in 1913 when he is known to have visited PVGC in May/June of 1913. That visit is very much part of the PVGC record, although some of the meaning of it many may not have realized. The Hawtree book also says he visited PVGC twice but I've never seen any indication of a second visit from what's in the archives at that club. And no one else apparently has either.
-
Willie Park Jr. added 9 holes to Atlantic City GC to expand the original 18 hole John Reid layout to 27 holes prior to the Flynn / Toomey makeover.
Can someone confirm if Park had a hand in the Meadowbrook Club outside of Detroit - someone told me it was a Park design. In the book -The Course Beautiful - it lists courses that Tillinghast did some work on and Meadowbrook was on the list.
Calgary Golf Club -during my last visit there I asked the pro who the designer was - and was told - Tom Bendelow and Willie Park. He could not confirm how much of the course each designer was responsible for.
-
Hi Gerry.
I'm pretty sure Park, Jr. was the original designer of Meadowbrook, because it seems Essex' old greenkeeper, John Gray, assisted with construction of at least nine-holes there.
I've spoke with Gray's son who frankly tells me his dad worked with Park there, at Meadowbrook.
As for Calgary, Willie Park has long been credited for that course. Although, he might have worked over an earlier Bendelow layout? Ron Forse and Jim Nagle are working there now. Perhaps Jim has more info.?
-
I have no dog in this fight, but I am a member of Woodway C.C. in Darien, CT - A Willie Park, Jr design in 1916.
Having played the course for over 38 years since the age of five, I can pass along some observations about Woodway that tie back to the design principles mentioned in the book quotation above.
Woodway's best attribute IMHO is the green complex as evidenced by a variety of green shapes and defenses. Most of the original 16 holes allow the opportnity to run the ball in - especially on the long par 4's and 5's. As was prevalent in the "Pan and Shovel" construction era, Mr. Park, Jr. would drag the fill to the proposed green area, and then, construct side and back mounding that could either corral the slightly missed shot, or send it careening down a hill much further away from the green. The resulting pitch in the pre-sand/lob wedge era was probably a one to two shot penalty. As with many courses from the 1900-1930's, long was wrong. Most of the original greens have pronounced back to front slopes for drainage, and he incorporated a two-tier green system into the elevated greens to aid the stopping power of the uphill approach. He made great use of false fronts & "Greens within greens". His bunkering of Woodway matches the philosophy as quoted from his book - rounded edges, and deep enough to hold the wayward shot.
To me, the design beauty of Willie Park, Jr. at Woodway was the optimization of the land that he had to work with. The routing, while creating some parallel holes, did maximize the total acreage while visiting the more prominent and architecturally valuable features of the plot as often as possible. An aerial photograph from 1921 reveals to me that he tried to create a links style golf course in a park/inland setting - as much as the conditions would permit. Woodway's membership commissioned Willie to create the finest championship golf course in the NYC Metropolitan area, and selected him over Tillinghast and Ross to carry out their mission.
While subsequent renovations for the irrigation/water flow done on the property in the 1950's/60's/70's opened up new opportunities (Especially in terms of linked, meandering streams), the original 16 holes of his plan had held up well vs. steel/graphite/surlyn/Pro-V advances.
The later re-routing of one hole to maximize a lake, as well as a new par 3 to bring the course back to a new clubhouse have not held up as well, and seem somewhat out of character to the original design which is more playable IMHO. Note that these new/remodeled holes had the benefits of modern technology and construction devices.
The intricacies of the putting complexes at WCC have kept the course vital and somewhat resistant to scoring at a little under 6,800 yards from the tips.
Just my 2 cents...
JWK