Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Mac Plumart on November 19, 2009, 07:22:42 PM
-
I've been studying golf courses and I am trying to get my arms around which courses truly brought something new to the table and were groundbreaking in some manner. Please review what I've got so far and add in any comments you might have. If I am wrong on a point, please let me know. If I've missed something or overlooked a course, let me know.
St. Andrews Old Course---first great golf course
Sunningdale (old)---first great heathlands course and first great non-links course for that matter
Myopia Hunt, Garden City, NGLA---first great american courses
Pinehurst #2--first great resort course
Pebble Beach---first great Monterrey Course
Banff---first great mountain golf course
Yale---first great heavy construction course
Augusta National...first course built for spectator golf
Desert Forest---first great desert golf course
Peachtree---first great RTJ course...large (and multiple tees), large greens...begins the RTJ era
The Golf Club---first minamlist design in the maximist era
Shadow Creek---creating something out of nothing...manmade oasis in the middle of a desert
Sand Hills---pure natural minamilist golf...first build it and they will come course
Bandon Dunes complex...is this a breakthrough facility?
Like I said, correct, critic, add, subtract, etc.
I am brainstorming and thinking out loud and would love some feedback.
-
How is it that ANGC was built for spectator golf? I doubt Bobby Jones would agree with that.
-
Mac -
You may want to add Harbour Town (Hilton Head) to your list:
1) Countered the RTJ-trend of "big" golf courses.
2) First prominent Pete Dye design & introduced railroad ties.
3) Brought Jack Nicklaus into the GCA-business.
DT
-
Garland...
I got that from page 88 of The Golf Course by Cornish and Whitten...
"Augusta National was specifically designed with spectator golf in mind. Several greens were situated to provide vantage points from nearby hills. Several mounds...blah, blah, blah"
Anyway, that is where I got it from. If anyone, including you, feels it is wrong or that Augusta should be on or off the list for any other reason, I am all ears.
Like I said, I am looking to learn and gather feedback.
-
David...
Very, very nice!!!
Thanks!!!
-
What about the first successful landfill course? (not that I know what/where it is!)
Van Courtland Golf Course - The first public golf course, at least in the US.
Hirono - First great Asian golf course.
National Golf Links - First great use of template architecture.
Should Mid Ocean be on this list as well for "tropical climate"?
Also, was Yale built before Lido?
-
Jaeger...
I don't know about Lido...I will look into it.
Excellent stuff!
I love the landfill idea. That is absolutely revoltionary. I'll try to find out...if anyone knows, pass it along!
-
Mac,
Was Cornish and Whitten referring to the work of RTJ or BJ and AM?
-
I think the first land fill course was...
Victoria Golf Course
Carson, California
1962
But would Bayonne be the first "great" landfill course?
I don't know on either of these and would love some one to confirm or deny.
-
Garland...
In the paragraph prior to and following...they refer to Bobby Jones and Alister Mackenize. So, I've got to believe that is whose work they are talking about.
-
Mac,
Though it wasn't in the desert, I think the Lido precedes Shadow Creek as something out of nothing. If you haven't already check out Moriarity's resurrected thread from 2003. I think it's somewhere in the first three pages.
-
Steve...
Thanks.
I don't know a lot about the Lido...but I am checking it out.
Found this old thread...
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35406.0/ (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35406.0/)
Actually it is not that old. Everyone who posts on it adds some real value to the thread. Great starter material for an education on the Lido. You see, this site real does impact people looking to learn about GCA.
Thanks again Steve!
-
Jackson Park GC in Chicago was the first public golf course west of the Alleghenies, which opened in 1899.
The first "Country Club?" The Country Club of Brookline which was founded in 1882.
-
you can't put a list of revolutionary courses without including:
1) Harbour Town: counterpunch to RTJ style
2) Oakmont: ultimate penal course
-
Does a groundbreaking course have to have an influence on other designs?
Here are some I would consider groundbreaking:
1. TPC Stadium- how many other courses now have island greens?
2. Caledonia Golf & Fish Club- this was the first Mike Strantz course and led to Royal New Kent and Tobacco Road
3. Chambers Bay Golf Club- public links golf, not sure if its model will be copied again
4. Alden Pines Country Club, the first course with salt tolerant seashore paspalum, http://www.paspalumgrass.com/salttolerant.asp
5. Inniscrone Golf Club in Avondale, Pennsylvania. The first design by Gil Hanse which led to Rustic Canyon and others. http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/gil-hanse-2
-
Wild Dunes - the first ocean-side course with linksland terrain (10,11,12,17,18) built in this country in decades and a harbinger for the return of modern golf course design to the sea.
-
Yale perhaps, for its exposition of the power of man-made golf course architecture.
-
Is it fair/correct to claim that Augusta National was the 1st course designed primarily to hold a significant or major tournament?
-
I think the Old White would have to be considered one of the first great resort courses. 1914 MacDonald, 1922 Raynor.
Lester
-
It is all pretty subjective . . .
1. I don't think Garden City, Myopia, and NGLA should be lumped together. Garden City and Myopia were built pre-1900, and while they both reportedly morphed into very good courses, I am not so sure they started out this way. Plus, they were both very different types of courses. Even the changes and improvements at Garden City and Myopia focused on difficulty, whereas NGLA was the wholesale application of the fundamental links golf principles in America, and its impact was truly revolutionary (arguably, even on the two other courses you group with it.)
I would say that the first three good 18 hole course in America were Chicago Golf Club, Myopia, and Garden City. I think Chicago, Myopia, and Garden City were considered the best in America but they were not considered great on an international scale. In contrast, NGLA was considered World Class, America's first truly great golf course, and one on equal footing with great courses abroad.
If you want to avoid the good/great discussion, then I think it would be reasonable to say that NGLA was the first course in America wholely based on the underlying strategic principles of the great holes abroad.
2. ANGC may have been built for spectacular golf, but like another above, I am not sure it was the first course built for spectacular golf. CPC seems pretty spectacular. The setting was certainly a factor at Pebble. Even NGLA was chosen in part at least for the spectacular setting. In fact one could argue that just about the only thing that the very early version of Shinnecock had going for it was its spectacular setting near the Ocean.
3. Not sure I understand the significance of some of the categories, like "first great Monterey course."
4. I don't know much about The Golf Club, could you briefly describe it and its influence?
5. I agree that Sand Hills was a very importnat course. I view Bandon as important because it took the great land combined with minimalist concept and applied it outside the private course setting. It is one thing to convince a few hundred people to support a club, but quite another to survive as an out of the way public. Although it is arguable, I view I view Rustic similarly in that it proved that understated but sophisticated minimalist architecture could succeed even at the lower end of the price scale. I haven't played it but Wild Horse may fit in this category as well.
6. I don't know that Augusta was built to be a major tournament course or if that was more of a plan to generate interest in the course (and the hotel employing Jones) I'd say its major impact though has come with its television exposure, but that impact hasn't necessarily been a good thing for golf.
Like I said it is all pretty subjective.
-
Mac:
As you know fairly recently I've been particularly interested in the very first really good golf architecture in America.
As seems to be confirmed by contemporaneous accounts from back then (including Macdonald's) the first good courses and architecture in America were Myopia, GCGC and Chicago GC. The first two both preceded NGLA by almost a decade and the latter by almost fifteen years.
I don't know that much about the entire architectural history of Chicago GC at Wheaton so I have no real idea how much it has changed since its beginning in the mid 1890s. Myopia and GCGC ironically are courses that happened just about simultaneously (with apparently little to no collaboration of ideas between their architects) right around 1900 and were pretty much the way they are now with their routings anyway. Myopia is probably the most similar now to back then. And as such it very well may be the FIRST of the best really early American golf architecture laboratories we have today that has changed the least from the furthest back. Some of the greens of GCGC were changed from back then and with Myopia fewer still were changed from back then (by my count probably only 2-3). Bunkering over the years was a somewhat different story on most all those courses because the interesting similarity with them is that their architects all kept working on improving them in little ways for many years and often decades. The same modus was true with Oakmont (1903), NGLA (1908), Merion East (1911), Pine Valley (1913).
-
Mac,
Royal Calcutta, as the first golf club established outside of the British Isles.
-
David...
Thanks for the input/questions. There is so much there to go over, that I would like to take it one by one and give each one its due...if it is okay with you, I would love your feedback as we go.
David and Tom...
I loved the knowledge being laid out in the CB MacDonald thread laid out a few days ago. But things got murky after awhile, but I would like to detail my thinking and questions on these courses to get my arms around the issues.
I wanted to put down only NGLA as the first great american course, but I am confused a bit on some of the issues. Perhaps you guys or others can help clarify things.
Per all of my research and study NGLA appears to me to be the historic landmark course in American architecture...but according to the records I've found its founding date was 1911.
I keep a list of "unanimous gems", which are golf courses that all the big 3 raters (GD, GW, and GM) rank as among the top 100 courses. And Garden City is on that list with a founding date of 1899. Furthermore, Cornish and Whitten detail GCGC in The GOlf Course as a Landmark Course.
However, they detail Myopia first in their Landmark American Courses chapter.
So, I am confused on this one. Another thing that gets me is how much of the original course was truly quality and how much was built over time, potentially after NGLA.
This is why I didn't just go with NGLA as the first great American course.
Thoughts, questions, comments, are welcome and appreciated.
-
....and I think North Berwick deserves mention as the first golf club that allowed women, although they couldn't play in competitions.
-
Tom...
Myopia has always stood out to me as a groundbreaking course. I think that was why it was talked about first in the Cornish/Whitten book.
Why does it seem to get overlooked so much now in the Top 100 lists?
-
There's also The Curragh Golf Club, the oldest golf course in Ireland.
-
Sunningdale wasn't the first great heathland course, that was either Woking or Huntercombe. The significance of Sunningdale in my eyes is that it was the first course where
a) The site was cleared to make room for golf.
b) The course was grown from seeds.
Ulrich
-
edit: same post as b) above
-
Man...This is awesome. I want to respond to everyone, but I think that would make a mess of things. I am reading, taking notes, and the like. Great stuff.
Talk to me about the Heathlands. My understanding is that people tried to set up golf courses away from the links, but were unsuccessful until Park (wasnt he they architect) has some success. Sunningdale, Huntercombe, Woking have been mentioned.
Park did Sunningdale and Huntercombe, right?
Who did Woking?
The significance of the Heathlands breakthrough was that it opened up peoples eyes and minds to the idea that golf could be played away from the links, and Sunningdale brought in the idea that land could be clear and courses could be groomed right.
Wasn't Colt involved in this somewhere?
-
Mac,
The work at Sunningdale also showed that you could produce something other than wet clay to play on away from the shore.
-
Jim...
Am I going to far saying the given all this Sunningdale is an historic course and representative of one of the first great non-links courses, the first great course groomed by an architect (cleared and grown from seed), but also the first make the land first the course?
I think Sunningdale just made my "must play" list. Amazing history!
-
I think Myopia, Chicago, and Garden City were all Landmark courses, but their influence was nothing like that of NGLA. NGLA changed the entire approach to golf design across America.
The timeline of NGLA was misleading because they originally planned to use a local in instead of a clubhouse, but the Inn burnt to the ground. The club was not officially open until a clubhouse could be built and opened in 1911. But they were golfing in the course in 1909 and the first tournament was held in 1910.
I'm doing this off the top of my head, but I believe the timeline for NGLA is something like this
1901 - Motivated by the best and most difficult holes discussion in Golf Illustrated, CBM came up with the idea for NGLA.
1902 - CBM traveled abroad to further study the great courses, with the idea of bringing them to the US.
1904 - The charter members agree to a general approach to creating the course.
- Second study trip abroad.
- Articles begin appearing nationwide about CBM's plan, and a debate/criticism begins in the British press about it.
1906 - Third study trip abroad.
- NGLA land secured (by option allowing for much flexibility in the exact final specifications) after Whigham and Macdonald ride the site and find a rough routing. (This set the best practice for creating a golf course)
- Planning completed and construction begins.
- Discussion and debate continues.
1907 - Construction finishes and course seeded.
1908 - agronomy problems delay opening, some (all?) greens and turf reseeded .
- Shinnecock Inn, which was going to be used in leau of a clubhouse, burns to the ground.
1909 - First play on the course, work and refinements continue.
1910 - Play continues, first tournament, work and refinements continue.
1911 - Clubhouse completed, and tournament held for the "official" grand opening of the Club. CBM still reportedly tinkering well into the 1930s.
_______________________________________
When I look at the significance of these early courses, I try to put myself into the mindset of those there, and figure out what they thought was significant and try to look at the influence various courses had. Myopia, Garden City, and Chicago were all considered good courses, for America. But among those who knew both, they generally did not compare favorably to the great courses abroad. NGLA did.
-
"Per all of my research and study NGLA appears to me to be the historic landmark course in American architecture...but according to the records I've found its founding date was 1911."
Mac:
For starters, some of the dates we use can get misleading. Sometimes clubs use the date they were incorporated (as clubs) sometimes GCA analysts use dates when the design and construction begun, sometimes when it finished, and sometimes they use the dates when they opened for play. NGLA was incorporated in 1908, went into design and construction, there was some very limited play on it in 1909, and then in 1910 and it was formally opened for play in September 1911.
-
Mac,
Yes, I think that's a fair assessment. The four guns of the day who started building in the Heathlands were 'architecting' up a storm out there.
-
Sweet...thanks David.
On point #2...did I type in spectacular golf? I meant spectator golf. Meaning people could come to watch a tournament. This was also touched on by Morgan Clawson. My bad on the typo!
Point #3...pebble beach first great monterray course. I'm grasping at straws trying to figure out a way to make Pebble the first great course of something. Wasn't it a ground breaking course for some reason?
Point #4---The Golf Club...didn't this introduce minimalism, during RTJ's maximism reign? isn't that significant/revolutionary? Wasn't it also Pete Dye's first great course? Is that ground breaking in and of itself?
Like always, I am asking you guys for input. I've read about these courses, played some of them, but I am not dead set on the fact the my opinion is correct...I am all ears!
-
you can't put a list of revolutionary courses without including:
1) Harbour Town: counterpunch to RTJ style
2) Oakmont: ultimate penal course
Could it be said that the counterpunch to RTJ's work was being done by Dick Wilson. He may not have that Revolutionary course (maybe Pinetree) but his work in that era was much stronger than the work of others with a foot in both the Golden Age and Modern design.
How about the work in 1988 by Rees at The Country Club. It ushered in a new concept and a deeper appreciation for a Club's design history.
-
Tom Paul...
Thanks. That type of stuff confused the hell out of me. But if I study, read, and ask a bunch of questions I will get it all straight one day.
Another thing that you touched on with Myopia that confuses/gets me is the question of how much of the original course is still left.
For instance, i am going to sea island to play Sea Side and Plantation. Sea Side, known as a Colt/Allision was redone by Fazio (right). But it is my understanding that Colt didn't do the work, it was Alison. and how much of Alison is left after greens committes and Fazio finished their work, etc.
I guess diligence, research, and experience will be the only answer.
Another for instance on this last point...is that I've played East Lake, Inverness, and CC of Columbus...all Ross'. But East Lakes greens are distinctly different that the other two. I can only conclude that Rees Jones' influence on the greens and the fact that the Tour Championship is played their altered Ross' original thoguths.
-
Sweet...thanks David.
On point #2...did I type in spectacular golf? I meant spectator golf. Meaning people could come to watch a tournament. This was also touched on by Morgan Clawson. My bad on the typo!
Point #3...pebble beach first great monterray course. I'm grasping at straws trying to figure out a way to make Pebble the first great course of something. Wasn't it a ground breaking course for some reason?
Point #4---The Golf Club...didn't this introduce minimalism, during RTJ's maximism reign? isn't that significant/revolutionary? Wasn't it also Pete Dye's first great course? Is that ground breaking in and of itself?
Like always, I am asking you guys for input. I've read about these courses, played some of them, but I am not dead set on the fact the my opinion is correct...I am all ears!
Mac
I misread. You did type spectator. I didn't know that and am not sure I buy it. But interesting.
I thought you might be grasping with Pebble Beach. Maybe it should be first course where Watson defeats Nicklaus by holing brilliant pitch from high rough on par 3 17th?
You may be right about the Golf Club, I just don't know that much about it and was curious. Things get fuzzy for me when you get much past WWII.
-
you can't put a list of revolutionary courses without including:
1) Harbour Town: counterpunch to RTJ style
2) Oakmont: ultimate penal course
Could it be said that the counterpunch to RTJ's work was being done by Dick Wilson. He may not have that Revolutionary course (maybe Pinetree) but his work in that era was much stronger than the work of others with a foot in both the Golden Age and Modern design.
How about the work in 1988 by Rees at The Country Club. It ushered in a new concept and a deeper appreciation for a Club's design history.
Dick Wilson is a name that keeps popping up as I study. Florida was his "domain" correct? I will have to check it out.
Rees Jones and The Country Club...interesting. I've heard glowingthings about his work on East Lake as well. I will dig deeper into the Country Club. Could Rees' work get artifically downgraded due to his fathers past work? Hmmm....
-
Sunningdale wasn't the first inland course on sandy soil either, actually Horace Hutchinson wrote in 1899 that Richmond Club und Mid Surrey Club were on sandy soil, but he didn't make the connection to heathland. He thought that sand was deposited there by the river Thames.
The heathland belt around London was virtually unknown, because it was completely overgrown and of little use to anyone. To the best of my knowledge Willie Park Jr. was the first man to see the potential of these sites for golf courses if somehow they could be cleared (a hell of a project without machines) and some turf could be grown on the extremely sandy ground.
Ulrich
-
"Another thing that you touched on with Myopia that confuses/gets me is the question of how much of the original course is still left."
Mac:
With that kind of thing, it is sort of course by course. If you have one or some you're interested in really understanding what I call the entire design evolution history from beginning until to date you just have to find the people who know it best. This website should be a good resource to find out who you might need to go to. I have a few courses I know the entire design evolution of really well, obviously including my own. For something like Merion or Flynn courses, Wayne Morrison is your man. If you want to know about some of those mentioned on here like GCGC or particularly Myopia I can help you out. I'm actually looking at a design evolution report of sorts that was done in the last few weeks on Myopia. It doesn't go all the way back to 1894 or 1896 or 1900 but it explains quite a bit. That particular course is remarkably well preserved and they might be planning a few last restorative measures. Myopia is a very important early American architectural study laboratory for sure.
Dick Wilson was based in southeast Florida, at least in the end of his career, but he worked all over the country. He was probably RTJ's main competitor.
-
Tom...
I am VERY interested in that type of information on all of the courses you named, but for some reason I fell in love with Myopia Hunt just as soon as I began studying GCA.
What is the best way to communicate on these issues?
This spring I am heading up to play Yale and another course that my friend is surprising me with...he's hinted it is Shinnecock, but he won't tell me for sure. Would it be possible to set up a time to chat over dinner or coffee or something like that?
You mentioned the other day that you don't play much anymore, but I am sure you could join us for our rounds if you want to.
Let me know as I am extremely interested in learning these more in-depth pieces of information about these timeless gems.
Thanks!!!
-
"What is the best way to communicate on these issues?"
Mac:
Any way you want to---phone, email or even on here.
-
Tom...
Thanks!!!
I'm heading to bed soon...another hopping Friday night in GA!!!
I'll pop you an email tomorrow to get the knowledge rolling.
Thanks again, you've been great to me and I really appreciate it!!!
-
Mac,
i had the pleasure of playing Machrihanish Dunes a few weeks ago and IMHO it is a truly revolutionary golf course. It is an absolute joy and could possibly be the worlds one and only truly sustainable golf course. This course goes beyond minimalism in not only it's design but also in it's maintenance. i really hope that people get to experience and understand what Southworth are trying to achieve there as everyone in the golf industry (especially GCA's) could learn an awful lot from it.
robin
-
One of, or the first ranked course I played, was the Dunes in Myrtle Beach. I played there because of their hosting the PGA qualifying school.
Nevertheless, it was an early RTJ post WWII course, just after Peachtree, but may have been one of the first to go down and through the southern marsh. This was very much copied, IMO, in the southern USA but am not sure anyone has done it better than the 10th, 11th, 12th, and infamous 13th at The Dunes. These are pretty much the template marsh holes in southern USA.
The 13th is almost what I call a 'double' cape hole. It tempts you to drive close to the water on the right, and then cut off as much as you can, for the shortest third shot. Anyway, I see the Dunes as an influence on most of what was build in the southern USA, and followed later on undesirable marsh land.
This model (template) has sold so much real estate in the south and encouraged so many courses to be built, unbelievable.
Also, as a mini build up to much of the modern courses, I think the 10th at Wild Dunes and the entire Southern Dunes continued the surge from Harbour Town.
I guess in summary, I see the Dunes as a prelude to much of the 1960s/1970s/1980s golf courses, a few of which were very good.
-
"Could it be said that the counterpunch to RTJ's work was being done by Dick Wilson. He may not have that Revolutionary course (maybe Pinetree) but his work in that era was much stronger than the work of others with a foot in both the Golden Age and Modern design.
How about the work in 1988 by Rees at The Country Club. It ushered in a new concept and a deeper appreciation for a Club's design history."
Jim Wagner:
Both of those are thought provoking remarks. As mentioned above it has often been attributed to Pete Dye to have delivered the architectural counterpunch to RTJ with his revolutionary Harbor Town. It has been said and I believe confirmed by Pete that while driving by an RTJ course on his way to the beginning of the Harbor Town project the idea occured to him that he could actually do something in a far different direction and arguably Harbor Town was that.
Your second remark about Rees and Brookline is really interesting though. I think you have a very good point there but on that 1988 Brookline project we should not forget the excellent bunker development of TCC's superintendent!
(Yeah, I know you're Jimbo Nagle; just funnin' ya.)
PS:
On the other hand, Pete's father was a real fan of Dick Wilson and it has been said that Wilson was one of the reasons Pete's parents moved down to Southeast Florida thereby inspiring Pete to do the same where of course Pete and Alice have lived half of every year for many, many decades.
I actually remember Dick Wilson from the 1950s in Southeast Florida. With my dad and all his good playing golf buddies Dick Wilson was really their man----they got him to work on Seminole, Gulf Stream and they built Pine Tree with him----eg also Meadow Brook in Long Island. When he died in 1965 they didn't know who to turn to. At first they sort of looked to Wilson's associate Joe Lee but that didn't work as well. And then after a while who did they find in their midst----a young Pete and Alice Dye!
-
John Stiles:
UNBELIEVALBE!!
On your post above you mentioned a number of RTJ "Template" holes and of course that surely is true. Whenever we speak about "template" holes, at least in recent years, it seems like we are always talking about CBM and his "template" GB holes used over here on most of his and the National School courses.
But we sure can't forget RTJ's modus operandi or style or model or using the same basic string of "template" concepts over and over and over again----or even Pete Dye doing it so famously as he and others of his generation did with the big right to left sweeping finishing holes with water all down the left!
I hesitate to say this and by it I defnitely don't mean a reliance on "template" holes or even "template" concepts or anything of the like (it was probably more of a contour line measuring device) but one time walking around a raw site with topos in our hands one of my favorite architects fished into his pocket and produced some par 4 and par 5 paper cut-out holes that actually had hinges on them!! ;)
-
Tom...
Reading this sites Sea Island thread from 2004 (I think it was) led me to believe that posting this type of information in the DG is the best way to get the ball rolling...
Can we start with Garden City?
What I see is that is was founded in 1899 and is an Emmett course. If you could expound upon its formation, tweaks, changes, remodels, or rennovations over time...that would be great.
Also, the same for Myopia would be great. I know Herbert Leeds was involved, but some of the dates are squirely.
Thanks for sharing!
-
Robin...
I am fascinated with Mach. Dunes. You say self-sustaining. Please excuse my ignorance, but could you please expound upon that? I am of the belief that a course that is truly minimalist, needs to be minimalist in terms of upkeep and maintenance as well. Could Mach. Dunes fit this bill.
Thanks,
Mac
-
Mac:
For the architectural history of GCGC I'd use the Centennial History book of the club done by the excellent club history book writer Bill Quirin (Pat Mucci, who belongs to GCGC, actually gave it to me a bit over nine years ago).
I think it tracks the beginnings of the club and course from its nine hole beginning in 1897 by Devereux Emmet (and another club member, by the name of George Hubbell), to its alteration to 18 holes in 1899 by Emmet and Hubbell, to the tenure of Walter Travis's years long work on the golf course.
It would be nice to scan those pages from that book in here but I can't do that and I don't even know if the club itself would appreciate that at least not without providing its permission first.
There may be some questions and challenges about the details of the course's architectural history by some on here but I sure don't want to see this thread and your questions about it turn into another Merion type argument. I won't get involved in that on this thread and course and I know you won't either.
Pat's coming home today or tomorrow and he would be the one to help get this going for you, along with me or anyone else knowledgeable on GCGC's architectural history. There're also a couple of pretty detailed threads on GCGC's architectural history way back in the back pages of this website.
But it is certainly true to say GCGC is one of the most important ones in American Architectural history, along with Myopia and a few others, simply because it was so early for quality architecture in America.
-
Thanks Tom.
I'll reach out to Pat and see if I can buy a copy through him.
I'll also check out the past threads on this site.
-
Robin...
I just read a thread on Mach. Dunes and did some diggin elsewhere. Oh man, it sounds excellent, unique, groundbreaking, etc.
I can't wait to give it a try!!!
Thanks,
Mac
-
Robin...
I am fascinated with Mach. Dunes. You say self-sustaining. Please excuse my ignorance, but could you please expound upon that? I am of the belief that a course that is truly minimalist, needs to be minimalist in terms of upkeep and maintenance as well. Could Mach. Dunes fit this bill.
Thanks,
Mac
Mac,
One of the most unique things about Machrihanish Dunes is that it is built on a Site of Special Scientific Interest so by law it has to fit the bill. Scottish Natural Heritage come on site 3 or 4 times per year to ensure that fairways aren't being cut below 20mm, rough isn't being mown and pesticides aren't being sprayed outside of tees and greens. The way government regulators are going , in 20 years these sorts of restrictions are going to be the norm. it will change golf course conditioning dramatically especially in the US. Canada and some parts of Europe have already banned the use of pesticides i believe. Maintaining a golf course under these restrictions is definitely a challenge but it will just take a change in golfer expectation to appreciate what can be achieved on such a rustic site. i would be interested to know how GCA's would modify there style to deal with a pesticide free golf course? also playability would definitely change if you can't mow fairways below 20mm how would architects deal with this? Would some architects actually benefit from these sorts of challenges?
yours aye
robin
-
Pinehurst #2--first great resort course
I would go with Glenaeagles as an earlier option. It was thought about before WW1, the course was built during the war and the Hotel afterwards. It was (like Pinehurst?) developed by a Railway Company. By 1919 it was open for business.
Mac It woul be interesting to see all these laid out in a timeline. Good Luck
PS What was the first course designed to enhance a larger development? Housing etc?
What was the first Country Club GC? I'd like some more info on this as the Country Club is not something I've experienced. Also I understand some ealry US courses were part of Polo, Cricket or even Tennis developments, is the the Country Club ideal?
I will post a thread this winter on Thurlestone GC. As early as the 1890's there were ambitious plans for a 'new town' with sports facitlities Cricket, Golf and Tennis. Ultimately the Golf and Tennis were developed piecemeal, but the deveopment as planned didn't take place.
-
Sunningdale wasn't the first great heathland course, that was either Woking or Huntercombe. The significance of Sunningdale in my eyes is that it was the first course where
a) The site was cleared to make room for golf.
b) The course was grown from seeds.
Ulrich
Ulrick New Zealand GC was cleared of trees circa 1893, grassing must have then taken place.
-
Tony...
I have been taking notes and creating a timeline as we go...I will share when it is complete.
Mac
-
Excellent thanks I look forward to seeing it.
-
I nominate Kyle Philips et al splendid work at Kingsbarns, Scotland, the first manufactured links course.
Well into page 2 of this thread and no one has yet mentioned Pine Valley? Isn't that the first and last word on penal design? Also, it boasts an all-star ensemble cast of contributing architects.
-
Steve,
TEPaul mentioned Pine Valley back there somewhere, but it wasn't about the penal nature of the architecture. Wouldn't Oakmont be considered the first really penal course in the US ?
-
Oakmont has been referenced as the first/ulitimate in penal design. I've got to say from my research is sounds like a true "ball-buster".
Pine Valley...I've been wanting to ask about it. Crump is the designer on record, right? Steve, you mention all-star cast of contributors. Can you elaborate? Also, Pine Valley's primary characterisitcs take root in the courses penal nature, correct?
Kingbarns...very nice. I happen to have the "scoop" on that course which was provided to me by one of the truly great researchers/writers that contributes regularly (or at least he used to) on this site. For that, let me say "thanks"...the information is truly excellent.
Thanks!!!
-
Mac:
Oakmont was begun by the Fownses in 1903. Pine Valley was begun by Crump in 1913. Crump and W.C. Fownes (1910 US Amateur champion) were friends and Fownes was an early member of PV, as well as a central advisor on PV's architecture a few years after Crump died.
Depending on what one means by "penal" there is little question that both courses were architecturally contemplated to be extremely difficult; frankly that was a large part of the point of both of them. Back in that day there was a philosophy extant in a part of the world of American architecture to make some golf courses a lot harder simply to raise the caliber of the championship players of those regions.
Crump didn't even attempt to make a concession to the caliber of golfer who was not a good player with his Pine Valley. He actually joked that his course was not for them at all.
When we think about and talk about this whole equation of penal versus strategic golf and architecture we need to consider what some of those architects were designing their particular courses for! A few of them wanted extremely difficult courses that wasn't exactly supposed to be accommodating to weaker golfers and that in and of itself was pretty controversial, revolutionary and groundbreaking back then. It did not come without a certain amount of criticism from some sectors either, particularly from some critics abroad.
-
Mac,
There surely was a lot of contribution to Crump's effort, although I don't thnk I mentioned anything about it, wrong guy.
There are others who know the story better than me. As far as it being primarily penal, I know guys who've played it that take exception to that idea, they say it's more 'strategic'.
I take a more simple view, my working definition of penal is when you force a player to hit balls over a feature/hazard rather than offering them a way around. A look at an aerial of the course shows many instances of that.
I assume it's more of one, some of the other.
-
Mac:
As far as Pine Valley being a collaborative architectural effort with contributions or recommendations and advice and opinions from numerous architects of the time, there is no question that it was, at least that seemed to be the perception Geo. Crump wanted to promote and did promote. I could make you a list which is pretty long and interesting of those that it has been said made some recommendations to Crump and Pine Valley.
The point though, or at least my point on that, is it very much seems like Crump did everythng possible to promote that idea and did nothing at all to discourage it. In that particular way Crump seemed to have been the opposite of proprietary about the architecture of PV. In actual fact, though, he just did what he wanted to do no matter who suggested what. He just did it without bothering to mention he was NOT taking someone's advice. Perhaps the best example of all in that vein was the trumpeted idea and iteration with PV by Travis to make the course reversible.
Crump actually encouraged Travis to create a reversible design and even promote it in American Golfer (Travis was its editor) along with drawings and descriptions. But eventually that idea was just quietly dropped by Crump and nothing like that was ever done with the course. I've got the drawings of the few holes Travis reversed on paper---they are actually pretty interesting in how he did it with the way those holes were and are designed.
You should also know that Geo. Crump did work and apparently planned to work on the design of that course in the mode of most all those famous so-called "amateur/sportsmen" architects (the ones who did not take money for what they did in architecture) in that he planned to take years and perhaps decades on its architectural development. There is that famous story around the club when members and others would ask him when his course would have all eighteen holes open for play or at least when the course would finally be finished and according to what was written or said by those closest to him he would bellow, "NEVER!!"
Another interesting aspect of Crump and PV is that in 1917 he bought approximately 400 more acres contiguous to the original 186 acres and when asked why he did that he said that when he completed the course he was going to design and build another championship-test type course along side it JUST FOR WOMEN!! He had already begun to interview star amateur Alexa Stirling for her architectural advice for that purpose. That is pretty ironic because as you may or may not know, Pine Valley is and always has been a male only golf club!! ;)
-
Tom...
Interesting. It is my understaninding the Crump built the course with his own money (or at least a large part of his own money). If one does this, there is the high probability that a "dictator" will emerge regarding the course. If this "dictator" takes the advice, guidance, and counsel of qualified experts then a true gem could be build as this "dictator" won't have to deal with egos, placating people, etc. He can simply listen to the experts, pick and choose what works, and go with it....rather than submit to committee, debate, vote, and all the other stuff that committee's have to go through.
I suppose that assumes he can make the right decision. It certainly appears Crump made the correct calls.
Great stuff.
-
Mac:
I just added a lot to #63.
As far as Crump being a "dictator" at or with Pine Valley, that might be one of the most interesting aspects of all about PV.
There is no question at all that he could have been had he wanted to be but it seems like he definitely did not want to be, at least with the club itself. There is no question at all that Crump poured a ton of his own money into that course and club and I suppose in a sense or in some way, at least for some time he probably could be considered to have owned the place. I think he bought Pine Valley with his own money but then others contributed (sort of paid him or the club back as it were). All that type of thing was done with bond offerings and being the type of people those members were most of the time no one really knew who bought the bonds, but the club history and archives suggest in just about every case Crump bought them. So in that sense it was his money but he did also joke that at some point he would simply have a bonfire and just burn all his bonds!
From all indications Crump seems to have been a remarkably kind and perhaps somewhat reserved but extremely definite man (it surely seems that everyone who knew him or met him loved the man). But frankly or in the interest of historical truth there must have been something a bit strange about him for some reason because who from the world he came from would actually go out and basically live in the woods alone all those years as he did with Pine Valley?
So, yes, I think essentially he owned the place and paid for most of what it took to create and develop it but early on he decided that it was just the golf course he wanted to do and concentrate on and he actually refused to be the president of the club or have much to do with its membership drive. That he left to others, primarily the remarkable Howard Perrin Jr who was PV's first president and remained that up until the 1920s when the remarkable PV dictator John Arthur Brown took over and was Pine Valley's president and famous dictator for over 50 years.
-
All right guys...we talked about courses as penal, strategic, etc. And we touched on how members of Oakmont, Pine Valley, etc take offense to being labeled "penal", etc. As it is probably very much the case that these truly great courses are much more than "penal"...to be great isn't it a given that the course has to have many, many hidden nuances, obvious choices, penal elements, etc. I haven't played Oakmont or Pine Valley, so correct me if I am wrong...but it simply has to be a true or these courses wouldn't have lasted the test of time.
HOWEVER...there is a hole on my home course that is purely "penal" in my mind. I can't see it any other way. Take a peak at this...#3 at St. Ives...565 yard par 5...
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/stives3.jpg)
hit your driver straight, hit your 2nd, and 3rd (if neccessary) straight, putt and/or chip...done.
If you are right or left at any time...trap.
Penal, right...no strategy excpet hit it straight.
-
Mac:
I think far too many make too much of this "penal/strategic" thing.
If you call that hole you showed at St Ives just penal and you'd be fine if you just hit two to three shots on it straight then two putted or chipped and putted you'd be fine I would say if you hit it straight into the middle of every fairway at either Pine Valley or Oakmont and into the middle of every green you'd be fine too even though some of the greens at PV and Oakmont may be a bit more complex and challenging than St. Ives (but I really don't know that because I don't know St Ives).
The big difference between both PV and Oakmont though is if someone is going to hit it crooked at those courses and they tend to be too aggressive with their recovery shots they will probably come out of the day a whole lot worse off than they would if they hit it crooked and go agressive with their recovery shots at St. Ives (out of bunkers or other non-fairway areas).
So what would you call that----PV and Oakmont being more strategic than St. Ives or more penal?
In my opinion, if one considers penal to be basically scoring difficulty for any level of golfer I would say both Pine Valley and Oakmont are probably a ton more penal than St. Ives (again, even though it's hard for me to say because I've never seen St. Ives).
-
I didn't take a detailed look at the posts, but it strikes me that links are sorely under-represented. I am not sure which ones I would put forward. Perhaps Muirfield for its revolutionary two loops, one within the other in opposite directions. Though, I think Stoneham's (Park Jr) routing was done before Muirfield's. I spose much of the difficulty in deciphering links architectural qualities is that much of what was introduced from inland designs after the start of the heathland movement. Its difficult to pick a representative few. Perhaps if we went on the resort theme with the railways as the main source of transport it may be easier to peg it down.
Ciao
-
Sean...
I am so glad you brought that up. I am putting together the timeline and there is a BIG time gap after, before, and in and around the following courses...
St. Andrews Old and North Berwick...with Royal Calcutta mixed in there and Sunningdale, Huntercombe, Woking.
Gleneagles was mentioned as the first resort course...but I get a 1912 time frame and Pinehurst 1907.
Any enlightenment or added knowledge regarding courses and dates and their breakthroughs would be much appreciated.
Mac
-
Sean...
I am so glad you brought that up. I am putting together the timeline and there is a BIG time gap after, before, and in and around the following courses...
St. Andrews Old and North Berwick...with Royal Calcutta mixed in there and Sunningdale, Huntercombe, Woking.
Gleneagles was mentioned as the first resort course...but I get a 1912 time frame and Pinehurst 1907.
Any enlightenment or added knowledge regarding courses and dates and their breakthroughs would be much appreciated.
Mac
Woking gets a double mention because when it was built from swampy, woodland ground people thought the initiators were mad. Of course, Woking also gets the mention for incorporating some bunker design/theory from TOC and re-working its greens at quite an early time - I want to say around 1905.
Ciao
-
Well...
Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Golf Courses
St. Andrews (Old)…no concrete evidence details when golf was first played on The Old Course; perhaps 1441, 1552, 1574. Regardless, it is a timeless gem.
Royal Calcutta...1829…oldest golf course outside the British Isles
North Berwick…1878…first golf course to allow women
The Country Club…1882 (1895?)…first country club
Sunningdale (Old)…1901…one of the first great heathland courses, also the first course to be formed from cleared land and whose course was grown from seed
--It should be mentioned that New Zealand GC was cleared and groomed in 1893
--And Woking was perhaps the first heathlands course 1893
---And Huntercombe was another earlier great heathlands course 1901
Chicago Golf Club, Garden City Golf Club, and Oakmont…1895-1903, represent some of the significant early American golf courses
Pinehurst #2…1907…the first great golf resort
National Golf Links…1911…the first great “template” golf course
Lido…1914…first “mega-expensive” golf development, its disappearance was also significant
1914-1918…World War I
Pine Valley…1918…first great “collaborative” golf course
Pebble Beach…1919…I don’t know why it was groundbreaking, but I am putting it on the list for some unknown reason
Mid-Ocean…1921…first great “tropical” golf course
Yale…1926…first heavy construction golf course
Banff…1928…first great mountain golf course
1929-1932 (1939)…Great Depression
Hirono…1932…first great Japanese golf course
Augusta National…1933…first golf course designed for spectator/tournament golf
Bethpage (Black)...1935…first great municipal golf course
1940-1945…World War II
Peachtree Golf Club…1948…first great RTJ course…big/elongated teeing areas, big greens
Dunes Golf & Beach…1949…first course to use template to aid real estate sales (RTJ)
Desert Forest…1962…first great desert golf course
Victoria Golf Course…1962…first landfill golf course
The Golf Club…1967…minimalist golf course in the era of Maximism
Harbour Town…1967…another counter to RTJ
Alden Pines…1981…first golf course to use salt tolerant seashore paspalum
Shadow Creek…1989…ultimate expression of mans power to create; it is a lush oasis in the middle of desert waste land
Sandhills…1994…minimalist, first “build it and they will come” course
Bandon Dunes Complex…1999…Like Pebble, I can’t come up with why its groundbreaking, but I think it should be on the list
Bayonne…2007…first “great” landfill course…???
Machrihanish Dunes…2009…first minimalist/self-sustaining great course
Thoughts, critiques, comments are welcome.
Should something be removed, should something be added?
I am unfamiliar with salt tolerant seashore paspalum. Is it worthy of being on the list? Since it was mentioned, it must be important so it is on the list. Please advise.
Anyway, thus far…here is what I/we got.
-
Great thread, lots of good information!
-
Mac, A couple of thoughts on just a few of the courses and your descriptions.
Desert Forest. While it may be true that it is in the Sonoran Desert, it's quality is not represented by the term "desert golf". An aerial of the course yields quite the interesting dichotomy as to how it plays while on the ground. Same crit of Banff. While it is in the Canadian Rockies, the course is for the most part very walkable and again, not what is typically considered 'moutain golf".
Bayonnes' description has the quotes around the word great. I assume that means you are unsure of that monicker. In a general sense, the term great should be reserved for the 35-50 courses that truly deserve that highest of marks.
Terminology is important and your use of 'minimalism' needs to be be further scrutinized.
As most know, I'm partial to Ballyneal. It's ground breaking on a couple of fronts. One, being the type of golf and golf shots it allows for when playing. Freedom!
Also, Shadow Creek might take a back seat to Lido as the first great purely manufactured project.
-
Adam...
Thanks.
Lido is on the list. And I did change Shadow Creek's verbage away from the "first" monicker.
You are correct on Bayonne...that is exactly why I used the quotes as I am unsure of its greatness. Question...to you or anyone who knows; I listed Victoria GC as the first landfill golf course and Bayonne as the first "great" landfill course. Should I simply take Bayonne off the list or is it worthy of discussion?
I am real comfortable with Desert Forest and 90% comfortable with Banff being on the list. However, I will certainly listen to all opinions...particularly if somone can articulate why course "X" should be the first mountain mentioned in lieu of Banff (as an example).
Minimialism scrutiny...I am all ears. I used it in reference to The Golf Club as a term to describe its significance/anti-thesis of RTJ work at the time. I also used it desribing Sand Hills. I am not alone regarding either of these. I also used in with Mach Dunes...I feel real comfortable with that. And I am in complete agreement with the tone of your question and that is that the definition of these terms is "grey" at times. I am sincere in my earlier sentence that I am all ears regarding further defining this...making addition to the description, etc.
Should Ballyneal be on the list? I haven't studied it or played it, so excuse my ignorance on the course and, please, don't take any of my questions as being combatative...as they aren't. If it should be on the list, why is it groundbreaking or revoltionary?
Thanks for the feeback...It is very much appreciated!
Mac
-
I don't know what the proper definition of a mountain course actually is, but I would consider Banff a mountain course, I do believe Jasper was built a few years before Banff as well
-
Adam,
I agree with you regarding Desert Forest... it is not what I would consider desert golf. Just great golf in a desert setting.
The first course in the desert (Phx area) that led to the proliferation of the desert/target style courses that I think most people view as "desert golf" was the 1983 opening of Desert Highlands (designed by Nicklaus). The success of this course led to the late 80s and early 90s courses such as Troon CC, Troon North, Desert Mountain and Estancia among others.
-
I lost my first attempt to post and I'm not going to re-write the whole thing but here is an abbreviated version.
Alden Pines as a golf course is not significant IMO, although the point made in the thread sounds like an interesting historical note that is of some significance. The course itself is really short and narrow with lots of water. I played it only once in 1997 and the conditioning at the time was not a strength.
Desert Forest in my opinion is very much a desert course even if it has little in common with many of the other courses in the Scottsdale area. The desert is in play at Desert Forest as much or more than any other course I've played, which is enough for me. It belongs on your list in any case especially based on how you have put things together.
-
What about St. George's Hill as "The First Great Golf/Residential Combined Development..."?
-
What about St. George's Hill as "The First Great Golf/Residential Combined Development..."?
Chuck I know you'll find it in many books but I have problems with that defintion, if you add "gated" it makes more sense. Huntercombe, Sunningfale and Walton Heath were all developed to sell houses. In an earlier post I ask what was the first? There may be others e.g. I mention the plans at Thurlestone.
Sean mentioned links courses.
I would include
Westward Ho,first in England
Hoylake hugely inflential and important base outside Scotland
Princes first designed with Haskell bal in mind.
(I can add dates tonight)
-
Tony, In the US, Merion East was meant to be the centerpiece of a housing development. Other early courses may have been as well.
Mac, the Lido was expensive, but perhaps more importantly it was a wholesale attempt to create not only a course, but even the land upon which that course would sit. Groundbreaking for ground building, you could say.
It is a bit misleading to call NGLA the first great "template" course. For one thing, the term mistakenly minimizes the significance of NGLA to all of American golf. For another, the description isn't even accurate. Depending upon how one counts, there are only two to four supposed "copies" of actual holes abroad, and all of these significantly differ from the originals, and intentionally so, and all of these sit in very natural settings. It was the first World Class golf course in America.
-
I am not sure who mentioned it, but New Zealand was revolutionary for clearing trees and it was well before Sunningdale. We have to keep in mind where the heathlands are concerned that Sunny and Huntercombe were equally famous for their strategic design principles as well as the turf side of things, thus marking them out as the exception. New Zealand and Woking were before these two, but they were not considered in that class of quality.
So far as housing courses, it is probably better to use a successful example such as St Georges Hill. I don't much see the point in using an example that failed.
Ciao
-
"Tony, In the US, Merion East was meant to be the centerpiece of a housing development. Other early courses may have been as well."
Tony:
At no time was Merion East the centerpiece of a housing development in the sense of a housing development being a part of the club as it was at other clubs of that time, both here and abroad, that either planned and/or executed housing developments as part of their club.
Clubs that either planned and considered or actually developed residential housing as part of the club itself included Pine Valley, Mountain Lake, Fishers Islands etc. Even NGLA considered it but never executed it.
Merion East was nothing more than the golf course of Merion Cricket Club. Residential housing was never a part of the club even if the real estate developer who sold MCC the land for Merion East mentioned such a thing before the sale and a number of prominent MCC members worked in concert with and even invested in the completely separate residential development company (HDC); but HDC was in no way a part of Merion Cricket Club or Merion East G.C. even if a number of MCC members purchased land within the contiguous HDC residential development, and a number of Merion GC members still live there today.
I believe the first truly planned and dedicated golf and residential club in America may've been Mountain Lake Club in Lake Wales Florida in 1915. At Mountain Lake, as later at Fisher's Island, the clubs used the same combination of Baltimore developer Ruth, Boston Landscape and land planning firm Olmsted Co and golf architect Seth Raynor.
-
Oakmont was not a significant course in 1903. I don't believe it hosted a major championship until the late teens or early twenties, and after some major tweaking of that course to get it up to snuff.
Likewise I don't think Pinehurst #2 was the premier resort course in 1907 either. I would think Ekwanok would have been more highly considered at the turn of the century than Pinehurst.
-
"Oakmont was not a significant course in 1903."
I would tend to take issue with that statement, at least as it has to do solely with golf course architecture. There is a stick routing of Oakmont published in 1903 (perhaps just before of just after it was constructed) that is absolutely remarkable in its similarity of the holes and routing today. It is a stick routing without bunkering or green shapes and dimensions on it (most stick routings were sans bunkering and green shapes) and I think we know that like a number of courses of its age bunkering was something that many of the best of those "amateur/sportsmen" architects who took so many years on their limited special projects took sometimes many years to develop their bunkers and bunker schemes and apparently they did so on purpose and aforethought.
I don't see the quality of Oakmont's architecture being any less or any differen simply because the club may not have held a championship on it until some years later. The architecture just was what it was and that is what we need to know and appreciate if we are discussing groundbreaking/revolutionary courses.
-
TEP
I don't think anyone would claim the strength of Oakmont is its routing. It is the bunkering that elevates the course (and the greens), and quite a few of those bunkers were added later than 1903.
Can you point to anyone praising the course in the 1900s as one of Americas best?
-
"Can you point to anyone praising the course in the 1900s as one of Americas best?"
Tom MacWood:
As to the quality of the architecture of Oakmont even very early on I don't think that is the point at all but I recognize apparently you do to make your point that it was not up to snuff for a number of years. Most of the rest of the early American courses that were considered the best, that include the likes of Chicago GC, Myopia, GCGC, Merion East, Pine Valley and even NGLA were all massively tweaked architecturally by their architects for many years, sometimes including a couple of decades. Other than the famous and constant addition of more and more bunkers by the Fownes of Oakmont, it may've been one that was tweaked less rather than more compared to the others mentioned.
Again, the point is what was its architecture like early on and not when it held its first championship. We're talking about groundbreaking/revolutionary courses and golf course architecture here and not when a course became famous, at least I am but maybe you see this thread differently. Is a jewel any less a jewel simply because less people were aware of it early on compared to other jewels?
-
Tom MacWood:
You also said the routing of Oakmont is not one of its strengths? Really? Can I ask you a very simple question? How many times have you ever seen or played Oakmont? ;)
I suppose it depends somewhat on how anyone chooses to define what a routing is but in my opinion Oakmont's routing (the way I define a routing) is one of the best I've ever seen!
But again, if someone has never even seen it, like any other golf course, famous or otherwise, they may not understand or appreciate that.
-
I've seen Oakmont twice and played it once. Why is Oakmont's routing one of the best ever?
If Oakmont was not well known or well thought of in 1903, how could it be considered a 'significant early American design'? I'd replace it with Myopia.
Some other observations: Huntercombe is not heathland - I've made that mistake before myself. What is the first great template design? I don't believe PVGC was the first great collaborative design. NGLA predates it, and Prince's predates NGLA, and there may be others. I think Mid Ocean is closer to 1925; wouldn't courses in Florida & Cuba be considered more tropical than Bermuda? Doesn't Jasper Park predate Banff. In Japan Tokyo GC predates Hirono, and I believe there are others that may predate Toyko.
-
"If Oakmont was not well known or well thought of in 1903, how could it be considered a 'significant early American design'?"
Tom MacWood:
If you look at and analyze the significance of golf course achitecture (groundbreaking or revolutionary?) solely dependant on how well known a course was early on I have no problem with that at all; that is definitely one way to go. I prefer to do it differently though, looking carefully at the architecture itself at any point in time (in this case very early) to determine its excellence compared to the state of architecture at the time. In this way I think Oakmont was very revolutionary and as such it begs the question that is even more interesting and important to me----eg where and how did the Fownses come up with their ideas to design and do it as they did? Given how early Oakmont was in the evolution of American architecture I think that takes on added interest and importance.
-
Hey guys...
I am checking in every now and again in between meetings and during breaks at work.
I like it keep going...there will be points of debate, no doubt. But I think we've got the ball rolling pretty well.
Tom Macwood...Ryan, I think it was, also state that Jasper pre-dated Banff...good pick-up.
We can review and re-work the list as we go. It is a work in progress.
One point that is being debated, that has been a bit of a bug-a-boo for me is precisely what some of the current debate is focusing on...and for the record I think the debtate on these things/course is a great learning excercise...at least for me...
And that debate focuses on these older courses. Oakmont is being discussed currently. Work with me here...I finished reading Scotlands Gift recently...CB MacDonald comes back from Scotland and has nowhere of quality to play...he tries to fire some people up to build some good courses...Chicago springs up, Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, etc, etc, etc...but then he talks about NGLA being what appears to be groundbreaking in his book...now given it is HIS book, so perhaps self-appraisal may not be the best recommendation...but it appears to be at least one of the first great courses in America...but if these others are to this day listed as the Top's in the world, what was wrong with them then...was nothing wroing with them...when did they become great? Etc.
The point I am wanted to know regarding them is what courses eere of REAL quality during the time CB MacDonald came back from Scotland up until the time he built NGLA?
Perhaps we can't know as time has passed and things have changed, but I have an idea that a few people on this site can piece together that facts and come up with the answer...
Back to work..and I will get with y'all regarding the other points.
-
Tony Muldoon,
Merion East was very much the model of a high end real estate development with a golf course component, where the golf course functioned almost as a "loss leader." In other words, from the developers' perspective the course was intended to move real estate, and the developer was willing to lose money on the course component to accomplish this goal. The offer to sell the property was conditioned upon a first class course being built, and quick.
While the names of the ownership entities were ultimately different, the development of the course and the neighborhood were very much intertwined with each benefitting from the other. By the time the deals were done, Merion members controlled close to half the ownership interest in the development. Neither the golf course nor the development would havebeen able to proceed without the other.
-
Mac,
Everything evolves, but when CBM did NGLA it changed the meaning of 'great' in GCA into something more than it had been, and it continues to be seen as the game changer to this day. Post NGLA 'great' courses are great because they couldn't settle for less after CBM gave NGLA to the world, period. It became the benchmark for quality.
Basically, anything in the U.S considered 'great' before NGLA became 'very good', or less, after.
-
"If Oakmont was not well known or well thought of in 1903, how could it be considered a 'significant early American design'?"
Tom MacWood:
If you look at and analyze the significance of golf course achitecture (groundbreaking or revolutionary?) solely dependant on how well known a course was early on I have no problem with that at all; that is definitely one way to go.
That has some interest but I prefer to do it differently, looking carefully at the architecture itself at any point in time (in this case very early) to determine the degree of its excellence compared to the state of architecture at the time. In this way I think Oakmont was very revolutionary and as such it begs the question that is even more interesting and important to me----eg where and how did the course's architects, the Fownses, come up with their ideas on golf course architecture to design and do it as they did? Given how early Oakmont was in the evolution of American architecture I think that takes on added interest and importance, and certainly compared to if it was designed even ten years later.
If you have not read Marina Parascenzo's recent Oakmont history I highly recommend it. I think his sections on the Fownses themselves is fascinating, particularly the parts about what they apparently chose not to record if they recorded much of anything at all. W.C. Fownes' 19 page autobiography certainly ain't much! ;)
Another thing that may be of real significance is it certainly seems the Fownes' and Oakmont had is a string of very competent greenskeepers throughout the course's history who may've done or overseen a lot of the construction work and for many decades. Obviously W.C's greenkeeper Emil Loeffler was the most important in that vein, and in the broad scheme of the course's architectural evolution and history.
Again that 1903 Oakmont stick routing fascinates me in how similar it is to the way the course is. It is unsigned but it fascinates me to think the Fownes' may've done it themselves (which is apparently why the Fownes' are considered to be Oakmont's architects) unless one wants to consider without any mention or proof that some Willie Campbell or HH Barker type who you seem to think were close to the best architects in America in the early years was taking a train somewhere around Pittsburgh back then and hopped off the train back in 1903 and did it for them. One thing we do know is that 1903 Oakmont routing is a whole lot more similar to the course today than Merion East is to some long lost (and never analyzed) HH Barker mention of a Merion East stick routing about six months before that site was even decided upon and bought and about a year before it was built.
Or perhaps we should consider the sometimes used logic on this website that since neither H.C. nor W.C. had ever designed a golf course before that they were complete novices wholly incapable of routing and designing a course like Oakmont just as Hugh Wilson and his amateur/member committee was wholly incapable of routing and designing Merion East or West.
-
Tony:
Regarding the explanation in post #91 of Merion East being central to a real estate development or vice versa, the same could probably be said for any independent real estate developer (someone who was not a member of a club and had no direct interest in a club) who had more land contiguous to a site than he was willing to sell or could sell for a golf course or golf club. The point is, unlike the likes of say Mountain Lake, Fishers Island, or even initially Pine Valley or NGLA that actually owned the land slated for or initially considered for residential development, Merion (MCC), THE CLUB, did not have any actual interest (as in the sense of a financial or development or ownership interest) in a residential development. The residential real estate developer and development company had nothing to do technically or actually with MCC and Merion East golf course.
On the other hand, MCC's (Merion) site search committee had other options or alternatives of land to purchase in the general area and it seems a large part of the consideration for their choice to go where they did had to do with two primary factors----the proximity of Merion East (Ardmore) to railroad lines and the discounting of the purchase price for the land for a golf course by the independent residential real estate developer.
I have the very distinct feeling that if MCC's site search committee had chosen to buy the alternative site they were looking at (which quite likely could be the site Philadelphia Country Club is now on) that MCC's primary "angel" (Horatio Gates Lloyd) may've chosen to buy, or to organize the purchase of, the site of Merion East Ardmore anyway and create another golf course and club on that very site anyway. It just wouldn't have been Merion East, MCC and eventually Merion GC.
That very thing was not uncommon around here back then and is actually what happened with my own course and club, Gulph Mills GC, and the pre-existing (in 1916) St. David's GC. The additional irony of the latter is that most of the principals who founded GMGC in 1916 did not even come from St David's GC, they came from Merion (MCC). ::)
There is even another interesting reason that that kind of thing happened around here as it did and probably as much as it did back then (and may've happened in more than those two cases) and that is back then this entire area (The Philadelphia Main Line----eg about 40,000 acres) was essentially under the virtual control of the extremely long arms of one of the most remarkable companies in American history----The Pennsylvania Railroad (PRR).
Mac:
There is another factor of Merion that can probably be considered groundbreaking or revolutionary in American golf and architecture and that is we believe it was the first 36 hole golf club in America. Intially we thought Merion became the first 36 hole club in America in 1914 when Merion West was added to Merion East but Merion's historian just realized this year that it was actually 1912 because MCC Haverford was not shut down until about a year or so after Merion East opened for play.
-
TEP
Are you saying Oakmont was mentioned in the same breath with Chicago, GCGC and Myopia in the early 1900s?
Why is Oakmont's routing one of the best ever?
What does Willie Campbell or HH Barker have to do with a discusion of Oakmont?
-
"TEP
Are you saying Oakmont was mentioned in the same breath with Chicago, GCGC and Myopia in the early 1900s?"
Tom MacWood:
Come on pal, that is not what I said. I already explained that to you above. What I am talking about is its actual architecture early on. Did the concept ever occur to you that it might've been really good before many people became that aware of it and therefore could mention it in the same breath as Chicago, GCGC and Myopia in the first decade of the 20th century. If it was good but not mentioned that much does that somehow mean to you it wasn't good? ;)
As for the routing of Oakmont, are you really asking me that seriously? Do you think the routing of Oakmont isn't that good and if so why do you think that? ???
"What does Willie Campbell or HH Barker have to do with a discusion of Oakmont?"
Nothing whatsoever---nothing in the slightest. I only mentioned them somewhat sardonically because I sort of half expect you to come up with somebody like them from some obscure newspaper source and then claim he actually did Oakmont instead of the Fownes, the way you claimed Campbell not Leeds did Myopia and Barker not Wilson did Merion.
-
TMac,
Do you think the Oakmont routing is weak? I am reviewing it in my mind over lunch and can't say it is. Yeah, 9 goes uphill to steep, and the Fazio extensions have necessarily put some tees in odd locations to get length, but the routing is fine, even if I agree no one say much about it, and they do mention the bunkers and difficult greens.
I know I could look this up, but what is Oakmont's tourney history compared to some of the other courses you mentioned? I know Oakmont didn't host a major until 1919 and never looked back, but what tourneys did some other courses you mention hold? And, I am under the impression that Oakmont because of its difficulty made a name for itself a lot earlier, but I would have to look that up, as well.
I know that either of our opinions - and mine in particular - are somewhat subjective. I know there were penal courses before Oakmont, but felt like it was known for taking it to the extreme, even in that era before strategic design took over. So, relevant to your topic, is "perfecting" a design theory over what went before a groundbreaking course or not?
-
Awesome stuff!!
Excuse me for another 30 second look in while at work and the lack of diligence accompanying my post that this entails...
Merion certainly appears worthy of being on the list...dates? Tom Paul...excellent stuff!!
Tom Macwood...I will dig into Brad Klein's Donald Ross book regarding the dates/significance of Pinehurst is 1907ish...time frame. If you have more "scoop" feel free to share. Ekwanok...I am not as educated on...but I will dig into it.
Oakmont...jury still appears to be out. My gut tells me if certainly was "very good" and therefore should be on the list. Perhaps knowing who did the original routing and things of that nature might prove to be too opaque (did I spell that right?). However, why is it consider "great" now? When was this "greatness" installed? There is a list of the site of the top courses in 1939...is Oakmont of that list? Once again, if so...what happend from 1903 to 1939 to propel the course up the list.
These real estate/golf issues are fascinating to me. I thought this phenomena was a 1990's/2000 fad. Obviously, not. Just like the technology debate regarding the golf ball and equipment is not new.
Interesting!!
-
As an FYI and take it for what it is worth (which could be a lot)...
According to the 1939 Top 100 list that Tom MacWood posted on the "In My Opinion" portion of this website...
NGLA was ranked the 6th best course/club in the world
Oakmont 13th
Merion 17th
Garden City 49th
Chicago 89th
-
TMac,
Do you think the Oakmont routing is weak? I am reviewing it in my mind over lunch and can't say it is. Yeah, 9 goes uphill to steep, and the Fazio extensions have necessarily put some tees in odd locations to get length, but the routing is fine, even if I agree no one say much about it, and they do mention the bunkers and difficult greens.
I know I could look this up, but what is Oakmont's tourney history compared to some of the other courses you mentioned? I know Oakmont didn't host a major until 1919 and never looked back, but what tourneys did some other courses you mention hold? And, I am under the impression that Oakmont because of its difficulty made a name for itself a lot earlier, but I would have to look that up, as well.
I know that either of our opinions - and mine in particular - are somewhat subjective. I know there were penal courses before Oakmont, but felt like it was known for taking it to the extreme, even in that era before strategic design took over. So, relevant to your topic, is "perfecting" a design theory over what went before a groundbreaking course or not?
Did you read my posts?
-
As for the routing of Oakmont, are you really asking me that seriously? Do you think the routing of Oakmont isn't that good and if so why do you think that? ???
Yes, that what I'm asking. Why is Oakmont's routing one of the best ever?
-
Mac,
i had the pleasure of playing Machrihanish Dunes a few weeks ago and IMHO it is a truly revolutionary golf course. It is an absolute joy and could possibly be the worlds one and only truly sustainable golf course. This course goes beyond minimalism in not only it's design but also in it's maintenance. i really hope that people get to experience and understand what Southworth are trying to achieve there as everyone in the golf industry (especially GCA's) could learn an awful lot from it.
robin
Robin
I haven't yet played Machrihanish Dunes, only flown over it But I do think that there's a fair bit of hype in what you say there, for one thing I would guess that there is quite a few courses round the remote parts of the UK who have a minimalist maintenance regime, and not because of their Planning Permission either. Its been many years since I played it but Brora springs to mind as do the courses mentioned on the Shetlands Island thread.
Seems to me that they are truning a negative into a positive by means of a bit of spin.
Niall
-
Oakmont...jury still appears to be out. My gut tells me if certainly was "very good" and therefore should be on the list. Perhaps knowing who did the original routing and things of that nature might prove to be too opaque (did I spell that right?). However, why is it consider "great" now? When was this "greatness" installed? There is a list of the site of the top courses in 1939...is Oakmont of that list? Once again, if so...what happend from 1903 to 1939 to propel the course up the list?
What does 1939 have to do with 1903? Oakmont was considerably strengthened in the 1910s.
-
What about St. George's Hill as "The First Great Golf/Residential Combined Development..."?
Chuck I know you'll find it in many books but I have problems with that defintion, if you add "gated" it makes more sense. Huntercombe, Woking and Walton Heath were all developed to sell houses. IN an earlier post I ask what was the first? There may be others e.g. I mention the plans at Thurlestone.
Sean mentioned links courses.
I would include
Westward Ho,first in England
Hoylake hugely inflential and important base outside Scotland
Princes first designed with Haskell bal in mind.
(I can add dates tonight)
Tony
For what its worth, and I've mentioned it before but the guy who owned the Kelvinside area of Glasgow, up and coming posh area around 1890's had a course built by Old Tom and Willie Fernie, basically the Nicklaus/Doak combination of the day and restricted it to "residenters" of Kelvinside ie. you had to have bought a house from him to be able to play.
The course was built in 1894.
Niall
-
Tom M...
You guys are killing me here. Here is what I posted previously...
"Oakmont...jury still appears to be out. My gut tells me if certainly was "very good" and therefore should be on the list. Perhaps knowing who did the original routing and things of that nature might prove to be too opaque (did I spell that right?). However, why is it consider "great" now? When was this "greatness" installed? There is a list of the site of the top courses in 1939...is Oakmont of that list? Once again, if so...what happend from 1903 to 1939 to propel the course up the list."
This is why I posted the 1939 list. In your own words, which you sent to Jeff B. "Did you read my post?" :)
-
Oakmont is kind of a mystery in those early years. There doesn't appear to be much written about what kind of golf course it was in the very beginning. But there is no question that it was very penal very early. I am almost certain that Oakmont was the first to have ultra fast greens. And I can't remember the exact year, but Ted Ray sure bitched about the bunkers. That would have been around 1913?
I think the route is brilliant. It uses a much larger tract of land than most of the other courses before it. And I don't think the route has changed other than in length, and some remodeling of greens. I can't imagine a better routing for that property than the one it has. But then I'm not an architect either. I just remember every kind of angle out there when I played it. But then I'm not much of a golfer either. :-X
Fownes was great player and he wanted Oakmont to host championship golf. How many other courses were as proactive as Oakmont to host championship golf in those days, and to present a field of play worthy of the best players in the world? I think that is ground breaking.
-
Mac
I did read your post and was confused as to why you would reference something from 1939 when discussing the state of a golf course in 1903. There was a lot that happened in golf architecture between 1903 and 1939, and not just with Oakmont, just about every important golf course changed in some way during that period, and many in significant ways. Please explain why 1939 should have any bearing in 1903.
Are you familiar with the history of Oakmont's golf course?
-
Oakmont is kind of a mystery in those early years. There doesn't appear to be much written about what kind of golf course it was in the very beginning. But there is no question that it was very penal very early. I am almost certain that Oakmont was the first to have ultra fast greens. And I can't remember the exact year, but Ted Ray sure bitched about the bunkers. That would have been around 1913?
I think the route is brilliant. It uses a much larger tract of land than most of the other courses before it. And I don't think the route has changed other than in length, and some remodeling of greens. I can't imagine a better routing for that property than the one it has. But then I'm not an architect either. I just remember every kind of angle out there when I played it. But then I'm not much of a golfer either. :-X
Fownes was great player and he wanted Oakmont to host championship golf. How many other courses were as proactive as Oakmont to host championship golf in those days, and to present a field of play worthy of the best players in the world? I think that is ground breaking.
What makes you believe it was very penal early on? What did Ted Ray say about the bunkers?
-
Mac,
Oswald Kirkby, NJ amateur champ in '12, '14 & '16, after writing about good holes at NGLA, Baltusrol, GCGC & Myopia, chose not to describe any of the holes at Oakmont (and a couple others) for an article he was writing. Instead, he wrote:
"On a lesser scale I shall dispose of courses such as Huntingdon Valley, Englewood, Oakmont, Pittsburgh, and Oakland. They are all more or less alike—very good links, to be sure, but nothing particularly distinctive about any of their holes".
This was in 1915, so I think it's some idea of how important the contributions of the son were to Oakmont's eventual 'success'.
-
Jim...BOOM!!!! That is what I was looking for...excellent!!!
Tom M...I was trying to figure out when Oakmont became great. It is considered great now and we are having a debate concerning if it was great in 1903. I recalled that excellent piece you posted on the "In My Opinion" portion of this site. This piece convinced me that it was great in 1939. Which is what I thought was the case. So, my question was what happened between 1903 to 1939 to make it great and when did that occur? I was simply trying to reduce the timeframe to something more managable by including some then contemporary experts opinions on the course in 1939.
Since then Jim busted out his post that states one persons opinion that the course was not great in 1915. Once again this narrows its timeframe regarding transformation to greatness to sometime between 1915 and 1939. As I don't know the detailed history of Oakmont...I have to leave it up to further self-study or the other members of this site to help come up with what made it great during that time frame and when that occured.
However, the "kicker", at least for this thread, was groundbreaking or revolutionary in 1903? I am tempted to say "no" based on this latest piece of informatoin....but perhaps its routing, which it appears that a majority of members of GCA regard as excellent, might make it in fact groundbreaking.
Once again...great stuff!!!
-
Mr. MacWood,
Now please give me a break, I was only 14 years off. :o
From the 1927 US Open Ted Ray stated:
"The greens were the most beautiful and the fastest I ever played on."
He tallied 78 putts in just two rounds, and he was one of the better putters then.
"I thought of pasting a bit of stamp paper on my putter blade. That slows your ball up a bit. I tired three putters--a rare thing for me. But I couldn't get the touch."
Of the bunkers he complained:
"These bunkers now with the ribbed sand......the recovery shot from sand--wind blown sand; not ploughed sand--is a distinct golf shot and a fine one; it calls for great skill and accurate execution. The green may be a couple hundred yards away, and a mound at the front of the bunker in line. I don't care for the mounds as another point. In a furrow, as on this course, you, or I, or any man, has nothing to do but explode. We are all on the same level. We are reduced to the same place we would be if the area of the bunker were drawn on the grass in whitewash, and the rule was that when the ball went within the lines, it should be chucked out a few yards, and the stroke counted."
Is any this ground breaking? I think it absolutely did represent another level of tournament preparations, albeit not in the time frame we are discussing here.
-
Bradley...
Nice!
What's 14 years amongst friends!!
-
What about St. George's Hill as "The First Great Golf/Residential Combined Development..."?
Chuck I know you'll find it in many books but I have problems with that defintion, if you add "gated" it makes more sense. Huntercombe, Woking and Walton Heath were all developed to sell houses. IN an earlier post I ask what was the first? There may be others e.g. I mention the plans at Thurlestone.
Sean mentioned links courses.
I would include
Westward Ho,first in England
Hoylake hugely inflential and important base outside Scotland
Princes first designed with Haskell bal in mind.
(I can add dates tonight)
Tony
For what its worth, and I've mentioned it before but the guy who owned the Kelvinside area of Glasgow, up and coming posh area around 1890's had a course built by Old Tom and Willie Fernie, basically the Nicklaus/Doak combination of the day and restricted it to "residenters" of Kelvinside ie. you had to have bought a house from him to be able to play.
The course was built in 1894.
Niall
Thanks Niall , I missed your previous reference and until someone comes up with something earlier then as far as I'm concerned that's the clear favourite for the Title of First Housing Development.
I’m assuming it’s an NLE? Was it particularly well thought of and how long did it last? Have you had the chance to look at period coverage because I wonder how well known it was. What was it called and did it eventually become housing? Sorry for all the questions but it’s something I’ve long wondered about.
I’ll try and find a thread where I posited the idea that one of the reasons why the Walton Heath, Sunningdale (not Woking as above – my mistake) and Huntercombe were breakthroughs was because they were paid for by Developers, not a group of local businessmen, who wanted something special to promote their developments. I remember Tom Doak saying that they were breakthroughs because they had recieved more time and effort than other courses. It seems that the two ideas happily overlapped and it was only later that housing came to mean formulaic golf.
Sean I believe Sunnigdale and Walton Heath were both financial successes for the moneymen who owned the land around the courses.
Melvyn must be pleased another first by Old Tom that the Americans have picked up so enthusiastically! ;)
DM and TEP thanks for the well argued posts which I'll read carefully, but for now I think I'll decline the opportunity to debate M. with you. ;D ;D
-
Bradley:
You produced a quotation from one very noted golfer from the old days, Ted Ray, and what he said about Oakmont's bunkers. That was from 1927 and what Ray said was almost universally what just about every good or great golfer from those days said about Oakmont, including Bob Jones. It seems back then if one spoke about Oakmont it was almost always on the subject of Oakmont's bunkers. What Jones said about Oakmont's bunkers was perhaps the single most critical thing I have ever seen Jones say about any golf course or anything to do with a golf course or architecture.
Why was that? It's pretty simple really, the Fowneses, particularly W.C., the son, was a virtual maniac on the difficulty or penality of bunkers and he sure didn't mind admitting it (after all he was the one who coigned the term "a shot missed should be a stroke lost forever" ) and finding his own new and revolutionary ways to make them more so. Just the invention of those remarkable weighted furrow rakes is a perfect example. And he with his primary greenkeeper, Emil Loeffler, completely revolutionized the concept of real greenspeed maybe 20 to 30 years before any other course and club did (that is a truly fascinating story in and of itself, that I believe I can document and through someone who was actually there and mowed those green back before 1950).
Is that alone---Oakmont's bunkers---the real reason or even the primary reason that course got so much respect or should be considered to be great golf course architecture?
I think not. At the end of W.C.'s administration and just before he died in the late 1940s (1950, I think) that course it is said had close to 300 bunkers. Is that what made it the great architecture it is? I think not. If they reduced the number of bunkers on that course to less than 100 bunkers I think it still would be one of the truly great courses and great architecture in the world. The greatness of Oakmont's architecture is very definitely unique, that's for sure----eg The Fowneses, particularly W.C. does not appear to have followed anyone else's model other than his own.
The point is the routing (not the bunkering or the green shapes and sizes because there was neither on that 1903 routing plan) is so similar to what that 1903 plan shows (sans tee lengthening) and as far as I can tell only a very limited number of greens have ever been significantly changed, obviously the best examples being #8 and #17. Some of the others including #1!!, #2, #3!, #5!, #6, #9, #10!!!, #12!!!!, #15! and #16 and even #18 are real works of genius and the fact is a number of those mentioned probably always have been whole lot more "natural landform" than most any, even including some close architectural analysts, realize.
You throw into that mix the variety of the holes individually, as well as in their sequencing, and you come up with a truly remarkable, revolutionary and groundbreaking golf course, golf architecture, AND routing, particularly for such an early time in the evolution of American golf architecture!
-
Tom Paul...
Would you consider it groundbreaking/revoltionary right from 1903 due to routing...or would you say 1927 when Ray is quoted regarding the tournament quality greens?
-
Mac:
As a routing I mean right from 1903 since one can see from that routing on that 1903 plan that the course is remarkably similar (routing-wise) to the way the course is today. Remarkably similar! A whole lot more similar than the way Merion East's routing was at the beginning, for instance, compared to the way it is today or even in the 1920s.
-
Thanks Tom.
Tony...I think it is, but the post has been "quoted" so much it might be Niall's post...but when you get around to it the dates on Westward Ho, Hoylake, and Princes are anxiously being awaited! The "peanut" gallery hasn't rejected them, so they must be solid. Thanks!!!
And what was the course built in 1894 to sell homes?
-
What about St. George's Hill as "The First Great Golf/Residential Combined Development..."?
Chuck I know you'll find it in many books but I have problems with that defintion, if you add "gated" it makes more sense. Huntercombe, Woking and Walton Heath were all developed to sell houses. IN an earlier post I ask what was the first? There may be others e.g. I mention the plans at Thurlestone.
Sean mentioned links courses.
I would include
Westward Ho,first in England
Hoylake hugely inflential and important base outside Scotland
Princes first designed with Haskell bal in mind.
(I can add dates tonight)
Tony
For what its worth, and I've mentioned it before but the guy who owned the Kelvinside area of Glasgow, up and coming posh area around 1890's had a course built by Old Tom and Willie Fernie, basically the Nicklaus/Doak combination of the day and restricted it to "residenters" of Kelvinside ie. you had to have bought a house from him to be able to play.
The course was built in 1894.
Niall
Thanks Niall , I missed your previous reference and until someone comes up with something earlier then as far as I'm concerned that's the clear favourite for the Title of First Housing Development.
I’m assuming it’s an NLE? Was it particularly well thought of and how long did it last? Have you had the chance to look at period coverage because I wonder how well known it was. What was it called and did it eventually become housing? Sorry for all the questions but it’s something I’ve long wondered about.
I’ll try and find a thread where I posited the idea that one of the reasons why the Walton Heath, Sunningdale (not Woking as above – my mistake) and Huntercombe were breakthroughs was because they were paid for by Developers, not a group of local businessmen, who wanted something special to promote their developments. I remember Tom Doak saying that they were breakthroughs because they had recieved more time and effort than other courses. It seems that the two ideas happily overlapped and it was only later that housing came to mean formulaic golf.
Sean I believe Sunnigdale and Walton Heath were both financial successes for the moneymen who owned the land around the courses.
Melvyn must be pleased another first by Old Tom that the Americans have picked up so enthusiastically! ;)
DM and TEP thanks for the well argued posts which I'll read carefully, but for now I think I'll decline the opportunity to debate M. with you. ;D ;D
Tony
Do you think of Sunningdale and Walton Heath as residential courses in the same way as St Georges Hill is? OK, a developer may have been involved, but there are few houses nearby. In a broader sense you are right, but in modern terms, Sunny and WH seem quite different.
Ciao
-
Mac
Hoylake 1862, Westwward Ho 1864, which Princes ?
Melvyn
-
Melvyn...
Frankly, I am not sure on the Princes. I think it was referenced that the course was built specifically for the haskell ball.
Mac
-
Mac,
I think you have to ask yourself the question of what it is about a golf course's routing that would make it revolutionary? Do you think the fact that it's remained the same for many years qualifies? Where is the groundbreaking aspect of that? There are probably earlier stick routings, Bendelow did hundreds of them, that remain the same.
-
Jim...
Great points.
Here is what I am thinking, and as always I am not the expert...simply a very interested student, Oakmont is historic and great. I think tihs is not in dispute.
It could be groundbreaking/revoltionary...could be. It would appear to me that its morphing into championship form was, perhaps, revolutionary due to Ray's quotes on the green speeds. But I do not possess enough knowledge to make that call. And when you add in routing, bunkers, "penal" design...it could be groundbreaking and revoltionary...but it certainly isn't unanimous.
Maybe I should simply let it lie and have each individual reader make up their own mind if it qualifies for their list? It simply isn't as clear cut as the other courses on this list.
-
Mac,
It was written that WC was determined to make Oakmont the toughest course in the world, and he (along with two different supers) and plenty of assistants lengthened holes, reduced par, dug nearly unplayable ditches in the rough for purposes of drainage and general nuisance, canted all the greens (this would suggest that they built new ones from those that were first created) to improve drainage and cut them very short, and they brought the total number of bunkers up to over a dozen per hole.
This was not his father's course. ;D
p.s. Oakmont is historic and great. I think this is not in dispute.-Mac. I agree
-
TEP
Why is Oakmont's routing one of the best ever?
How many bunkers did the 1903 course have?
-
"TEP
Why is Oakmont's routing one of the best ever?
How many bunkers did the 1903 course have?"
Tom MacWood:
I note both your questions but I ask you to go back on this thread and reread what I've already written because both your questions are more than sufficiently answered to the best of my knowledge and to the best of the knowledge of Oakmont and its competent historians.
I have to admit that after watching some movie the other night something in it so reminded of the way you carry on on this website by your asking the same questions over and over and over again even if the ones you are asking the questions of supply the answers to you loud and clear over and over again!
It's in the movie "Fracture" and in the hospital the nurse tells the lawyer asking her endless questions if the comotose patient will not recover somehow in some way so he can question her about who shot her, and the nurse tells the lawyer-----"No she will never recover consciousness and I've explained to you many times why she will not recover consciousness---but do you think if you keep asking me the same questions over and over and over again, somehow you will get the answer you want?"
The lawyer paused and thought about that for a time and said: "No, of course not, but that's what I do."
At that point the lawyer left the hospital and of course the patient never did recover consciousness.
What you should try a bit harder to do, Tom MacWood, is read and consider the answers people give you to your questions in the first place because if you do there is no need at all for you do ask them over and over and over again the very same questions as you so often do on here! If that's what you do, and it is what you have done on here for so many years, it is both a real waste of time and truly unimpressive.
-
Mac,
i had the pleasure of playing Machrihanish Dunes a few weeks ago and IMHO it is a truly revolutionary golf course. It is an absolute joy and could possibly be the worlds one and only truly sustainable golf course. This course goes beyond minimalism in not only it's design but also in it's maintenance. i really hope that people get to experience and understand what Southworth are trying to achieve there as everyone in the golf industry (especially GCA's) could learn an awful lot from it.
robin
Robin
I haven't yet played Machrihanish Dunes, only flown over it But I do think that there's a fair bit of hype in what you say there, for one thing I would guess that there is quite a few courses round the remote parts of the UK who have a minimalist maintenance regime, and not because of their Planning Permission either. Its been many years since I played it but Brora springs to mind as do the courses mentioned on the Shetlands Island thread.
Seems to me that they are truning a negative into a positive by means of a bit of spin.
Niall
Niall,
No doubt you are correct but what a wonderful bit of spin. there really is no negative about this truly sustainable method of golf course development. there is not a golf course in the world that can't learn something from mach dunes and their maintenance methods. a lot of their restraints are imposed by governing authorities but other clubs should be starting to self impose sustainable management upon themselves. in 20 years time legislation is going to change the way that we maintain golf courses for ever. We will no longer be able to get away with our current wasteful uses of resources such as water, fuel and power. Pesticides are already being outlawed in a number of countries around the world. expectations are going to have to change.
i watched the golf from dubai at the weekend and listened to Greg Norman proudly state that all the bunker sand had been shipped in from the US as it was the same as they use at augusta. need i say more. this is neither financially or environmentally sustainable management of a golf course. any GCA who thinks that this is acceptable practice should never be allowed to break dirt on another project. Imagine the carbon count of transporting that volume of sand from the us to the bloody desert. are they going to continue to do this for the life of the golf course? i seriously doubt it, so what was the point of doing it in the first place other than a bit of spin.
yours aye
robin
-
TEP
I went through your posts following my request (three times) you explain why Oakmont's routing is one of the best ever, and you never did explain why...but I never expected you would.
Do you know how many bunkers Oakmont had in 1903?
-
Tom M...I've re-read Tom P's posts and I see clearly the reason he thinks the routing is groundbreaking/revolutionary. Therefore, for the purposes of this thread I am 100% satisfied regarding Oakmont and it groundbreaking/revolutionary status...of course this is just my thoughts and desires regarding this thread...others might not be satisfied. Another thread specifically on Oakmont would certainly make for an interesting read...in the meantime, I think I am going to try to get my hands on the club history that Tom Paul mentioned in order to learn more about the course/club and its history.
Robin...I couldn't agree more. I think all of the great old school architects would scoff at moving sand across the globe to put it in bunkers at a course that is located in the DESERT!!!! Also, I am on-board with Mach Dunes...it appears significant and worthy of study in my book. But once again, this is simply my thought and opinion.
-
Tom M...I've re-read Tom P's posts and I see clearly the reason he thinks the routing is groundbreaking/revolutionary. Therefore, for the purposes of this thread I am 100% satisfied regarding Oakmont and it groundbreaking/revolutionary status...of course this is just my thoughts and desires regarding this thread...others might not be satisfied. Another thread specifically on Oakmont would certainly make for an interesting read...in the meantime, I think I am going to try to get my hands on the club history that Tom Paul mentioned in order to learn more about the course/club and its history.
Robin...I couldn't agree more. I think all of the great old school architects would scoff at moving sand across the globe to put it in bunkers at a course that is located in the DESERT!!!! Also, I am on-board with Mach Dunes...it appears significant and worthy of study in my book. But once again, this is simply my thought and opinion.
Mac
I did not ask him why it was grounbreaking or revolutionary, I asked to explain why he felt the routing was one of the best ever. He did not, and I do not anticipate he ever will so there is no reason to bring it up again.
Why is The Country Club being the first country club in 1882 groundbreaking or revolutionary or important to golf architecture history? What is the significance for golf architecture that North Berwick allowed women first? How did you come up with Bethpage being the first great municipal course? What about TOC?
-
Tom M...
Good points.
On North Berwick and The Country Club were "curveballs". The posters suggested them as groundbreaking and revolutionary as the first club to allow women and the first country club. Not architecutal based...but the more I thought about it...quite groundbreaking/revoltionary without question. So, I put them on the list to help with context and understanding of how the "golf world" was evolving. Your point is well taken regarding architecture, but the courses and reasoning for mentioning them fits the definition of the thread. Hence their inclusion.
Bethpage was a last minute addition by me...great point on TOC. Would it be better suite to call it the first great AMERICAN muni? Or do you have any other suggestions regarding this specific course or the muni category as a whole?
Thanks!!
Mac
-
Tony
For what its worth, and I've mentioned it before but the guy who owned the Kelvinside area of Glasgow, up and coming posh area around 1890's had a course built by Old Tom and Willie Fernie, basically the Nicklaus/Doak combination of the day and restricted it to "residenters" of Kelvinside ie. you had to have bought a house from him to be able to play.
The course was built in 1894.
Niall
[/quote]
Thanks Niall , I missed your previous reference and until someone comes up with something earlier then as far as I'm concerned that's the clear favourite for the Title of First Housing Development.
I’m assuming it’s an NLE? Was it particularly well thought of and how long did it last? Have you had the chance to look at period coverage because I wonder how well known it was. What was it called and did it eventually become housing? Sorry for all the questions but it’s something I’ve long wondered about.
I’ll try and find a thread where I posited the idea that one of the reasons why the Walton Heath, Sunningdale (not Woking as above – my mistake) and Huntercombe were breakthroughs was because they were paid for by Developers, not a group of local businessmen, who wanted something special to promote their developments. I remember Tom Doak saying that they were breakthroughs because they had recieved more time and effort than other courses. It seems that the two ideas happily overlapped and it was only later that housing came to mean formulaic golf.
Sean I believe Sunnigdale and Walton Heath were both financial successes for the moneymen who owned the land around the courses.
Melvyn must be pleased another first by Old Tom that the Americans have picked up so enthusiastically! ;)
DM and TEP thanks for the well argued posts which I'll read carefully, but for now I think I'll decline the opportunity to debate M. with you. ;D ;D
[/quote]
Tony
You are quite correct, the course is now housing. How long it lasted I'm not quite sure but it did make it in to the next century. It was Melvyn who put me onto it and I managed to find a course plan in a newspaper which I think Melvyn has maybe posted before. It was very much like all the other early inland courses playing over what ever hazards were on the ground, in this case hedges, rail track and slag heaps. It was only 9 holes but it did sit on a hill and I would imagine would have had quite extensive views at the time before the surrounding development took off.
I'm not sure what part the golf course played in the part of the marketing of the housing but I suspect it was no where near as prominent as subsequent developments elsewhere. For instance there was no housing situated around the boundary of the course, that was about a quarter mile away (at least when the course was built).
Robin
I totally agree, sand to the arabs is like coals to Newcastle. Legislation will change attitudes but right now I think the economic climate will change things even more.
Niall
-
Mac,
As resort courses go, the first in the U.S. was the Hotel Champlain Course at Bluff Point-on-Lake Champlain. This place was built in 1890, at a time when many folks took to the mountains in the summer. A lot of courses were being built in the Catskills also, and out west.
Whether or not it was 'great' is a matter of opinion (although there is a photo caption in an article describing it that way), but at least it had grass greens, 45 years before Pinehurst converted theirs from sand.
-
"Mac
I did not ask him why it was grounbreaking or revolutionary, I asked to explain why he felt the routing was one of the best ever. He did not, and I do not anticipate he ever will so there is no reason to bring it up again."
Tom MacWood:
My explanation of why I think the routing of Oakmont is really good is contained in the last two paragraphs of post #114. I guess you missed it or didn't understand it for some reason. Mac Plumart said he certainly understood it. That is just part of why I think it is a really good routing.
And I never said Oakmont's routing was the best ever. What I said is I think it is one of the best I have ever seen. You really do need to quote people correctly if you are going to take exception with what they say or if you are going to ask them questions about what they mean about what they actually said.
As far as how many bunkers Oakmont had in 1903, I have no idea about that and I would very seriously doubt anyone knows that at this point for reasons I would be glad to explain to you if you are still interested in that specific subject.
-
Mac,
Tillinghast gets credit for the course that is there now, but Bluff Point seems to predate him.
-
Mac,
I am having a hard time understanding what you mean by "Groundbreaking/Revolutionary." Does ""Groundbreaking/Revolutionary" simply mean that some here and now like it? Or does the course of feature of the course have to be something new and different? Something that took golf course design in an unanticipated direction? Something that brought something unique to the conversation?
Oakmont is a good example. Subjectively, people could argue about the merits of the original routing and some might really like it, but that doesn't make either the course or the routing "Groundbreaking/Revolutionary" does it? How did Oakmont's routing change the game? What was unique about it compared to everything else that existed at the time. Whether or not it is an excellent routing seems beside the point.
-
Bethpage was a last minute addition by me...great point on TOC. Would it be better suite to call it the first great AMERICAN muni? Or do you have any other suggestions regarding this specific course or the muni category as a whole?
I believe the first muni was Van Cortland Park, followed by Franklin Park is Boston or maybe Jackson Park in Chicago, and then Cobbs Creek. Off the top of my head Harding Park and Sharp Park predate Bethpage-Black and were both excellent courses
-
Great stuff guys...I will amend as appropriate.
David M...groundbreaking/revolutionary, at least for what I am getting at in this thread, is indeed as you said...
"Or does the course of feature of the course have to be something new and different? Something that took golf course design in an unanticipated direction? Something that brought something unique to the conversation? "
The idea sprung into my mind with Mike Malone's thread concerning Friar's Head. The course sounds great, but he seemed to contend that it brought nothing new to the table.
NGLA seems to fit the bill 100%, the first heathlands course seem to fit the bill, etc...
Oakmont appears to be up for debate...I don't know if it is worth our time continuing to debate it unless someone has a driving passion to be "right" and prove someone else "wrong." Concerning its routing...it certainly could be groundbreaking if it was the first great routing and.or the first course whose routing didn't need updating throughout its history. But I don't have the in-depth knowledge to make that call and perhaps no one does. Therefore, I don't know if continuing to debate it will bear any fruit.
Oakmont could also be groundbreaking regarrding it becoming the first "tournament quality" course (or whatever monicker you want to put on it) with its fast greens and bunkering...see Ted Ray's comments. It could also be revolutionary for being the first great "penal" course.
But per your earlier post...a lot of this is subjective and many times more than one answer could be correct. For example, the first great muni. Harding and Sharp Park...or Bethpage. Perhaps the CA courses were first, but maybe someone doesn't consider them great, but they do consider Bethpage great. Subjective.
But without question, this thread should give someone interested in learning about truly groundbreaking and revolutionary courses some great leads for independant study.
-
Oakmont is not up for debate, but I'm sure you'll find some category to put it in.
Make your case for Bethpage. The fact that the course was built in the midst of the Depression and right before WWII limited its impact, and the fact that it fell into disrepair for a long period did not help either.
-
Tom M...
Give me a little time on Bethpage, I will get back to you on it.
Thanks,
Mac
-
Mac,
I appreciate the question as it is similar to my approach with much of this stuff, especially the early stuff. I usually think of it in terms any other medium or discipline, asking why is it influential, significant, or important, and how does it fit into the bigger picture of the story of golf course design. So I am with you as far as the question goes, but think it worth pointing out a few things.
At least some (if not most) of the answers provided are debatable, and the answers are much more starting points for further inquiry than anything else. And I while some of the answers are interesting, some of them seem to be out there with nothing backing up the claim. Again take Oakmont, which you suggest might be revolutionary as the first "tournament quality course." I am not even sure what that means, but I am sure that nothing like that has ever been proven up around here. If there are verifiable facts that support this theory then so be it, but until those facts are introduced, it seems a bit of a stretch. Verifiable facts are the building blocks of all legitimate historical analysis.
That is, unless we are just here to gossip about the way we think it might have been.
Likewise with your classification of Bethpage Black as the first great Muni in the United States. One would think it would have been considered such, as it is probably considered the best muni now, but things don't always work out that way. It may be that Bethpage didn't really become significant or ground breaking in any significant way until they hosted the USOpen. I doubt this is the case, but it is possible. My guess is that if Bethpage is significant it is because it was part of a large multi-course project. Or it could have been the first municipal course to have been built to be as difficult as the most challenging private courses. I don't know.
So in the case of Bethpage and Oakmont at least, I don't doubt they are significant but I don't think anyone has made a good case for why or when. I look forward to learning about the verifiable facts and learning from the analysis if and when the case is made.
-
Mac, I haven't read all the replies, but earlier you asked what happened between '03 and '39. I was curious if you were asking that question solely in the arena of the golf course and it's architecture? Or, if you were open to the possibility that something happened to the attitudes of golfers, as a possible reason for the change in perception?
I'll go back now and probably read it was already discussed.
-
David M...EXCELLENT points!!! I couldn't agree more. What I am learning, more than anything, from this thread is that to find the answers to a question like the one I asked you have to do a lot of work. I am pretty sure that we won't have a definative list any time soon...but I am 100% sure that I will have a lot of great information/data to use regarding my further studies. Again...you made/make a truly excellent point in your last post...truly excellent!!!
Adam C...again, truly excellent point. That shows a deep level of thinking and understanding of inter-personal and sociological interactions. Or in other, more technical speak...you are the man!!!! Seriously, great point!!
-
Mac,
You know, there's nothing wrong with finding more than one groundbreaking/revolutionary course per category.
For instance, Pinehurst may be more revolutionary than Bluff Point, but it wasn't earlier, and so forth.
-
Jim...agreed.
For example, I have the first landfill course and the first "great" landfill course.
In my mind Pinehurst was/is revolutionary and great. Perhaps these other courses are worthy of being on the list...but I am just not able to be definative on them as I don't know all of them. Therefore, I have to rely on the group for input. Input regarding the first of something is kind of easy...but the first "great" of something is another story.
But to your point...agreed 100%. That is why I like all the posts/ideas being mentioned. We can sifted through the names, research, think/ponder, discuss, include, exlude, etc.
-
Mac:
I don't think there is anything particularly revolutionary or groundbreaking about Oakmont's routing; that wasn't my point. I simply said it is one of the best routings I've ever seen and it looks remarkably similar in that 1903 stick routing plan (the year the course was built). But I sure do think given how early Oakmont was some of those greens are truly impressive "natural landform" architecture and should be studied by those interested in the evolution of golf architecture.
If Oakmont was truly revolutionary or at least unique for anything it would probably be the extreme penality of the bunkers (and perhaps the total amount of bunkers Fownes finally got to) and how Fownes had a rake designed to furrow them (I doubt anyone ever did that on purpose like that before or since). That was definitely revolutionary and it also happed to be perhaps one of the most generally unpopular things ever done to bunkering and it was eventually discontinued.
The green speeds of Oakmont were apparently truly revolutionary but that's another story and a very interesting one since they were apparently much faster than any other course all the way back in the late 1940s and early 1950s at least, perhaps even earlier.
-
Oakmont had very fast greens in 1927. And in addition to being fast they were in the most excellent condition.
I will do some more digging on this to see if they were the first club to have ultra-fast greens.
-
Work with me here...I finished reading Scotlands Gift recently...CB MacDonald comes back from Scotland and has nowhere of quality to play...he tries to fire some people up to build some good courses...Chicago springs up, Myopia, GCGC, Oakmont, etc, etc, etc...but then he talks about NGLA being what appears to be groundbreaking in his book...now given it is HIS book, so perhaps self-appraisal may not be the best recommendation...but it appears to be at least one of the first great courses in America...but if these others are to this day listed as the Top's in the world, what was wrong with them then...was nothing wroing with them...when did they become great? Etc.
In his book CBM quotes an article he wrote in 1905 in which he said it was generally conceded the best courses in America were Chicago, GCGC and Myopia. I don't recall him ever mentioning Oakmont. Where did you read that?
-
Tom M...good pick up!
-
"Oakmont had very fast greens in 1927. And in addition to being fast they were in the most excellent condition.
I will do some more digging on this to see if they were the first club to have ultra-fast greens."
Bradley:
By some old accounts I've heard Oakmont's greens were the fastest extant. There were apparently a couple of reasons. Fownes insisted on two primary facets;
1. extremely penal bunkers---eg hence the famous Oakmont weighted furrow rakes.
2. Extremely fast greens.
With the latter apparently his primary greenskeeper, Emil Loeffler, came up with some inventive ways on his own to get much lower mow heights than other courses----he essentially filed his bed-knives down as much as possible, and he had the crew sharpen the blades every day. I know a man who cut those greens in the late '40s as a kid and he said it was really hard work as he had to put the mower handle into his waist and push like hell.
I'll have to check to see exactly when Loeffler became Oakmont's head greenskeeper.
-
Brad:
Interesting you said Oakmont had very fast greens in 1927. That was the year Emil Loeffler took over from Oakmont's previous head greenkeeper, John McGlynn. Loeffler was around Oakmont just about his entire life. He began as a 10 year old caddie in 1904 and became W.C. Fownes' personal caddie. He died in 1948. W.C. died in 1950.
-
Tom P...brilliant work!!
How cool is that information? Thanks for sharing.
-
Tom M….per your prior comment, here is my case for why Bethpage State Park is a groundbreaking/revolutionary set of golf courses…
Three of Bethpage State Park’s four golf courses were built with government funds and the fourth was modified with these funds and the accompanying labor. The government program that was directly responsible for providing funds and labor for these courses was the Public Works Administration. This program was a Roosevelt New Deal program which was created in 1933 to help battle the Great Depression. It authorized over $3 billion to be spent on projects which were designed to provide jobs, stabilize the economy, improve public welfare and morale, and contribute to a revival of American industry.
AW Tillinghast laid out and supervised construction and/or modification of the four 18 hole courses…Green, Blue, Red, and Black Courses (and as an FYI the Yellow course was added in 1958). By 1935 the most famous of these courses, the Black Course, was finished and in 1936 it hosted a major golf tournament, the National Public Links Championship.
Does this constitute a groundbreaking/revolutionary course? I say, “Yes.” It was, in fact, a golf course whose very conception was designed to create jobs, stimulate the economy, and help fend off, perhaps, the greatest economic tragedy in our nation’s history.
This in and of itself should put it on the list…but I also want to know is it/was it great.
Since the Black Course is the crowned jewel at Bethpage, let’s examine that course. For starters, it hosted a significant golf tournament right after its completion. So, instantly we lean towards want to classify it as potentially great. And then, if we simply read Ran’s write up on the Black Course we can conclude nothing less than Bethpage Black is now, and was in 1936, great!
Here are a few snippets from Ran’s write-up…
One of the lasting appeals of Bethpage is that the holes seem to be effortlessly cut from the same fabric, with one sound hole following another
As an examination in driving, this course is Tillinghast’s masterpiece
Tillinghast’s work at Bethpage serves as a thesis on how-to bunker a course
Rees Jones was given the responsibility of restoring the course to its former glory prior to the 2002 U.S. Open. Work commenced in July 1997 and the course re-opened in June 1998.
I think it is inarguable the AW Tillinghast was a great golf course architect. Therefore, if Bethpage Black is his “masterpiece” regarding a test of driving…the course must be great. If Tillinghast’s work at Bethpage serves as a “how-to” course on bunkering…the course must be great. Then again, if Rees Jones had to restore it to its former glory…it had to be glorious at some point in the past.
Given all this…I can only conclude one thing…Bethpage Black is a groundbreaking/revolutionary golf course and, perhaps, the entire golf complex at Bethpage is groundbreaking/revolutionary.
Tom Macwood…you previously mentioned that Harding Park and Sharp Park potentially deserve mention on the list. If you have the time, please detail why we should consider them for the list.
-
Mac,
I don't know if the date you were given for Emil loeffler's taking over the reins at Oakmont is quite correct. There are numerous articles citing Emil Loeffler as Oakmont's Greekeeper long before 1927, here's an excerpt from one dated 1920:
" EMIL "DUTCH" LOEFFLER, greenkeeper at the Oakmont Country Club, is proud of a letter received from the United States Golf Association praising him for the fine condition of the course during the national amateur championship. He has received an offer from the Druid Hills Club of Atlanta to take charge of that course but it is not thought he will desert Oakmont. Loeffer, who was once a caddy boy, is also a good player".
It seems that Fownes was always changing the presentation at Oakmont, and I've read where Fownes had Loeffler change several greens prior to the '27 Open as a way to stiffen the course up.
"Even a cold winter is not preventing the Oakmont Club from preparing for the coming of the great amateur stars during the approaching season. Emil Loeffler, the course greenkeeper, under the guidance of William C. Fownes, Jr., started early last summer to prepare the course, putting in new tees and changing many of the greens, so that those who played over Oakmont in the 1919 championship will see a course vastly different from that which greeted them when the title event was staged here five years ago. Number thirteen green, which was picked by "Chick" Evans as the thirteenth green on an "All-American" course some time ago, is among the greens being changed, needless to say, it is not being made easier. The number six green, difficult enough in 1919, has been remade, and it is now said to be one of the best holes in the country. The same is true of number seven. This green was rebuilt early in the season but after being almost finished was deemed not good enough and was torn up again. Now it is said to equal any number seven hole in America. Other changes are slated between now and the time for thebig title tournament that will make the course, already considered an extremely difficult one, the equal of any golf course ever constructed."
-
Jim Kennedy:
Good pick up there about when Loeffler became Oakmont's head greenskeeper. Have you read Oakmont's recent history book by well known Pittsburgh sports writer Marino Parascenzo?
When I mentioned Loeffler became Oakmont's head greenskeeper in 1927 it was a mistake and my mistake.
Loeffler began at Oakmont as a 10 year old in 1904. He became W.C. Fownes' personal caddy and in 1912 he became Oakmont's caddiemaster. In 1916 he took over from Oakmont's head greenskeeper John McGlynn (who at that point went into golf architecture actually asking Loeffler (who was a very good player) to join him). Loeffler became Oakmont's head greenskeeper in 1916 and held that position until his death in 1948.
It was in 1927 that he also became Oakmont's head golf professional.
It is also interesting to know from that article how a number of those greens were designed and redesigned by the team of Fownes and Loeffler in the teens and '20s, as well as the constant increase in bunkering on the course. I am aware that the 8th green was moved and redesigned perhaps in the late 1940s or early 1950s by superintendent Snyder (who did a most interesting drawing of the course in the late 1930s while apparently still at Penn State) due to the building of the Pennsylvania turnpike which needed to be expanded from the previous railroad track bed.
This would probably help explain how Oakmont's reputation as a first class golf course, architecture and championship course evolved through the teens and 1920s as it did even though that 1903 routing really is remarkably similar to the way the course still is in that most all the holes are essentially in the same places (landforms) sans obvious tee length additions and such over the years.
By the way, at the time of that article you just cited that mentions all the work done by Fownes' and Loeffler to the course prior to the 1927 US Open, W.C. Fownes also happened to be the president of the USGA and he was the one who formally established the USGA Green Section at that time!
-
David M...groundbreaking/revolutionary, at least for what I am getting at in this thread, is indeed as you said...
"Or does the course of feature of the course have to be something new and different? Something that took golf course design in an unanticipated direction? Something that brought something unique to the conversation? "
Mac
Bethpage was not the first or only golf course built by a public works program: Prairie Dunes, Ohio State GC, Indian Canyon, Memorial Park, North Fulton, Split Rock, Mark Twain, etc.
What impact did Bethpage have on golf architecture?
As far as making my case I've already stated TOC should head this category, and if you chose to concentrate only on America and eliminate the rest of the world, then I'd go with Franklin Park in Boston designed by Willie Campbell in 1897 or 1898. It proved public could be on par with most private courses and was the model for the top public courses around the country that followed.
-
Excellent work guys. I find the Oakmont research fascinating and insightful. Perhaps it really highlights the importance of a first rate greenskeeper. Awesome!!
Tom M...I most certainly do not want to exclude the rest of the world. We have many examples of fine courses from all over the world. I will post an updated list over the next few days with all the updated information/courses.
Concerning me asking you to state your case regarding Harding and Sharp Park, don't mistake that for a "challenge" or as combatative. Your request for me to make my case regarding Bethpage proved educational for me and I enjoyed checking and double checking ideas/thoughts/facts that I thougth I already knew. Some checked out, some didn't, and some new rays of light were shined on the course/park for me.
Along these lines, if you feel like one of these other courses better represents the revolutionary nature of using golf course design to stave of the Depression I would be interested to read about it. Furthermore, if the course you choose proves to be "great" as it clearly appears BPB was/is, that would be a really course to study.
However, if you don't have the time...don't worry about it. We've got some good leads already.
Thanks!
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!
-
Brad:
Interesting you said Oakmont had very fast greens in 1927. That was the year Emil Loeffler took over from Oakmont's previous head greenkeeper, John McGlynn. Loeffler was around Oakmont just about his entire life. He began as a 10 year old caddie in 1904 and became W.C. Fownes' personal caddie. He died in 1948. W.C. died in 1950.
He was also one of the greatest golfers of his day. He shot a 67 at Oakmont.
-
A couple things I just came across:
1) The earliest mention I can find to "lightning greens" was in reference to Myopia 1909. It may be that Myopia was one of the actual pioneer clubs with respect to penal conditioning and architecture.
2) More on Oakmont's routing:
From a Golf Illlustrated article around 1925: "The Oakmont course had a rather unique beginning, for the course was conceived and laid out on paper before the land was discovered. Henry C. Fownes--who is now and has been from the first, President of the club--and his son, W.C. Jr., first conceived a plan of holes which in their judgement would make a championship layout, and then set about the difficult task of finding an acreage which would fit their mental speculations."
The article goes on to say:
"So well did they plan, and so successfully were they that no single putting green has ever been moved from it's original moorings, although every one of the 18 greens has been remodeled and rebuilt to keep step with the progress of the game."
-
There appears to have been a constant upgrading of the greens, tees, and bunkers at Oakmont. It may be likened to Augusta in that every off-season, the Fownes's were making additions and alterations to the course.
But other than lengthening, the route does not appear to have changed, nor does the location of the greens.
-
Another thing that I find interesting about the greens at Oakmont is that so many of them are extensions of the natural grade of the ground.
Number one was raised only enough to help drainage. Number three was built on the native grade. Four, Eight, Nine, Ten, Fourteen, and Fifteen are also fairly close to grade. Some of the bunkering on these greens is dug below grade.
These same design principles are evident at Myopia, and also at GCGC, although on a much smaller scale. There are some interesting similarities between Myopia, GCGC, and Oakmont. But Fownes seems to have continued to raise the bar after the other clubs had plateaued.
-
Excellent work guys. I find the Oakmont research fascinating and insightful. Perhaps it really highlights the importance of a first rate greenskeeper. Awesome!!
Tom M...I most certainly do not want to exclude the rest of the world. We have many examples of fine courses from all over the world. I will post an updated list over the next few days with all the updated information/courses.
Concerning me asking you to state your case regarding Harding and Sharp Park, don't mistake that for a "challenge" or as combatative. Your request for me to make my case regarding Bethpage proved educational for me and I enjoyed checking and double checking ideas/thoughts/facts that I thougth I already knew. Some checked out, some didn't, and some new rays of light were shined on the course/park for me.
Along these lines, if you feel like one of these other courses better represents the revolutionary nature of using golf course design to stave of the Depression I would be interested to read about it. Furthermore, if the course you choose proves to be "great" as it clearly appears BPB was/is, that would be a really course to study.
However, if you don't have the time...don't worry about it. We've got some good leads already.
Thanks!
Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!
The point of my mentioning Harding Park and Sharp Park was to show you that there were several very good public courses that predate 1936. There are others I could list if you'd like. It seems to me your lists are based on little or no historical support. You look at the date Oakmont was constructed and you assume since its so good today it must have been good in 1903. Likewise you look at the notoriety Bethpage receives today and you assume it was must be the first great public golf course and must have had a major impact on other public courses. I don't see it.
Again if you are only going to look golf architecture through an American's eyes, I'd go with Franklin Park, followed closely by Salisbury Links, designed by Emmet in 1907-08, which was one of the first modern designs in America (private or public).
-
Bradley,
These two green locations seem to have changed:
The course has undergone some big changes since the amateur championship was played there in 1925. The old sixteenth hole has been eliminated and a new hole built.....The new hole is a big improvement and is now one of the sportiest one shotter's on the course. The tee has been moved back and elevated, while the green has been brought forward.
Another important change is the one to the fifteenth green. A new green moved back 40 yards has been built and it calls for a full iron on your second shot. The hole measures 470yards with the new green. This green is also guarded with deep traps andbunkers on the sides and rear.
.....whether or not the routing remained relatively the same.
-
Bradley and Jim...again, great stuff. Like I said, I will get you all an updated list soon and we can examine it and see what we need to add, subtract, etc.
Tom M...I couldn't disagree with you more. I have made very few definative statements of fact regarding which courses should be on or off the list. Please re-read the opening post. I am thinking out loud and asking members of this site to help me.
In regards to Oakmont (as with every course listed on this thread), I essentially asked members of this thread if they thought it was worthy of being listed. Debate ensued, points were made, decisions were made. I think we made some excellent points regarding discussions/breakthroughs on the course taking its "greatness" from 1903 to 1939 and backing and filling to find out about this course and its "transformation" to greatness.
On Bethpage, you challenged me to make my case for the course and I thought I did a good job of that. Whether you, or anyone else on this site, regard it as groundbreaking or revolutionary is what the thread is all about. If you want to particpate in the thread and disagree, simply say that and lets discuss. You asked me to make my case...I did. You don't directly refute it, but kind of insinuate that you disagree by mentioned other public courses. Perhaps the monicker I gave BPB should be changed, perhaps it should not even be on the list. That is fine if you disagree...that is what the thread is all about...discussing, debating, making points, and reaching decisions. You state that I am mistaking its present greatness for its past greatness. I think I made valid points as to why its past had to be reagarded as great. Again, if you disagree...let's discuss. I am not an a vendetta to be proven right...quite the contrary...I am looking to educate myself.
If you are frustrated by my approach and don't want to particpate in the thread, I understand that. However, there is no doubt that you appear to have a more educated background on golf courrse history and I welcome your comments. But I don't want to frustrate you or cause you any anger. If that is the case, please avoid this thread. I will ask dumb questions, make incorrect statements, and similiar faux pas...but this is because I want to learn more and more about golf course architecture and its histroy and I am extra-ordinarily self-confident and,therefore, I don't mind asking a dumb question or making a mistake...as I know this is the only way I will learn.
Furthermore, if I take the lead regrading this project and can aks all the dumb questions regarding the topic...perhaps I can motivate the people who have the knowledge to answer the questions and at the end of the day we will have a great list that people can use to study and get educated on golf course achitecture and its history.
-
Bradley:
I wholly concur with what you said in #160 about the number of natural grade level greens, or at least the true architectural interest of the ones that Oakmont, Myopia and GCGC have, and I've thought that about those three courses and that similarity for some years now. It's additionally interesting that they are also from sort of the same very early era. It is such a pleasure to see greens like those today that look so good because they seem so natural landform and WORK SO WELL strategically. I think it's a study in good routing and indicative of golf architectural sublime simplicity.
Also, I see such similarity in the way both Leeds and Fownes seemed to look at golf and architecture----frankly ultra demanding and seemingly ultra penal if you missed a shot in the wrong places. I have never heard that they knew each other or knew each other well or shared ideas but it would certainly seem so given the similarity of the way they approached their two courses---Oakmont and Myopia---and I suppose to some extent one could say the same about Emmet and Travis of GCGC. All were unquestionably excellent players and seemingly a bit dour about the way they approached GCA and competition and perhaps even life itself.
Another thing I find pretty fascinating about W.C. Fownes was the way he sort of casually slid a note across the table at a board meeting after WW2 saying he was resigning from the leadership of the club and basically taking his family and the future of a Fownes continued reign with him. Apparently he did not like the idea of Oakmont becoming a country club and wanted to see it stay just a golf club in apparently the sort of GB mode and ethos.
-
Here is the updated list...
Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Golf Courses
St. Andrews (Old)…no concrete evidence details when golf was first played on The Old Course; perhaps 1441, 1552, 1574. Regardless, it is a timeless gem and first “great” muni.
Royal Calcutta...1829…oldest golf course outside the British Isles
Westward Ho!...1864…first links course in England
Hoylake…1869…influential English golf course
North Berwick…1878…first golf course to allow women
The Country Club…1882 (1895?)…first country club
Hotel Champlain on Bluff Point…1890…first American resort course
Kelvinside…1894…first golf/residential golf course
Van Courtland Park…1895…first U.S. muni
Franklin Park…1897…first very good U.S. public golf course
Sunningdale (Old)…1901…one of the first great heathland courses, also one of the first courses to be formed from cleared land and whose course was grown from seed
--It should be mentioned that New Zealand G.C. was cleared and groomed in 1893
--And Woking was perhaps the first heathlands course 1893
---And Huntercombe was another earlier great heathlands course 1901
Princes Golf Club at Sandwich…1904…UK course designed specifically for the Haskell golf ball
Chicago Golf Club, Garden City Golf Club, and Myopia…1895-1900, represent some of the significant early American golf courses
Pinehurst…1907…a great and historical golf resort
National Golf Links…1911…the first world class course in America; a watershed moment in American golf course architecture
Merion…1912 (or 1914)…first 36 hole golf club in the U.S.
St. George’s Hill…1913…great gated housing/residential combined development
Lido…1914…first “mega-expensive” golf development that included ground building, its disappearance was also significant
1914-1918…World War I
Mountain Lake…1915…first American golf/residential combined development ??
Oakmont…1916-1927…our work suggests the course transformed to greatness during this time frame, coinciding with EMIL LOEFFLER becoming head greenskeeper.
Pine Valley…1918…a great “collaborative” golf course
Pebble Beach…1919…I don’t know why it was groundbreaking, but I am putting it on the list for some unknown reason
Mid-Ocean…1921…great “tropical” golf course
Jasper Park…1925…first great mountain golf course
Yale…1926…one of the first great heavy construction golf courses
1929-1932 (1939)…Great Depression
Tokyo GC and Hirono…1932…great Japanese golf courses
Augusta National…1933…first golf course designed for spectator/tournament golf
Bethpage State Park...1935…historical course/golf complex built with Public Works Administration money which was provided by the government to help combat the Great Depression. Other courses of note regarding the P.W.A. were: Prairie Dunes, Ohio State GC, Indian Canyon, Memorial Park, North Fulton, Split Rock, and Mark Twain.
1940-1945…World War II
Peachtree Golf Club…1948…first great RTJ course…big/elongated teeing areas, big greens
Dunes Golf & Beach…1949…first course to use a template to aid real estate sales (RTJ)
Desert Forest…1962…first desert golf course
Victoria Golf Course…1962…first landfill golf course
The Golf Club…1967…minimalist golf course in the era of RTJ Maximism
Harbour Town…1967…another counter to RTJ
Shadow Creek…1989…ultimate expression of mans power to create; it is a lush oasis in the middle of desert waste land
Sandhills…1994…minimalist, first “build it and they will come” course
Bandon Dunes Complex…1999…Like Pebble, I can’t come up with why its groundbreaking, but I think it should be on the list
Machrihanish Dunes…2009…first minimalist/self-sustaining great course ??
As always, thoughts, critiques, comments are welcome.
Should something be removed, should something be added?
Anyway, thus far…here is what I/we got.
-
Tom M…
Per your comments on Pinehurst, “I don't think Pinehurst #2 was the premier resort course in 1907”, I decided to review the facts regarding the course as I know them...as I previously mentioned I would.
1895…James W. Tufts purchases the land that will become Pinehurst
1898…a 9 hole course is built
1899…the clubhouse opens
1900…course in expanded to 18 holes
…Harry Vardon puts on a 4 day exhibition at Pinehurst, this draws national attention
to the resort
1901…golf is so popular among its guests, another 9 hole course is built
1907…Pinehurst #2 debuts and due to this the course is “vaulted to the front ranks of
the country’s golf resorts”…quote from “Discovering Donald Ross” by Bradley
S. Klein.
Perhaps it wasn’t the premier resort course, but it certainly appears to have been one of the premier resort courses. I have changed the verbage regarding Pinehurst from “the first great resort course” to “a great and historical golf resort.”
I trust no one will take issue with that, but, as always, I am open to further discussion. And, once again, I enjoyed doing this extra research and double checking my thoughts/ideas/knowledge. Thanks!
-
You could add Lawsonia Links in the 1929 timeframe.
It may not be ground breaking to those in the N.E. but, it sure is important. Talk about untouched?
-
I was told by employees of Pebble Beach that the reason for American architects was that with World War One it was impossible to employ an English or Scottish architect,therefore Jack Neville and Douglas Grant were chosen.It was the first course to have piped irrigation on all eighteen holes.It was the site of the USAmateur in1929, the first major championship held west of the Mississippi Basin by the USGA.
-
Mac:
Rosapenna in Ireland was opened in 1893 as a golf resort with hotel. Was it the first golf resort? I don't think so as there were other courses in the UK that were built as resorts as well. Was Cruden Bay the first?
Dónal.
-
Donal
I think there was any number of "resort courses" about this time. St Andrews and North Berwick being the obvious examples in Scotland. Also Carnoustie in certain months was full of visitors and I'm sure Rich would confirm that Dornoch was the same (not that I'm suggesting he was about then ;).
There might not have been one owner owning the course hotel and everything else but in many instances there was a popular movement by people to get their town a course to attract tourists. Lossiemouth was largely developed for this reason and even had its own newspaper which was short lived to promote the town and its golf.
Mac
Not to be pedantic on what has been an interesting thread but on North Berwick being the first course to allow woman, I would suggest that you are wrong both in the fact and probably the question. Many of these early links were common ground and open spaces where anyone could pitch up and play and indeed use the links for a variety of reasons. There were no restrictions on women golfers as far as I am aware. Subsequently ladies course were built specifically but that was because it was thought that shorter courses were more suited to the ladies.
Perhaps the question should be what was the first club that owned its own course and didn't allow members into the club and and on the course. As for the answer, I've no idea.
Niall
-
I would take Bayonne off the list. It's probably not great, and I don't see that bullding on a landfill is meaningful.
I also would take off Shadow Hills. Lido got there 60 years earlier.
On Machrihanish Dunes: what does "sustainable" mean?
A few questions on Oakmont. Was it the first tournament course that was so penal? That had such fast, diabolical greens? Did it and/or its features influence other courses?
If Mac had started the Merion threads, I bet things would not have gotten so crazy.
-
Donal
I think there was any number of "resort courses" about this time. St Andrews and North Berwick being the obvious examples in Scotland. Also Carnoustie in certain months was full of visitors and I'm sure Rich would confirm that Dornoch was the same (not that I'm suggesting he was about then ;).
There might not have been one owner owning the course hotel and everything else but in many instances there was a popular movement by people to get their town a course to attract tourists. Lossiemouth was largely developed for this reason and even had its own newspaper which was short lived to promote the town and its golf.
Niall
Niall:
When I referred to a "resort" type of course, I was thinking about a course that was built to tap into the tourism trade. St. Andrews, Dornoch and North Berwick certainly attracted tourists, but were they built for the purpose?
Lossiemouth was founded in 1889, so was this the first course built to attract tourists?
Dónal.
-
Niall,
That should read:
"In 1832 North Berwick Golf Club was founded, this was the first to allow ladies to play a fuller part in the everyday affairs of the club, though the gentlemen’s generosity did not extend to allowing the ladies entrance into tournaments."
North Berwick does bill itself as having the first Ladies nine-hole course in Scotland.
-
Dónal & Niall
I think Castletown on the Isle of Man counts as one of the first real resorts being designed in 1892/3. Cruden started in 1894 but did not open until 1899. Rosapenna did not start I believe until 1894/5 although the course was playable as early as 1892/3.
I feel that St Andrews and North Berwick were towns with a course rather than resorts, although by the introduction of more courses they could (perhaps) be defined by the mid 1890’s as going in that direction.
One thing that we must remember is the period. These were the days of the mass Sunday outings, with new piers appearing at seaside resorts and the steamers taking the ordinary people around the islands. Courses like Machrie and Uisguintuie on Islay benefiting by the steamers. Between 1890-1910 steamers moved many around the coast of GB. Those close to the ports/piers enjoyed many visitors and seemed to flourish whilst those further away tended to rely on locals.
As for resorts, this was also the time of The Spa, places like Strathpeffer Spa came into their own with direct links via train to London. Their course is circa 1886 and could be regarded as a resort town of sorts.
However, I believe that Castletown on the Isle of Man gets my vote as one of the earliest resorts with hotel and golf course IMHO.
Melvyn
-
Guys...
Great stuff! I will make updates as neccessary.
As an FYI, I think more than one person has mentioned that Shadow Creek needs to be pulled off the list as the Lido owns this category. I will do it, but for some strange reason it makes me sad. There is something about seeing pictures of what was there and what is there that is mind blowing. I am set to play it in March and I am stoked!!! But I will take it off the list, nevertheless.
However, this brings up a question. We have a gap from 1967 (Harbor Town) to 1994 (Sandhills) with no breakthroughs. If this is accurate, fine. But if we are missing something...let me know.
-
Shadow Creek should really be on any list of significant golf courses. It symbolizes and/or ushered in this whole crazy era of cost-be-damned, nature-be-damned excess in golf course design. Lido may have been 70 years before its time, but I don't think that takes away the impact of Shadow Creek.
-
David...
Thanks!
I think it deserves to be on as well. It is freakin' crazy!!! I am counting down the days until March Madness and the accompanying tee time at Shadow Creek!!
-
Don't get me wrong Mac. I think the whole idea of the place is a travesty to golf and nature. But your question was about groundbreaking courses, and it was one whether I like it or not.
-
Donal
I think there was any number of "resort courses" about this time. St Andrews and North Berwick being the obvious examples in Scotland. Also Carnoustie in certain months was full of visitors and I'm sure Rich would confirm that Dornoch was the same (not that I'm suggesting he was about then ;).
There might not have been one owner owning the course hotel and everything else but in many instances there was a popular movement by people to get their town a course to attract tourists. Lossiemouth was largely developed for this reason and even had its own newspaper which was short lived to promote the town and its golf.
Niall
Niall:
When I referred to a "resort" type of course, I was thinking about a course that was built to tap into the tourism trade. St. Andrews, Dornoch and North Berwick certainly attracted tourists, but were they built for the purpose?
Lossiemouth was founded in 1889, so was this the first course built to attract tourists?
Dónal.
Donal
Fair point. Can't say the Old Course and NB were started as resort courses but I think it is fair to say they developed later in response to their popularity with visitors. Lossiemouth was as much about providing a course for the locals as well as visitors and was a traditional club model where a couple of locals think a golf club would be a good idea, they put a notice in the local paper calling a meeting for anyone interested, a committee is formed at the meeting charged with looking into finding suitable land for the course, and then usually deal down with local farmer and course up and running few months later.
What you had at Rosapenna sounds more like the resort idea that we think of today. Also Uisguintuie on Islay which Melvyn mentions was linked to the local hotel as was/is the Machrie. There was another one in the highlands that I was reading about where the course was built round about the same time, don't have the details to hand. What one was first ? I would guess it was the Machrie.
Melvyn
I was reading an account how the newly formed Lossiemouth club sent a team by sail to play a team at Dornoch. Needless to say the relatively new golfers of Lossiemouth took a bit of a beating.
Niall
-
David...
I agree 100%...but I've got to see it.
-
I agree that Shadow Creek should be on the list as groundbreaking and revolutionary. The Lido's making of a golf course out of watery fill that ended up looking like most of the rest of the south coast of Long Island is a lot different than Fazio making a course that looked like a mirage of North Carolina or Oregon in the middle of a desert in Nevada. In other words, there is a very distinct juxtapositional aesthetic difference between Lido and Shadow Creek.
-
Tom P...thanks! Good point.
Niall, Donal, Melvyn...
I am reading your posts with much interest and checking out the courses you list. Please keep updating and if you all end up with a specific course regarding first resort, please let us know. Interesting and worthwhile stuff. Thanks!!
-
Although the Crooked Stick website lists Pete Dye as the architect, the ASGCA website lists it as Alice Dye's design in 1964. Is this the first course designed by a woman?
-
Kari...
Interesting! I will dig into it...if others know, please comment.
-
Kari:
I'll ask about Crooked Stick when I speak with them again. I doubt one could say Crooked Stick was not done by Pete or the both of them but maybe they just put Alice's name on it due to ASGCA membership criteria or something like that. Pete and Alice are big and long time supporters of the ASGCA. It would be an understatement to say that Alice has and has had some very strong and some pretty unique ideas on architecture.
For instance she told me that at TPC Sawgrass she was pestering Pete so much he assigned her a single hole and told her to leave him alone for awhile. Her hole was one of the ones with railroad ties and recently all the railroad ties had to be replaced because they had rotted; all the railroad ties except the ones on Alice's hole that is. When Pete became aware of that he wondered how that had happened and Alice told him; "Because I used pressure treated wood and you didn't you dumb shit." ;)
-
I was also hoping we could attach some purely architectural breakthroughs with these courses or some other courses.
North Berwick had the original redan, correct?
Oakmont had a special bunker rake...furrowed rake?...was that the name?
RT Jones is known for the water hazard/lake right in front of the green causing a "heroic" carry, right? Does anyone know the first course he did this on?
Biarritz green at Biarritz golf course in France...is that right?
Old Course...backwards and forwards?
NGLA copied/template holes...was this the first time it was done?
TPC Sawgrass first island green or was that Ponte Vedra?
anyway, I think you get my drift.
Any and all help would be GREATLY appreciated.
-
Mac,
You'll find many examples of island greens built before Sawgrass.
This one is from Suneagles (Tillinghast)
(http://www.tillinghast.net/images/sun_island.jpg)
Adam Clayman notes a few others below:
Plenty of golden age courses (and later) tried to utilize the island green. I can cite Eastmoreland in Portland, The el Capitan in Howey-in-the-hills, Florida and Oyster Bay in Myrtle as a few.
Now, Pete's version is plenty controversial and a fairly unique application of that concept. BTW, That's a good thing.
-
Mac,
As far as I know the first woman GCA was May Webb Dunn, who built the Tahoe GC in 1917.
RTJ built a 9 hole course for Lowell Thomas on Thomas' property in Pawling, NY. in 1941. It has a par 5 green protected by water in front, although that was not RTJsrs' definition of a heroic carry.
-
Mac,
Some more on 'Nora' Dunn:
http://www.washoegolf.org/PDF%20Files/EARLY%20DEVELOPMENT%20OF%20GOLF%20IN%20RENO.pdf
-
Mac:
According to the Springhaven Club, Wallingford Pa (just outside Philadelphia), it appears it was their Ida Dixon (Mrs. Henry Dixon) who was the first female golf architect in America as they believe she laid out their original course in 1903.
However, I'll try to check again but I recall there may've been another female who laid out a course in Canada perhaps considerably earlier than Ida Dixon in Philadelphia.
-
Looks like Ida got the jump on Nora!
You sure CBM didn't help her out?
-
I have no real idea if she had anything much to do with golf course architecture but considering the course was something of a family affair at the time one should probably look a bit more carefully at the remarkable early American professional golf teacher at Franklin Park Boston, Georgina Campbell, the wife of the sadly departed (in 1900) Willie Campbell. I promise you if any American should be considered the original patron saint of say the LPGA it probably is the remarkable Georgina Campbell. This lady seems to have been very well known and beloved in golf around Boston and she kept at it for nearly fifty years after her husband's really young departure from life.
-
"You sure CBM didn't help her out?"
JimK:
Nope, of course I'm not sure CBM didn't help out Ida or was the driving force behind her or her Springhaven routing and design. Particularly if we use a couple of operative hypotheses such as what if Ida looked like an actress or showgirl that CBM clearly had an affinity for (you've heard about his famous "Hen House" on his estate in Southampton, haven't you?) or if we use the heretofore used working hypothesis query on here-----eg "It's not IMPOSSIBLE, is it?"
PS:
I like the way you didn't use a smiley after that question and so I just removed mine in response.
-
Here is the updated list...
If there are anymore architectural breakthroughs that need to be added, please let me know.
Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Golf Courses
St. Andrews (Old)…no concrete evidence details when golf was first played on The Old Course; perhaps 1441, 1552, 1574. Regardless, it is a timeless gem and first “great” muni…course can be played forwards and backwards
Royal Calcutta...1829…oldest golf course outside the British Isles
North Berwick…1832…first golf course to allow women…the original Redan
Westward Ho!...1864…first course in England
Hoylake…1869…influential English golf course
The Country Club…1882 (1895?)…first country club
Biarritz Golf Club…1888…home of the original Biarritz green
Hotel Champlain on Bluff Point…1890…first American resort course
The Machrie...1891…first resort course
Kelvinside…1984…first golf/residential golf course
Van Courtland Park…1895…first U.S. muni
Franklin Park…1897…first very good U.S. public golf course
Sunningdale (Old)…1901…one of the first great heathland courses, also one of the first courses to be formed from cleared land and whose course was grown from seed
--It should be mentioned that New Zealand G.C. was cleared and groomed in 1893
--And Woking was perhaps the first heathlands course 1893
---And Huntercombe was another earlier great heathlands course 1901
Springhaven Club…1903…first course laid out by a female (Ida Dixon)
Princes Golf Club at Sandwich…1904…UK course designed specifically for the Haskell golf ball
Chicago Golf Club, Garden City Golf Club, and Myopia…1895-1900, represent some of the significant early American golf courses
Pinehurst…1907…a great and historical golf resort…known for its shell-backed greens
National Golf Links…1911…the first world class course in America; a watershed moment in American golf course architecture…used classic British Isle courses for ideas for holes on the course
Merion…1912 (or 1914)…first 36 hole golf club in the U.S.
St. George’s Hill…1913…great gated housing/residential combined development
Lido…1914…first “mega-expensive” golf development that included ground building, its disappearance was also significant
1914-1918…World War I
Mountain Lake…1915…first American golf/residential combined development
Oakmont…1916-1927…our work suggests the course transformed to greatness during this time frame, coinciding with EMIL LOEFFLER becoming head greenskeeper…known for its “penal” architecture and bunkering...and their weighted furrow bunker rakes.
Pine Valley…1918…a great “collaborative” golf course
Pebble Beach…1919…first course to have piped irrigation to all 18 holes
Mid-Ocean…1921…great “tropical” golf course
Jasper Park…1925…first great mountain golf course
Yale…1926…one of the first great heavy construction golf courses
1929-1932 (1939)…Great Depression
Tokyo GC and Hirono…1932…great Japanese golf courses
Augusta National…1933…first golf course designed for spectator/tournament golf
Bethpage State Park...1935…historical course/golf complex built with Public Works Administration money which was provided by the government to help combat the Great Depression. Other courses of note regarding the P.W.A. were: Prairie Dunes, Ohio State GC, Indian Canyon, Memorial Park, North Fulton, Split Rock, and Mark Twain.
1940-1945…World War II
Peachtree Golf Club…1948…first great RTJ course…big/elongated teeing areas, big greens
Dunes Golf & Beach…1949…first course to use a template to aid real estate sales (RTJ)
Desert Forest…1962…first desert golf course
Victoria Golf Course…1962…first landfill golf course
The Golf Club…1967…minimalist golf course in the era of RTJ Maximism
Harbour Town…1967…another counter to RTJ
Shadow Creek…1989…ultimate expression of mans power to create; it is a lush oasis in the middle of desert waste land
Sandhills…1994…minimalist, first “build it and they will come” course
Bandon Dunes Complex…1999…First “built it and they will come” resort
Machrihanish Dunes…2009…minimalist golf course with minimalist maintenance
As always, thoughts, critiques, comments are welcome.
Should something be removed, should something be added?
Anyway, thus far…here is what I/we got.
-
Mac, no one knows if the Biarritz course in France had a Biarritz green.
-
Jim...
Huh? Is there a first known example of it? I did go to their website and look around. As you point out, I saw no direct mention of the Biarritz green, but did see diagrams that appeared to have maybe, kind of, sort of, looked liked it.
Anyway, I thought this was a recognizable design feature and wondered if we could find a "first" for it.
Thanks,
Mac
-
Mac,
I think the first known example of what we call a Biarritz is at Piping Rock, at least it's the first one that CBM and SR built.
-
Piping Rock's biarritz is indeed the first biarritz done by Macdonald/Raynor. It could've been designed and built at some point between 1911 and 1912 because the course opened for play in 1913.
-
Okay...another dumb question.
Why is it called a biarritz green if it wasn't started on the Biarritz golf course?
I get the "cape" hole because it loooks like the land formation, redan makes sense because of the fortress mentaility, etc.
-
Mac,
The golf course at Biarritz was called 'La Phare' and the concept was derived from the 'Chasm' hole. Reading George Bahto's interviews on this site will help you to get a better understanding of it, and the various configurations CBM/SR used when building one.
Macdonald's description from his ideal golf course: 210 yards. Suggested by the 12th Biarritz, making sharp hogback in middle of course. Stop 30 yards from hole bunkered to the right of green and good low ground to the left of plateau green.
-
Here is the updated list...
If there are anymore architectural breakthroughs that need to be added, please let me know.
Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Golf Courses
Westward Ho!...1864…first course in England
Mac:
The Royal Blackheath Golf Club was instituted in 1608, so it's the oldest course and club in England and also the oldest golf club in the world.
Dónal.
-
Donal...
Thanks!
I suppose I misunderstood...was Westward Ho! the first links course in England?
-
Mac,
I think the first known example of what we call a Biarritz is at Piping Rock, at least it's the first one that CBM and SR built.
I agree that Piping Rock likely has the first one built by CBM and SR. But while not built by CBM/SR, the 17th at Merion East fits the Biarritz conceptually. Given CBM's and HJW's extensive involvement in planning Merion, this hole may be the first attempt at representing CBM's concept in the US.
-
David,
Am I reading too much into the characteristics of a Biarritz in thinking there is supposed to be a short (or down) side of the swale? #17 at Merion only has an incline, and only goes across half the green.
-
Mac
Yes I believe Westward Ho was circa 1860-64 although the Gossops played upon a rough course with just a few hole pre 1860. In 1860 the Rev Gossop asked Old Tom who was at Prestwick to come and design a full course. This he did and returned in 1864 to modify it when the club was formed. His first visit was when he worked at Prestwick and through a club member first supplied clubs and balls to the Gossops then was asked down a couple of years later to design the course. Blackheath was the only other course open at that time but in the London area.
Melvyn
PS Hoylake was the next one but that was in 1869 and by Old Tom's older brother George Morris & Chambers
-
David,
I see what you mean.
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTbx4..BNLlGIAcKWjzbkF/SIG=137vr39u0/EXP=1259686334/**http%3A//l.yimg.com/go/news/picture/2009/g4/20090912/20090912162234328g4_083015_0.jpg)
-
"Mac,
The golf course at Biarritz was called 'La Phare' and the concept was derived from the 'Chasm' hole. Reading George Bahto's interviews on this site will help you to get a better understanding of it, and the various configurations CBM/SR used when building one.
Macdonald's description from his ideal golf course: 210 yards. Suggested by the 12th Biarritz, making sharp hogback in middle of course. Stop 30 yards from hole bunkered to the right of green and good low ground to the left of plateau green."
JimK:
I'm glad you mentioned that. I know we have been all through this entire biarritz subject on here in the past but there seems to always be some ongoing mystery involved somehow.
I did a lot of research on this once but forget some of the aspects of it now. Macdonald did mention the 12th hole on the Dunn course at Biarritz France with its famous "Chasm" hole (where Vanderbilt met both golf and Dunn) but it seems most people say that Chasm hole was the 3rd at the Dunn Biarritz course. Either that club flipped their nines at some point or resequenced their holes or else this biarritz concept CBM referred to as the 12th may be another hole on that course or perhaps even some composite concept of two holes there including the Chasm hole and another (perhaps with a hogsback and a swale in it?).
This entire biarritz template model and concept really is quite the architecture etymological mystery!
PS:
For the record on Merion, it seems if the 17th hole was ever referred to as some architectural concept from abroad it was that Wilson picked up the "Valley of Sin" idea on TOC's 18th and used essentially the same concept for the valley/swale iteration in the front of Merion's 17th which is both fairway area and greenspace. I guess one always interesting question is if TOC's "Valley of Sin" is where CBM got the idea for the swale in the biarritz green. George Bahto, for one, seems to suspect that may be the case.
Also, for the actual verifiable FACT of CBM's and HJW's 'extensive' involvement in the planning of Merion East's course and routing, the only actual date that can be verifiably established was April 6, 1911 after the Wilson Committee had spent a number of months (that included a two day trip to NGLA in early March that was explained in their committee report to the MCC board to go over Macdonald's plans for that course and the course itself the next day which BTW never had a biarritz) with various course iterations in the winter and early spring of 1911. Of course, anyone can speculate that their actual involvement with Merion's routing and design was more than that but the fact is there is nothing at all that has ever been produced to verifiably establish that fact! ;)
-
Pinehurst…1907…a great and historical golf resort…known for its shell-backed greens
Bandon Dunes Complex…1999…First “built it and they will come” resort
As always, thoughts, critiques, comments are welcome.
While I love Bandon Dunes, I think the Tufts could be credited with the first "build-it/come". The Sandhills of NC were pretty remote a century ago.
-
David,
Am I reading too much into the characteristics of a Biarritz in thinking there is supposed to be a short (or down) side of the swale? #17 at Merion only has an incline, and only goes across half the green.
Jim, not sure I understand your question. Some of the similarities with the concept are the distance of the hole, the carry over the chasm (in this case the quarry,) the elevation change from tee to green (like the original hole,) and perhaps most importantly the playable "valley of sin" type swale immediately short of the hole. Merion legend has it that the swale was based on the Valley of Sin, but Wilson had never seen the Valley of Sin when he built the hole. [Without digging back into my research I'm not certain, but I think that this was one of the greens which was rebuilt early because of drainage issues, but as near as I can tell from photos and descriptions, the large swale short of the green was always there, although it isn't clear whether it was then part of the green.]
Bahto has long contended that the swale on the Biarritz may actually be representative of the Valley of Sin, so the references in the Merion Legend to this being Merion's Valley of Sin certainly make sense. In the end we have a long par three (probably not even reachable for many at the time) over a quarry with a swale just short of the green that is presumably there so that one can run the ball up onto the green. Now normally one might think that this is just a coincidence, but given CBM's extensive involvement in planning the course and the fact that he chose the final layout plan, and given that this is a course with numerous holes and features utilizing CBM-type principles, it is hardly a stretch.
As for whether or not the similarities are exact, why would they be? CBM and/or Raynor didn't build the hole, and there was no model at NGLA for Wilson to try and approximate. Hugh Wilson built the hole, so it looks like a Hugh Wilson hole, not a Raynor hole. But conceptually, its a Biarritz, and may be closer to the original conception than many of the later ones by Seth.
Here is the photo posted by Jim Kennedy, above. Try to forget it is Merion. If you walked onto this hole on a CBM course, what hole would you think it was?
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0WTbx4..BNLlGIAcKWjzbkF/SIG=137vr39u0/EXP=1259686334/**http%3A//l.yimg.com/go/news/picture/2009/g4/20090912/20090912162234328g4_083015_0.jpg)
-
I have never thought of this before but given all the foregoing chronological information perhaps Macdonald actually got the idea for a massive swale in front of a par 3 green when he arrived in Philadelphia for his one day visit on April 6, 1911 to go over the five plans for Merion East that Wilson and his committee had been working on and developing all winter and spring of 1911.
At least we do know that previous to this Macdonald/Raynor had never done a so-called Biarritz hole with a massive swale at its front before the spring of 1911.
Therefore perhaps the original idea and concept for a biarritz swale (viz CBM/Seth Raynor's first biarritz at Piping Rock shortly to come) should be assigned to Wilson and his MCC routing and design committee. Given all the foregoing information it certainly seems worth some serious consideration!
-
"Bahto has long contended that the swale on the Biarritz may actually be representative of the Valley of Sin, so the references in the Merion Legend to this being Merion's Valley of Sin certainly make sense. In the end we have a long par three (probably not even reachable for many at the time) over a quarry with a swale just short of the green that is presumably there so that one can run the ball up onto the green. Now normally one might think that this is just a coincidence, but given CBM's extensive involvement in planning the course and the fact that he chose the final layout plan, and given that this is a course with numerous holes and features utilizing CBM-type principles, it is hardly a stretch." -DMoriarty
I'm unclear about the timelines, but if CBM didn't have the place to build one at NGLA yet saw the near perfect ground at MCC, wouldn't it be possible that he'd gladly give the idea to Wilson and his committee?
-
"I'm unclear about the timelines, but if CBM didn't have the place to build one at NGLA yet saw the near perfect ground at MCC, wouldn't it be possible that he'd gladly give the idea to Wilson and his committee?"
Sure it's possible; practically anything is possible if one wants to use a completely unfettered imagination with none to very little supplemental evidence to derive it from or back it up.
But guess what else is not just possible but logically a whole lot more likely given what we actually have from the contemporaneous records of MCC? ;)
Consider for a moment not just the possiblity of the scenario of post #209 but the possibility of the scenario of post #210. I realize that may be very difficult for you to do but you should try it anyway.
-
"Bahto has long contended that the swale on the Biarritz may actually be representative of the Valley of Sin, so the references in the Merion Legend to this being Merion's Valley of Sin certainly make sense. In the end we have a long par three (probably not even reachable for many at the time) over a quarry with a swale just short of the green that is presumably there so that one can run the ball up onto the green. Now normally one might think that this is just a coincidence, but given CBM's extensive involvement in planning the course and the fact that he chose the final layout plan, and given that this is a course with numerous holes and features utilizing CBM-type principles, it is hardly a stretch." -DMoriarty
I'm unclear about the timelines, but if CBM didn't have the place to build one at NGLA yet saw the near perfect ground at MCC, wouldn't it be possible that he'd gladly give the idea to Wilson and his committee?
It is more than possible. This wasn't a new idea by CBM-- he had already written about it in 1906, and that description matches Merion's 17th rather well. And it is hard to imagine that he and Whigham (who was also familiar with the Biarritz in France) were not excited to see a perfect spot for the hole when they first inspected the Ardmore property in summer of 1910.
-
As Tom MacWood is apt to say on here----that's some interesting speculation but complete speculation nonetheless. Thankfully Merion GC does not get into that kind of speculation in the presentation of its architectural history-----the august Herbert Warren Wind's comment excluded of course! :-X
-
DM,
Thanks for clearing that up. I had the idea that no self respecting evangelist could pass up a chance to proselytize his faith, as it were, and the timeline surely fits. Highly possible, if not probable.
Consider for a moment not just the possiblity of the scenario of post #209 but the possibility of the scenario of post #210. I realize that may be very difficult for you to do but you should try it anyway. -TEPaul
I did consider them, that's why I asked the question in post #211, but your attitude in the above reply surely doesn't aid your cause.
-
David,
I am not fluent in the characteristics required for any of these concept holes, but I thought the Valley of Sin was a Concept and the Biarritz was another distinct Concept. I believe their playing characteristics were certainly distinct, no?
-
Okay...I read the George Bahto interviews on this site. I have cut and pasted the following bits of information concerning the Biarritz...
its origin came from a course in France built in the late 1800’s
Its background stems from the ‘Chasm’ hole (#3) at the original Willie Dunn course at Biarritz
So, wouldn't it be accurate to state that the Biarritz hole was developed by Willie Dunn on the golf course located in Biarritz, which I believe is named La Phare?
MacDonald, Raynor, etc simply applied this concept to other courses...I believe Mr. Bahto mentions the Lido, and, in fact, every other MacDonald/Raynor course with the exception of NGLA.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks.
-
David,
I am not fluent in the characteristics required for any of these concept holes, but I thought the Valley of Sin was a Concept and the Biarritz was another distinct Concept. I believe their playing characteristics were certainly distinct, no?
Many of CBM's holes are applications of a multiple fundamental strategic concepts as they fit. Combining two (or more) concepts into one hole is right up his alley.
Not sure what you mean by "their playing characteristics certainly distinct." A swale in front of a green is a terrific strategic tool in cases where the ground game might be an option, because it puts high demands on both the ground shot and on the aerial shot. A ground shot must be running true to make it through the swale without stopping or veering, and aerial shot must clear the entire thing else be stuck in the swale. While the Valley of Sin is located on a par 4, it seems to create the same issue, even on much shorter approaches. If you are going to run through it, you'd better be true, and if you are going to carry it you'd better carry all of it. I
I think this possibility of getting stuck in a swale is a bigger factor in the concept of the biarritz than we commonly consider. It acts as a false front, where balls that are "nearly good" are not good enough. Making those "nearly good" shots pay a toll is one of the key elements to CBM's conception of strategy.
Whigham:
"There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green. Under normal conditions the hole has to be played with what is now known as the push shot, a low ball with plenty of run, which will land short of the dip and run through it on to the green. A drive with a longer carry is apt to land in the dip and stay there. But the push shot must be very straight otherwise it will land on one side or the other of the hog's back and break off into a bunker. This is the ninth hole at Piping Rock.''
____________________________
Mac
The chasm hole definitely existed before CBM built one, and that was his influence and he applied the concept to courses in America. The same goes for most of the concepts he applied.
-
David,
Isn't the primary function of the Valley of Sin to suggest a tee shot along the fence line for center and left pins?
The other playability distinction is the length of approach. A 220 shot is wholly different than whatever is left into #18 at TOC. Being in the Valley at Merion is better than 95% of the results.
-
Mac:
The confusion with the architectural etymology of the biarritz hole, as interpreted and created in America by CBM/Raynor, is not much akin to that famous "Chasm" hole in Biarritz, France with the exception of say Fishers Island's iteration or perhaps Yale's to a lesser extent. And the doubly confusing factor is no one has ever been sure if that Chasm hole in Biarritz had any kind of massive swale in it or in front of it. So for many years most of us have been speculating about where Macdonald got the idea for that massive swale in front of the biarritzes that were done over here.
Some of us thought it may've come from the 16th green of North Berwick that Macdonald first saw in 1906 but now Sean Arble assures us that swale at NB may not have been in that green in 1906.
Others have speculated that the swale idea for the biarritz may've come from the massive swale at the front of TOC's #18 famously known as "The Valley of Sin."
Given the way Macdonald described the look of the biarritz hole in France as the #12 which mentioned a hogsback (The Chasm hole was the 3rd unless they flipped the nines or resequenced the course at some point) leads me to wonder if there wasn't another hole other than the famous Chasm hole (over the Bay of Biscay) at Le Phare that may've had a big swale in it, perhaps on a big hogsback plateaued green.
-
David,
Isn't the primary function of the Valley of Sin to suggest a tee shot along the fence line for center and left pins?
The other playability distinction is the length of approach. A 220 shot is wholly different than whatever is left into #18 at TOC. Being in the Valley at Merion is better than 95% of the results.
There are certainly differences, but I think there are similarities as well. And the application of these things was not as formulaic as you seem to think. If CBM liked the Valley of Sin concept but thought it would work best on a long par 3, then why wouldn't he use it? In fact he did, didn't he? As for the Valley of Sin's "function" depends upon where you are on the golf course doesn't it? As I understand it, from the tee your description might be right on for most, but on approach the "function" is going to depend upon how directly or indirectly the valley encroaches on your line. On most par threes (the redan being one exception) trouble between the tee and green must be more directly confronted.
It could well be that the Chasm had a similar feature just short of its green and, knowing how well it worked at TOC, CBM kept it with the concept. But the conception of the hole had a valley or swale short of the green, and the shorter golfer could run through it and up onto the green, while the longer hitter who was just short might end up staying in the swale. Wouldn't you agree that this is precisely the case at Merion?
Most of the accounts I have read about Merion's hole indicate that the inspiration from the hole is from the Valley of Sin. Would you have doubted this before I made the connection to CBM? Or are you doubting that CBM would ever have considered using something akin to the Valley of Sin front of a long par three?
-
David,
I'm looking for a distinction between a Biarritz and Valley of Sin concepts.
-
Jim, the Valley of Sin is a feature while the Biarritz concept is generally considered to be an entire golf hole, so I am not sure they are comparable. The Biarritz concept calls for a long par three (could be 220 yards) generally over some sort of trouble (preferably a giant chasm or a quarry, but sometimes a bunker will do) ending around 30 yards from the putting surface, then usually a swale or small valley in front of the putting surface, so that a ball carrying just short of the green will likely stay in the swale, but a running shot, if true, might make it through.
The swale or valley may or may not have been inspired by the Valley of Sin feature on TOC 18, but whatever its origins, its functionality is described above.
-
Does the Biarritz concept require the swale or is it really just the long par three over some sort of chasm? I hac always thought the swale was the key factor in a Biarritz but you seem to say not. #17 at Merion certainly doesn't have a swale...much closer in appearance and function to the Valley of Sin other than my understanding that positioning was vital to the value.
-
Does the Biarritz concept require the swale or is it really just the long par three over some sort of chasm? I hac always thought the swale was the key factor in a Biarritz but you seem to say not. #17 at Merion certainly doesn't have a swale...much closer in appearance and function to the Valley of Sin other than my understanding that positioning was vital to the value.
On a recent thread George indicated that the Biarritz was their name for their long par 3, and that the requirements were not as strict as everyone seems to think. He provided at least one example were there was just a very small swale short of the green, and I believe he wrote that sometimes there was no swale but a green with a plateau in front. In Whigham's description from 1913 he does not mention a swale but a "dip." I am not sure i understand why it matters, whether swale, dip or valley the golfer must negotiate it without getting offline or stuck on its greenside bank.
Where do you see the difference, functionally?
If there is a difference it is that Merion has the creekbed/ditch to deal with and not much of a hogback ridge short of the valley or swale or dip or whatever you want to call it.
But remember Jim, there was no example for Wilson to have studied when he first built that hole, as there were none other yet built. And I so I think it too much to assume that his realization of CBM's concept would turn out like Raynor's or even CBM's. And Wilson's other obvious attempts at CBM concept holes were not exactly facsimiles either. And as I said, I think that green was one of the ones rebuilt for drainage early on.
But as far as the general concept and the routing goes, one has to squeeze one's eyes pretty tight to not find CBM's influence on the group of one shot holes at Merion. We have an attempt at a Redan, a great natural short (on land which CBM wanted them to acquire,) and then two holes that match the other two CBM short holes distance-wise at the very least.
-- At first glance the 9th seems nothing like an Eden, but the distance is right as is the fact that a stream crosses in front, thus eliminating the possibility of a foozle getting to the green (A CBM trademark on his Edens.) And this too is one of the greens that was rebuilt early (and then modified a few years later) only it seems to have been more substantial changed than the 17th. So I wouldn't discount the possibility that it was somewhat based on the Eden originally, especially from the original tee. Surely the records that Wayne is hiding shed some light but that is beyond my control.
- Then we have the 17th and the similarities are discussed above.
But perhaps we are getting carried away here and this is not the time or place for this.
-
Interesting stuff!
David...you touched on another architectural concept...Eden. What is that defintion...is there a first course that used that one?
We've got some scoop on the Biarritz and the Redan on this thread. What are some other specific concepts that we might want to include.
I've mentioned RT Jones' "heroic" carry. Do we know the first time he used it? The first time he used a par 5 heroic carry was cited, but was alluded to that that didn't fit RTJ's "heroic" definition.
Island greens were discussed.
Are there others we should include?
-
Mac George Bahto is the real expert on these things and I think if you look at his interview and use the search you will figure it out.
Also his book definitely goes into it.
The Eden green is for the one shot 11th (or High Hole In) and the 7th (High hole out) at The Old Course, Eden comes from the name of the river bordering the green. "Eden" usually refers to the par three although I think the entire green was known as the Eden Green.
-
Thanks David.
-
Mac,
RTJ's own words can be found in C&W, pg 104.
"The trapping in the heroic is not as profuse as in the penal, nor as scarce as in the strategic. Traps vary from ugly, treacherous looking ones to small, igsignificant pot bunkers. The line of flight is usually blocked by some formidable looking hazard placed at a diagonal and involving a carry of from 170 to 220 yards in which the player is allowed to bite off as much as he feels he can chew. If his game is not equal to the task a safe alternate route to play round it is provided. The same principle is used in the green design, in which the green is placed at an angle to the line of flight with an opening allowed for the cautious. "
-
Thanks Jim, I'll check that out tonight!
-
David M...thanks for recommending the George Bahto interview. Amazingly educational. It will be something I refer to time and time again.
-
"But perhaps we are getting carried away here and this is not the time or place for this."
Who is we? Who is the "we" who's getting carried away again with Merion? Looking at this thread it's no "we" at all, it's all you again and all by yourself! This is the sole reason on here this Merion divisiveness will probably never die on this website.
What on this thread or any other on here prompted this from you today in your last post?
"Surely the records that Wayne is hiding shed some light but that is beyond my control."
Wayne Morrison has not been on this website for over a year and he's never hidden anything to do with Merion. If he chose not to share something to do with Merion with you who he thinks is an unmitigated jerk and for really good reason, then that's why he may not have provided you with something but he is not hiding anything to do with Merion from anyone and either is Merion. If anyone wants to access Merion's substantial an really impressive archives they only need to contact the club, go through their process and then go there. You could have done that at some point but you didn't and now with these same old constant and gratuitous lies and insults toward Wayne Morrison, a respected member of Merion, you just put on here again today and for no apparent reason about Wayne Morrison hiding something it is high time that you be censured for this by this website. Nobody inspired or prompted that insult by you of Wayne Morrison on here, you did that all by yourself and completely gratuitously today. The list is long of those on here and elsewhere who Wayne's generosity regarding all things to do with Merion has affected and benefited and they at least should roundly castigate you for what you just said about Wayne in your last post. He's definitely a really fine friend of mine and I see no reason whatsoever not to speak up for him when I read insulting garbage like that AGAIN today. Why does this Merion bad blood drag on here? THAT is why!
Wayne Morrison is not hiding anything regarding Merion and you know it. You lied and at someone's expense AGAIN and this website should be aware of it and they should deal with you appropriately.
-
So...how about that green at La Phare? Interesting, huh? The first Biarritz, I think at least. I'm digging into the RTJ heroic carry now. Man...those are thrilling shots...don't you think? :)
-
Now I find this very interesting...
Robert Trent Jones in known as the Father of Heroic golf and Target golf.
According to Cornish and Whitten in the book "The Golf Course", in 1946 RTJ was hired to recondition Augusta National. On hole #16, he damned the creek, rotated the direction of the hole 90 degrees and created the present 16th hole, which is a mid to long iron over a pond. I have to believe this is his first par 3 heroic carry. Thoughts?
Also, C&W go on to say that in 1949 he was hired to revamp Oakland Hills for the 1951 US Open. During this rennovation, he established target golf by establishing specific targets for tee shots through the use of bunkered the fairways...they say he pinched them.
Could, therefore, Augusta National be groundbreaking for its heroic par 3 carry and Oaklland Hills be groundbreaking for its introduction of target golf?
-
Here's something Desmond Muirhead said:
"Heroic carries are the ultimate form of strategic design. In heroic design, you are encouraged to gamble, go-for-broke, indulge in "death or glory." Rivers, lakes, creeks, ravines, bunkers, natural or man-made are used on the diagonal so that the golfer can bite off as much of the hazard as he feels able with commensurate rewards for daring and courage......... Heroic holes, which require mandatory carries, usually offer an alternate route to the golfer who feels unable to play the gamble. By taking this easier route, the golfer expects to lose a stroke".
I don't think 16 fits that description, there's no way around the pond for the faint of heart. Bringing out the hero in a player is much more rewarding when you let them do it for themselves. That's not to say you wouldn't feel like one if you hit the green at 16. ;D
-
"So...how about that green at La Phare? Interesting, huh? The first Biarritz, I think at least."
Mac:
I hope you understand what's gone on here with the so-called biarritz hole that CBM and Raynor got into doing in America----eg the architectural etymology of the massive swale on most all biarrtiz holes has been an unanswered or undocumented question for many years. Only one or two that were done over here actually looked much like that famous Chasm hole at Le Phare in Biarritz France that was very dramatic in that it played from tee to green over an inlet of the Bay of Biscay. There has never been good photographic evidence of that Chasm hole and so it has been impossible to tell if it had a prominent swale in it. And so, if not, the question has long been where Macdonald/Raynor got that idea as a number of the Biarritz holes they did over here were on relatively flat ground?
Some, apparently including George Bahto, think CBM got the idea from the swale in front of the 18th at TOC known as "The Valley of Sin." That's certainly logical as CBM did know TOC well for many years. But as of yesterday I'm beginning to wonder if he might have gotten the idea for that swale from Merion East's 17th hole when he saw that landform on April 6, 1911 (before construction) routed as Merion's 17th hole on one of the five plans the Wilson committee showed he and Whigam on that particular day, and which chronologically was before he or Raynor (or Whigam) ever did a biarritz hole in America.
By the way, since none of us have ever seen a preconstruction topo of Merion East (although we do know one existed) we are not sure what that landform looked like before the construction of that hole. I suspect it looked pretty much like it does now complete with that berm that essentially creates the beginning of the massive dip that runs all the way to the upslope of that green. I think that berm was probably a road or rail or cart track that was used to haul stone out of the previously operating stone quarry that runs between the 16th and 17th holes.
On the other hand, I've also wondered if there may not have been another hole (not the Chasm hole) at Le Phare at Biarritz France that had a hogsback green and perhaps a massive swale in it where CBM got that idea for a massive swale for the biarritz hole he and Raynor would do over here perhaps during one of his architectural study trips abroad between 1902-1906.
-
Tom P...
Thanks and I am getting it. For a point of clarification, who gave the name Biarritz hole to hole/feature that we use today? Was it MacDonald? If so, wouldn't the idea had to have come from La Phare at Biarritz? Otherwise, the name makes no sense.
-
"For a point of clarification, who gave the name Biarritz hole to hole/feature that we use today? Was it MacDonald? If so, wouldn't the idea had to have come from La Phare at Biarritz? Otherwise, the name makes no sense."
Mac:
Good question. I would think the name had to have come from Macdonald.
On the other hand, if the prominent swale feature on many of the fairly flat "land" forms he and Raynor did Biarritz holes over here was not a feature on that famous Chasm hole at Le Phare in Biarritz that doesn't necessarily mean, at least not to me, he would've dropped the name.
Mac, I think you need to understand that what Macdonald was actually doing here in America with his so-called "Template" or "model" or "copies" of what he called "classical" holes and architectural features from abroad, I feel both back then and certainly today was in a number of ways really misunderstood.
On the one hand, you have architectural critics today saying he did not copy those holes and features over there accurately enough over here and therefore those holes should not carry the names over here they have over there or that they shouldn't even be called the same kind of hole. On the other hand, some over here criticized him for the entire idea of copying holes or even some of their individual features from abroad over here as anti-creative or anti-innovative or even unnatural.
So ultimately, I think Macdonald was pretty roundly misunderstood by some both back then and still today in what he was actually trying to do over here architecturally. He was only trying to copy important and classic and functional (in play) "architetural principles" and this he explained himself whether or not they might be recognizably from their template counterparts abroad. It seems like a good many back then and today just don't appreciate that as he meant it.
The Biarritz is probably a good example because even if some of the ones he and Raynor did over here looked nothing like that Chasm Hole at Le Phare in Biarritz he obviously felt the architetural PRINCIPLE was somewhat the same, if for instance, he used a deep swale in front of those Biarritz greens to "represent" the much longer carry over the Bay of Biscay in Biarritz.
Macdonald transfered one type of feature, particularly hazard features, for another type of feature all the time and even wrote about it----for example when he used a massive long sand bunker behind his Road Hole greens it was meant to REPRESENT the original ROAD behind the Road Hole at TOC from which the hole concept came.
-
Tom...
I think you are entirely correct and that is precisely the feeling I got as I was reading and finishing Scotland's Gift and other research and reading I've done on MacDonald and his courses/holes.
It is nearly impossible to completely duplicate a hole and its features as the land from course to course will not match precisely. But if you study the idea behind the hole's concept and its greateness, you can attempt to duplicate the feel and/or skills required to conquer it.
Thanks, as always.
-
Mac, as for CBM's Biarritz concept, there seems to be general agreement that Piping Rock was the first built by CBM/SR in America. But that leaves open the question of the first Biarritz in America regardless of who built it, and it looks as if that honor may belong to Merion.
Some argue that Merion's 17th was inspired by CBM's Biarritz concept, while others now argue the opposite lineage -- Merion's 17th inspired CBM's inclusion of the swale or valley in his Biarritz hole. Whether Merion's 17th was CBM's idea or Merion's 17th gave CBM the idea to add the swale or valley to the biarritz concept, there seems to be an overlapping agreement: Merion's 17th hole and CBM's conception of the Biarritz hole are directly related.
So although the hole was not built by CBM or SR, Merion's 17th hole seems to have been the first attempt at creating what became known as CBM's Biarritz concept in America. After all, if Merion's hole is close enough to the concept to have been CBM's inspiration, then the opposite lineage must be similarly plausible.
As for which direction the lineage actually flowed the answer is pretty obvious but perhaps not relevant when considering whether or not Merion's 17th was indeed revolutionary/groundbreaking.
-
David,
I disagree that #17 at Merion has the playing, or visual characteristics of any "Biarritz" I have seen. It doesn't have the first half of a swale. I did ask above if a swale was the key, or if simply having the length and obstacle / chasm to carry was the key and haven't seen an answer from anybody yet.
Is there a hole that anyone calls a "Biarritz" that does not have a swale in front of or on the green?
-
Mac:
Read post #240 very carefully and tell me what you think.
Take the following quotation from post #240, for instance:
"Whether Merion's 17th was CBM's idea or Merion's 17th gave CBM the idea to add the swale or valley to the biarritz concept, there seems to be an overlapping agreement: Merion's 17th hole and CBM's conception of the Biarritz hole are directly related."
I'll tell you what I think of that remark and/or its logic or reasoning or even the effective cogency of its argument. It is true that those things may be possible, even likely, but that in no way means they are true. I say that because given the circumstances and the chronology we really do know regarding that hole, there is another or other very real possiblities and even perhaps more likely scenarios behind the 17th hole of Merion East----such as that hole may've been actually essentilly found on the ground pretty much just as it is today and for that reason it may not be a copy or a conceptual copy of anything, let along some so-called "Biarritz swale" concept. It very well may just be a unique and highly interesting pre-existing landform for golf just as it was before used for golf.
We could actually prove that to be the case (or not) if we ever do actually find those topographical (contour line) survey maps of the property the Wilson Committee were using to route and design that course in the winter and spring of 1911 before anything was done to that land and before the golf course was actually constructed and grassed and put into play.
Therefore, for anyone to say there is some kind of agreement or overlapping agreement, whether it was first Wilson or Macdonald who saw that massive dip in front of that green (assuming it was all there preconstruction which again we don't know the answer to) and thought of it as the prominent swale for a biarritz style or concept hole (which again had never been done in America or anywhere else at that time as far as we known) is just not a true statement! It could be but it could also be a false statement given all the circumstances and chronology we know, at this point!
So, to take most of what #240 says or attempts to establish, one can only say it is a fallacy----a fallacy being an error or errors in reasoning!
And this is why some of the things some people, perhaps all of us from time to time, say on here and try to reason and establish on here and convince others of on here can be potentially dangerous or inaccurate and even revisionistic if we are interested in the truth of some of this golf architectural history! ;)
-
As always, it is tough for me to be the ultimate judge but I can say the following with certainty...
Previous to this thread, I was operating under the assumption that a Biarritz green has essentially a "ditch" right on the green going from one side to the other. If you didn't land on the correct side of that "ditch" you had a wild putt ahead of you. I played a Biarritz at Lookout Mountain and my friend is taking me to play his course at Yale in the upcoming spring. He also concludes that a "ditch" is what a Biarritz is all about.
When the observations about Merion and its 17th green came up and the Valley of Sin, I remember Jim's post/question and I did not see an answer.
A few things have come up in this thread that I was unaware of regarding a Biarritz. People have mentioned a "carry". Tom P...I think you mentioned a carry over a Bay. But again, I thought the "ditch" aspect of the green is what a Biarritz was...not a carry over something. But, perhaps I am (or was) incorrect. That is why I am listening and taking notes. The Biarritz I played didn't have a carry per se...but the way it was set up, a bump and run off the tee wasn't a high probability shot. Perhaps much like your thoughts on the previous post where you say that they might not have copied a hole identically, but rather copied its intent...this Biarritz had the intent of a foreced carry, but not an acutal carry.
The picture of the green at Merion doesn't look like the Biarritz I am familar with, but that doesn't mean much as to me a "cape" hole plays to a penninsula green that most likely sticks out into water (or sand or something like that)...others on the site disagree somewhat with that. Perhaps there is disagreement with what makes a Biarritz.
Concerning what was the first Biarriitz in America, I think Daivd said we need verifiable facts. So, it appears at this time no one can verify that Merion was the first Biarritz in the US or even a Biarritz at all. But that is simply what it appears like to me and I don't have all the information/data or facts to make definative calls on this one...but it appears no one does on this one. Except Piping Rock was the first Biarritz CBM constructed in America and, perhaps, Le Phare was the inspiratoin for the Biarritz hole.
-
Jim Sullivan,
If you'll remember back a bit to the recent Essex CCC threads you'll find that their Biarritz had gone unrecognized because there was no apparent swale.
-
Thanks Jim, I don't believe I read those threads but will go have a look.
Sounds like the implication then is that the chasm is the key feature in determining a Biarritz, which actually makes sense if the concept was modeled after a shot across an inlet of the Bay of Biscay.
Is it possible that the swale (just the swale) became a replication of the Bay?
By the way, I still think the Valley of Sin must be a remarkably different concept.
-
"A few things have come up in this thread that I was unaware of regarding a Biarritz. People have mentioned a "carry". Tom P...I think you mentioned a carry over a Bay. But again, I thought the "ditch" aspect of the green is what a Biarritz was...not a carry over something. But, perhaps I am (or was) incorrect. That is why I am listening and taking notes. The Biarritz I played didn't have a carry per se...but the way it was set up, a bump and run off the tee wasn't a high probability shot. Perhaps much like your thoughts on the previous post where you say that they might not have copied a hole identically, but rather copied its intent...this Biarritz had the intent of a foreced carry, but not an acutal carry."
Mac:
Well, to some of your questions above about biarritz holes or biarritz concept holes----there are a few Macdonald/Raynor biarritzes that were done that do have a fairly substantial (100-150 yard) carry over real trouble such as water or something very close to that. The best examples of the latter I'm aware of are Yale, The Creek and Fishers Island. As for the rest I know, have seen and played, such as Westhampton, Piping Rock, Fox Chapel etc, they are basically on pretty flat and uneventful land forms.
However, all of them were ORIGINALLY designed with a considerable amount of fairway section BEFORE the prominent swale (some of them today have greenspace BEFORE the swale but that was apparently never an aspect of their original designs), that is generally on the same basic level as the green behind the prominent swale.
For that reason, it was not only possible but extremely doable strategically to land a lowish trajectory shot in that substantial fairway area before the swale that was basically at the same level as the green behind the swale and run the ball through the swale and up onto the green!
Matter of fact, I mentioned on here some time ago, the so-called "Biarritz shot" that was exactly as I just described above was the very first strategic shot I learned in golf in a clinic of kids with the old Scottish professional, Spence, at Piping Rock GC back in the early 1950s.
The thing about Merion's 17th hole, for various reasons that kind of "biarritz shot" of landing the ball short on the fairway (or now sometimes greenspace) of about the same level as the green behind the swale does not really exist because Merion's 17th just does not have fairway (or greenspace) area before the swale at about the same level as the green behind the swale (that area on Merion's 17th is actually well BELOW the greenspace behind the massive dip in front of Merion's 17th green) as most every other Macdonald/Raynor "Biarritz" hole does. For that reason that biarritz shot is not exactly the same intentional strategic option on Merion's 17th that it is on other biarritz holes. Or if it is I've never seen anyone try it on purpose on Merion's 17th and I've played that hole probably hundreds of times over the last three decades or so.
So there you go, Mac. Does that make some sense to you about why so few have called Merion's 17th a biarritz hole or even a biarritz concept and why it should probably not be considered a biarritz or biarritz concept hole? ;)
-
Tom,
Were you in the Essex CC conversations? Jim Kennedy just said there is a swale-less Biarritz there.
-
David,
I disagree that #17 at Merion has the playing, or visual characteristics of any "Biarritz" I have seen. It doesn't have the first half of a swale. I did ask above if a swale was the key, or if simply having the length and obstacle / chasm to carry was the key and haven't seen an answer from anybody yet.
Is there a hole that anyone calls a "Biarritz" that does not have a swale in front of or on the green?
I am sorry Jim, I thought I answered this but maybe I wasn't clear.
I am not expert on examples of the Biarritz concept, but I think George Bahto is, and I believe he recently wrote that there were Biarritz holes with very minor swales as well as Biarritz holes without a swale at all, but with a green with a terraced front. That makes some sense to be because it you read H.J. Whigham's early description of the hole (above) it seems that a large part of the strategic significance of the swale was that it catch drives that were nearly long enough to carry onto the green, but not quite. Whether the green is fronted by a swale or by a large terrace, this purpose is served.
My understanding of Merion's original 17th was a very long par 3 at the time, but that it was designed so that a true shot could carry the quarry trouble and then run through the "Valley of Sin" and up onto the green. A nearly long shot that hit just short of the green would stay in the "Valley of Sin." Likewise a shot that carried the trouble but that wasn't the right shot would either stay in the "Valley of Sin" or run off line into the various troubles on the sides.
That seems to capture the "playability" of the CBM biarritz concept pretty well, doesn't it? If not could you explain why not?
I guess I am having trouble understanding the special significance you seem tp be placing on the tee side slope of the swale. Perhaps you could explain? I understand what you are saying about the hole, but I am having trouble understanding how this first "hogsback" or roll is integral to the playability.
_____________________________________________________
Mac,
1. The Swale/Dip/Trench/Valley/Hole
Some might disagree but IMO the original conception of the Biarritz contained a swale through the green, but rather that was a concept that was evolved into the hole over the years. I believe that all of the early descriptions I have read describe the Biarritz-type holes as having a swale or trench or valley or dip or hole just short of the green, so that a shot that is nearly long enough will end up in the swale/valley/dip/hole, and not make it onto the green, while a true running shot might roll up onto the green.
For example see the description of giving by Whigham, also quoted above:
"There is a Biarritz hole of about 220 yards which is new to this country and is one of the best one-shot holes in existence. There is a hog's back extending to within thirty yards of the green and a dip between the hog's back and the green. Under normal conditions the hole has to be played with what is now known as the push shot, a low ball with plenty of run, which will land short of the dip and run through it on to the green. A drive with a longer carry is apt to land in the dip and stay there. But the push shot must be very straight otherwise it will land on one side or the other of the hog's back and break off into a bunker. This is the ninth hole at Piping Rock.''
Here is a later example, from a 1926 description of Yale:
Number 9. 225—210—190 yards. Par 3.
Has a water carry of 163 yards from the back tee. The green is guarded by a deep trench across the front; the approach is narrow, flanked by bunkers with water jutting in on the right front. The fairway is Lake Griest. This hole is copied from Biarritz and is the driver hole.
Note that the "green is guarded by a deep trench across the front." This is the swale. The area in front of the trench is "the approach" which "is narrow, flanked by bunkers with water jutting in on the front right."
Here is a photo of the hole from the late 1920s, very early on in the course's existence:
(http://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=414741&t=w)
Note that while the front section could easily be mistaken for green, it was described as "approach." (Note also that this area is described as narrow, but it only seems narrow vertically, which we usually call shallow.)
Apparently, judging from the early descriptions the original hole had a hogback or roll which ended short of the green and the land between the end of the hogback and the green must have been the valley or swale. Apparently the shot was to land the ball on the hogback or roll and run the ball through the swale/valley/trench/dip/hole and up onto the green.
2. The Carry.
The "chasm" hole at Biarritz required a carry over an ocean side "chasm" (go figure?) and again according to George Bahto, the holes based on the Biarritz concept generally also feature some sort of carry, even if that carry is only a bunker set short of the approach area. Piping Rock has such a bunker, while other Biarritz holes do have a carry over some sort of severe trouble like the lake at Yale. According to George (and my research agrees with this) the swale is not the chasm. The chasm feature (even if a bunker) is short of the approach area.
Think about it from a strategic perspective and in the context of what you know about CBM from his book. While he appreciated the ground game, he certainly didn't want to see topped balls or putted balls traveling from the tee to the green (see the discussion of his "improvement" of the Eden concept.) So with his Biarritz's it wasn't as simple as just getting the ball rolling in the right direction, one had to make the carry and then get the ball rolling, which was an added playability element.
Again according to George (you can see why I defer to him as the expert on this stuff, he is one!) as the ground game has disappeared, many clubs and courses have removed the bunker representing the chasm, thinking it useless.
(By the way, I think it possible (but improbable) that the "Biarritz" concept comes from more than one hole at Biarritz but until I figure it out for sure one way or another, it isn't worth going into.)
3. Merion's Biarritz
I could have sworn that, over the past few days, we've been told repeatedly that CBM probably got the swale concept from Merion's 17th hole. Yet now I am described as engaging in fallacious logic for taking this repeated claim at face value? Go figure? It is contradictory to claim that Merion's hole was the inspiration for CBM's swales but then deny any connection between the hole and the CBM concept, isn't it?
Oh well, no matter. I didn't much figure my suggestion would get much support, even though it is perfectly logical based on the arguments presented over the past couple of days.
____________________________
ADDED
Jims, i think George said that the Essex swale was barely there. I think he said other Biarritz's didnot have a swale, but instead a terraced front to the green.
-
"Tom,
Were you in the Essex CC conversations? Jim Kennedy just said there is a swale-less Biarritz there."
Sully:
No I was not, but if that's the case at Essex it is not the first time I've heard of or seen a swale-less Biarritz hole. I do not think Raynor designed a prominent swale into Mountain Lake's biarritz even if it has one now and as of about five years ago or so after the Brian Silva project on that course.
"Is it possible that the swale (just the swale) became a replication of the Bay?"
Of course it is even if the swale on most flat land biarritzes is generally no more than perhaps ten yards long while the carry on the original Chasm hole in Biarritz France was well over a hundred yard long as are the carries on the aforementioned Biarritzes at Yale, The Creek, and certainly Fishers Island!
"By the way, I still think the Valley of Sin must be a remarkably different concept."
I think it is too as the Valley of Sin at TOC is a depression like most biarritz swales that comes off a fairway of about the same level as the green behind the prominent swale (that is probably not much more than 10-15 yards long) like most all swales on the flat land biarritzes that originally had substantial fairway space before the swale and about at the same level as the green behind the swale.
It seems what we might have here from a few of our contributors is an attempt to either so generalize some concept as to make it eventually indistinct or indistinguishable from some other feature or concept! Why would someone try to torture these differing features and concepts into the same concept? I think because it then allows them to sort of pigeonhole these somewhat distinct and differing features and concepts into some single bag and then be able to just assign that feature's or concept's attribution to someone, such as Macdonald. In reality and historically it is all probably so much more varied and frankly interesting than that.
-
Here is the 'no apparent swale' green at ECCC.
(http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e302/jaygolfusa/PB190023.jpg)
-
It actually makes sense that it's really just a shot testing concept, with two distinct shot options but that each would have to be executed really well to come off.
How does the Biarritz differ from the standard false front when some sort of hazard is 30 or so yards short of the green?
-
It actually makes sense that it's really just a shot testing concept, with two distinct shot options but that each would have to be executed really well to come off.
I agree. The best way to approach all of these supposed templates is by thinking in terms of what they accomplish from a playability standpoint.
How does the Biarritz differ from the standard false front when some sort of hazard is 30 or so yards short of the green?
They may be functionally similar or not depending upon the circumstance and hole. Like with the "Valley of Sin" discussion, you are deconstructing into specific features (which is a good way to do it) but then comparing one or two features to a concept for an entire hole, it is a bit difficult to compare without putting the features in context. But here are some other key playability issues for CBM, as I understand them. These same issues are important on many CBM holes, if not all, but all apply somewhat differently in different situations.
1. Length.
- The length of the hole is a key element of the biarritz concept.
- The biarritz green was normally NOT easily reachable by air for most golfers under normal conditions.
- I think George recently wrote that the Biarritz was just there long par 3, whether it had a swale or not.
2. Variety.
The reason that the holes length was important is that CBM believed that each hole should present a different challenge than the others, and ideally each would be played with different clubs and or different types of shots, depending upon the skill level of the golfer. So each of the par 3s presents unique challenges and ideally would be played by different shots and clubs. This concept calls for a wood or longer iron, either of which would run up onto the green, and could be played with a certain type of shot (Whigham called it a push shot while Travis called it a "straight arm shot.")
3. Punishing the Nearly Good Shot.
Remember that CBM was more interested in punishing the egotistical shot as opposed to proportionally punishing the degree of error, and here the bank leading up to the green was placed to catch the "nearly good" shot, the one landingjust short of the green. To CBM the golfer had failed to live up to his high expectations and that wasn't tolerated in his designs. This again is a function of (among other things) the length of the hole, put just on the border of reachable or not, to entice the arrogant attempt at the green when a running shot might be the better option.
-
"It actually makes sense that it's really just a shot testing concept, with two distinct shot options but that each would have to be executed really well to come off.
How does the Biarritz differ from the standard false front when some sort of hazard is 30 or so yards short of the green?"
Sully:
Something has just occured to me with your questions about the concepts and playabilities of biarritz holes particularly the prominent swale feature----and that is it seems you have never seen one or played one. That seems remarkable to me given your experience in golf. Is that true? Haven't you ever played Fox Chapel in Pittsburgh?
-
Truly fascinating stuff.
David M...I really enjoyed both of your latest posts. That picture of Yale was really enlightening to see all the features. The discussion of distance regarding this hole and other CBM holes made a lot of sense.
In fact, all the people who posted on this one did a great job. Much love to y'all!!
Great stuff!
-
Tom,
I've played Yale (about 15 years ago) and Merion...
-
"Tom,
I've played Yale (about 15 years ago) and Merion..."
Sully:
Believe it or not I've never seen Yale but if you've played it and remember how that swale works in play you don't need any answers from us.
Obviously you know Merion East and its 17th hole really well as I do and for the various reasons I gave above the massive dip (particularly length-wise) in the front of Merion's 17th does not look much like (in size and dimensions) and does not play like the swale in front of or in the middle of traditional Macdonald/Raynor Biarritz holes. The primary reason being it is so much of a longer dip and it really has nothing at the same basic level as the green behind it (actually Merion's 17th has long had considerable greenspace in its massive dip) to land a ball on and run it into and then up and out of the swale.
I guess it's possible to hit a low trajectory shot into the massive dip in front of Merion's 17th and try and run it up the really substantial incline on the other side, it's just that I've never seen anyone actually try that intentionally. I would think if they did they would have to keep the ball pretty low on most of its flight and that would probably just risk hitting the perpindicular berm (the old road or cart or rail track for the old stone quarry) that basically creates the front side of that massive dip before that green.
To be honest I never really analyzed everything in that massive dip before Merion's 17th green simply because to me or anyone else I've ever played with there it never seemed to be much of a strategic option----unless of course someone actually chose to put the ball in that massive dip and then just blast a putt up that really substantial incline.
I guess it is also possible for them to put a pin down there because some of it is greenspace but I've never seen one down there.
-
Jim I forgot one thing I wanted to mention and that is this element of a hogback or roll that essentially constituted the landing area short of the swale/hole/trench/dip/valley. From a playability perspective I am not sure I totally understand the necessity of this feature. This I think is the same thing you were getting at regarding Merion's 17th where this is apparently absent. If this feature isn't there, then it is still a biarritz? That is just definitional, but I am not sure if it is a playability issue. Sure a ball that is spinning wrong or not true will end up in trouble on the sides or in the swale, but then wouldn't this be just as true without the elevation of the approach area? I am still considering this part of the question.
______________________________
Mac, it is quite possible to land a ball short of Merion's 17th hole and run it up onto the green and over the swale or ridge or whatever you want to call it. In fact if you stood on the tee with equipment from 1910, you might find that doing so was your most appealing option by far.
Most make the mistake of considering these things from their own perspective and with modern technology in mind. One thing that I don't think was mentioned in a good approach to learning about design would be to consider the architecture as if you were playing the old equipment used when the course was built. It gives you a much different perspective on some of these holes than one normally hears.
______________________________________
Mac, regarding your last post, one of the ironies of CBM is that he is criticized for repeating concepts yet as we can see in these discussions the setting largely determines the individuality of the holes. More importantly, at a course like NGLA the individuality and variety of each hole is truly remarkable. I don't think you'll find anything like it from designers who who supposedly rejected CBM's templates and brought variety and diversity into their designs. ::)
-
"Mac, it is quite possible to land a ball short of Merion's 17th hole and run it up onto the green and over the swale or ridge or whatever you want to call it. In fact if you stood on the tee with equipment from 1910, you might find that doing so was your most appealing option by far."
Mac:
With that statement above, believe me, all I'm considering in my response below is YOUR obvious interest in these things and in the details of these things and nothing more. In other words I mean nothing at all personal towards the person who made that statement to you above.
So let me ask you a question----if you had somebody who has seen that course and hole once or perhaps twice and played it once or perhaps twice versus someone who has played it hundreds of times over the last three decades or so who are you going to believe when it comes to how that hole actually plays or how its designed and intended strategic options for getting a golf ball up that massive incline and onto that greenspace on that hole actually works? ???
If you want to take a week or two to get back to me on that, I have no problem at all with that my friend. ;)
On the other hand, I will throw a real caveat into that question and that is most all my experience with Merion East which probably is playing it hundreds of times over the last three decades or so most all that time that golf course was probably nowhere near as firm and fast throughout as it can be and generally is now and so that strategic option of intentionally landing the ball short of that green in that massive dip could be a whole lot more doable with real firm and fast conditions compared to the vast majority of my experience (and observation of other golfers) over the previous three decades or so. I should remind you I stopped competing maybe 5-6 years ago!
By the way, Mac, if you haven't suspected it yet this is precisely WHY I am such a huge proponent of firm and fast conditions THROUGHOUT on golf courses like this one (this thing I call "The Ideal Maintenance Meld" (IMM)----eg it brings up some shot options and strategies and playabilities that people never even imagined before during all those decades these American courses were NOT this kind of firm and fast that many are today----and Merion East today both can be and sometimes is in real SPADES when the weather allows it!!
In other words, when the superstar super Matt Shaeffer came to Merion that club got into a program of true firm and fast playability and the results I'm sure are mindblowing in the options and possibilities golfers have to choose from today compared to the era of my own long-in-the-tooth life and experiences.
But to flip even that flipside---in all those more flat land biarritzes I described above even without F&F conditions one could still very much use that option of landing a ball well short of a biarritz swale and running it into the 10-12 yard long biarritz swale and up the other side to the greenspace beyond. The only real trick to doing it under those conditions is you really did need to keep the ball a whole lot lower through the entire shot than you may be able to now with some real F&F conditions!
But if Merion is not F&F throughout I very much doubt that option is doable on the 17th hole! ;)
-
Sully:
This thing about a hogsback on a biarritz hole has been mentioned on this thread. Like Moriarty just said, I'm not too sure what that meant. I have never really seen any biarritz hole with much of a hogsback feature to it or to its fairway in front of the swale or even its green.
The only time I have ever heard of a hogsback feature being part of a biarritz hole is when CBM mentioned it (from his own letter in 1906 or so) as a feature of the 12th hole at Le Phare in Biarritz France. And I will remind everyone again that mostly the Chasm Hole at Le Phare in Biarritz was considered to be the 3rd hole and I have never heard that Chasm hole had some kind of a hogsback feature to it.
Did the club switch the nines at some point (that would make the 3rd the 12th or vice versa) or was Macdonald actually talking about a hogsback feature on another hole (not the Chasm) at Le Phare at Biarritz France? :-\
-
"More importantly, at a course like NGLA the individuality and variety of each hole is truly remarkable. I don't think you'll find anything like it from designers who who supposedly rejected CBM's templates and brought variety and diversity into their designs. ;D"
I do not believe the person who made that remark has ever seen Pine Valley in Clementon NJ. I don't believe he has ever seen Myopia in South Hamilton, Mass. either---two courses that sort of bracket NGLA chronologically with about the same timeframe! Oh well, one always lives and learns----I hope----and there is so much to look forward to! ;)
-
Mac Plumart:
I've got to hand it to you, pal, this thead you started is a damn fine and interesting one with only a few minor bumps in the road that have nothing to do with you. Good for you!! I would love to see a lot more like you on this website. It sort of reminds me of the way it used to be near the beginning.
-
I can understand the playability of the Hogsback feature leading to the Swale, but what I cannot reconcile is the front half of the Swale...and specifically, whether or not this front half / down side is actually important.
The Hogsback feature means a grounder will almost definitely not make it onto the green - it will be steered into the crap on the sides. This intent can be replaced by any sort of hazard you want so long as the intent remains of not letting a grounder hit the green. The description of controlling a low shot, but not too low so as to land more than 30 yards from the green (I think Wigham was quoted) really clarified the use of land 30+ yards short of the green. It can be a Hogsback or a lake or a bunker, so long as it makes it near impossible for the ball to get to the green.
The swale is my focus because it's such a unique golfing feature that I'm having difficulty thinking a simple rise (even if severe like #17 at Merion) could be an intentional replication. I think #17 could play the way Wigham describes the Biarritz...certainly it would eed to be firm, but so would a prototypical Biarritz like Yale. I think there must be something about trench that makes it a Biarritz, and #17 at Merion doesn't have it.
-
Jim S...I don't know if this helps your case, and it may in fact hurt it, but I agree with you. The trench, ditch, swale, whatever seems to me to be a crucial part of the hole and as you all have described adds to its distinct strategy.
I certainly appreciate David M's contributions and insights, but in this instance I simply can't see a Biarritz at 17 at Merion. Furthermore, I see and hear the stuff on Essex...but I simply know what I played at Lookout Mountain and what I see at Yale and Merion seems different. But like I said, I haven't played it and have only played one course that had a Biarritz.
So take it for what it is worth.
-
"I certainly appreciate David M's contributions and insights, but in this instance I simply can't see a Biarritz at 17 at Merion."
Mac:
I think, as you can probably tell by now, I very much agree with you!
There is very likely a very good and very logical reason for that----eg Merion East's 17th hole has never actually been called a biarritz hole or thought of as a biarritz hole by anyone previously as far as I can tell until one D. Moriarty came along on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com in the last few years. What do you suppose that indicates?
It may not be all that much different from the fact that Merion GC always knew, and right from the very beginning that Macdonald and Whigam actually advised and helped them in a few ways (particularly agronomically but also with the design and construction principles of golf course architecture) during four days over a period of ten months before they began to build their golf course (one day in June 1910, two days at NGLA in March 1911, and one day in April, 1911) for which they thanked CBM and HJW profusely in their committee and board meetings and minutes at the time and later in various reports but it was not until about a year and a half ago that Merion or anyone ever connected to them had ever heard that CBM routed and designed their golf course or was the driving force behind it! (THIS, by the way, is all contained in the "In My Opinion" section of this website in an essay by the architectural expert researcher/analyst/writer D. Moriarty entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion." If you have not read it you definitely should). I think I can say from personal experience that Merion GC was most surprised by it but how exactly it was so surprised by it, I will only offer the categorization, at this point, of "No Comment."
I don't believe Merion ever suspected their course was designed by HH Barker either until the last few years when one T. MacWood came along on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com and suggested such a thing. What do you suppose that indicates?
And so, I can only say now that if the over-all reaction to these startling and theretofore previously unknown architectural revelations in some way hurt the feelings of those two expert researchers/analysts/essayists, I, for one, am truly sorry about it. Even though one who is experienced with these types of things probably realizes quite well, that is just the nature of the business.
-
Tom P...
Fair enough. I read some old Merion threads this evening and I can see the genesis of the Merion "debate". I will research it some more. But perhaps for the purposes of this thread, we are good to go on the Biarritz/Merion for now.
Good stuff!!
-
"But perhaps for the purposes of this thread, we are good to go on the Biarritz/Merion for now."
Mac:
This is your thread and you're doing great with it; you just stated, after a massive amount of research input from all sides by others, what your own opinion of Merion's 17th as a biarritz hole is, so I would say absolutely we are good to go---onto to something else.
For instance, did you know that Tommy Birdsong may be the only Timucuan Indian (North Florida) golf course architect in history? Considering his only course seems to be the world-class hidden gem, Fernandina Beach Municipal, that might just qualify as groundbreaking or revolutionary.
It is also perhaps important to note for other historical reasons, such as anthropology, that Tommy Birdsong was reputed to be about 9'6'' tall which is not that remarkable as the Timucuan Indians were apparently the tallest people ever known.
However, some truly smart-assed young whippersnapper undergrad researcher from Florida State University has just suggested that the Timucuan Indians had a cultural habit of stacking their life-long uncut hair on top of their head and consequently Tommy Birdsong might have looked like he was 9'6" tall while in reality he may've been about 5'6'' inches tall.
-
Mac,
The one at Essex is a Biarritz (the proof of that can be found by reading the recent ECCC threads) and it's the flexibility of the concept and how well it can be adapted onto various landscapes that makes it so interesting.
*this post not edited 30 minutes after the fact to change content.
-
Tom P...
I've heard you mentioned Tommy Birdsong before...9'6"...heck that is groundbreaking in and of itself!!!
Seriously, I am looking for fill the list in with golf architecture features.
Which was the reason for my questions on the Biarritz.
I've got North Berwick as the home of the original Redan.
I've got Oakland Hills as RTJ first Open Doctor work and, perhaps, his introduction of target golf to the world.
Augusta National's 16th as RTJ's first par 3 that carries a pond that butts right up to the green.
Can anyone think of other historic firsts for architectural holes/features that we should discuss and include on the list?
Jim K...that was funny!!
-
Mac:
For me that will do for at least a day or three---I feel sort of mentally wasted with things like GCA groundbreaking and revolutions for the time being.
By the way, Mac, Jim Kennedy's post is not funny at all; it is merely patently sarcastic but that's just the way that guy is on here as it is with just about the majority of what he puts on here if I am anywhere in the neighborhood. ::) His "non-swale" biarritz hole and photograph was appreciated though. ;)
-
Thanks Mac, and looking at the edit-for-content lag of the last poster just made it funnier still. ;) This would be heaven for a comic, you wouldn't even have to write your own material, just wait 10 or 30 minutes and it'll write itself. ;D
-
Yeah, Mac, as if this 'edit-for-content-lag,' thing, whatever the hell that is, might be even remotely funny to anyone in this universe!
This boy Kennedy is sort of in his own separate space in that way, for sure, but Heh, I guess that's cool too on here. ???
-
I can understand the playability of the Hogsback feature leading to the Swale, but what I cannot reconcile is the front half of the Swale...and specifically, whether or not this front half / down side is actually important.
The Hogsback feature means a grounder will almost definitely not make it onto the green - it will be steered into the crap on the sides. This intent can be replaced by any sort of hazard you want so long as the intent remains of not letting a grounder hit the green. The description of controlling a low shot, but not too low so as to land more than 30 yards from the green (I think Wigham was quoted) really clarified the use of land 30+ yards short of the green. It can be a hogsback or a lake or a bunker, so long as it makes it near impossible for the ball to get to the green.
Jim S,
1. According to George, the Biarritz concept included some representation of the chasm even if just a bunker across the line of play (see Piping Rock, I think.) I mention this because this hazard (whether chasm, lake, bunker, quarry, whatever) would assure that grounders wouldn't make it. So I don't think that the hogsback would be necessary to take care of grounders.
2. To clarify, there is an overlap in what we are talking about. My understanding is that the "dip" Whigham referred to was the space between the hogsback and the front of the green. In other words, the end of the hogsback and the beginning of the swale are the same thing. So in Whigham's description the swale or dip or whatever you want to call it is 30 yards from beginning to the green. I assume that this isn't what you had in mind by a biarritz swale?
3. If this is so, then for the modern conception for the hole the "hogsback" is actually the plateaued area just short of the swale.
4. The more I think about this, the more I wonder if this really wasn't a combination of two holes at Biarritz, or a different hole all together.
The swale is my focus because it's such a unique golfing feature that I'm having difficulty thinking a simple rise (even if severe like #17 at Merion) could be an intentional replication. I think #17 could play the way Wigham describes the Biarritz...certainly it would eed to be firm, but so would a prototypical Biarritz like Yale. I think there must be something about trench that makes it a Biarritz, and #17 at Merion doesn't have it.
1. I think you may be misunderstanding what I am saying here. I am NOT claiming that the 17th at Merion was an "intentional replication" of anything. There was nothing to replicate. NGLA doesn't have a Biarritz and when he built the hole, Hugh Wilson had never seen the original (and I've seen nothing indicating he made it to Biarritz ever.) This was before CBM ever created a Biarritz, so why would we expect it to look just like epitome of what CBM and SR developed over years and decades?
2. As I understand Whigham's description, the dip was 30 yards from beginning to end. According to CBM's earlier description, the hogsback ended 80 yards from the green, making the dip huge. It doesn't sound like they are describing a narrow swale or trench when speaking about the inspiration for the green. If Merion was based on anything related to the Biarritz, it would have likely been this early inspiration, not the yet to be determined ideal of the hole. Merion's dip (between the down slope into the valley and the up slope on the green is about 30 yards, exactly the distance between the hogsback and the green, as described by Whigham.
3. Here is a photo from Life's archives looking back from the green toward the tee. The golfer is putting from down in the valley or swale . . .
(http://cache2.asset-cache.net/xc/90624443.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921CC759DF4EBAC47D0FD9FBFCCBF60D5F80388F35B7D0DAFC8AABF8F9C9044C61BE30A760B0D811297)
- If the downslope seen in the photo was maintained as fairway or approach, would you change your view of the hole?
- If memory serves, I believe the area above the downslope (where the spectators are standing) used to be maintained as fairway? Is that correct? If so, why do you suppose that was?
- Why doesn't this downslope count as the front of the swale you are searching for?
- How short across must the swale be in order for it to fit within your understanding of a Biarritz?
4. CBM and SR did not build the hole, Hugh Wilson did. As you know, CBM's and SR's involvement was inspecting and recommending the land (among other things,) helping to plan the layout (at the very least) and choosing the final layout plan. At the time of their involvement, it is not even clear that CBM and HJW had fully worked out their conception of what the Biarritz concept would become. So why would you expect Merion's hole to be a replica of something that had not even yet been built?
5. A few asides about the course at Biarritz . . . I've read that one of the challenges was that there were a number of deep holes (sometimes described as punchbowls) for the golfer to negotiate. As far as I can tell, there also may have been some long swales, but I am not yet sure about this. The more I consider the substance of the early descriptions of the course (among other things) I wonder if this was not a composite conception, or modeled after a different hole entirely. Hopefully this week or next I'll get a chance to look into it.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
-
Jim S...I don't know if this helps your case, and it may in fact hurt it, but I agree with you. The trench, ditch, swale, whatever seems to me to be a crucial part of the hole and as you all have described adds to its distinct strategy.
Mac, please see my explanations and questions to JimS above. I don't think this hole is exactly what we commonly think of as a Biarritz either; but am more concerned with the genealogy.
I certainly appreciate David M's contributions and insights, but in this instance I simply can't see a Biarritz at 17 at Merion. Furthermore, I see and hear the stuff on Essex...but I simply know what I played at Lookout Mountain and what I see at Yale and Merion seems different. But like I said, I haven't played it and have only played one course that had a Biarritz.
So take it for what it is worth.
You are certainly not alone in your conclusions about Merion's 17th. I doubt many had ever even seriously considered the possibility until I suggested it, so you are probably in good company. About everything I have ever suggested about Merion that is counter to the Merion legends was initially rejected, ridiculed, mocked etc. so I appreciate your polite disagreement. It is a welcome change.
But as to the Essex hole, just so I understand you . . . Are you saying that you do not think the Biarritz hole at Essex is NOT really a Biarritz hole? Maybe you are correct, but could you explain your basis for this conclusion, because that seems an odd position to take.
In 1907 CBM briefly described his concept for a long par 3 based on the Biarritz hole, and H.J. Whigham' did similarly in 1913. I think both descriptions are posted in this thread (if not the 1907 description is in Scotland's Gift.) Based on your understanding of the hole, are they even describing a Biarritz? If you happened to see a hole fitting their description, would you think it a Biarritz?
I may be wrong but will be shocked if the original Biarritz hole in France was extremely similar in appearance to today's Biarritz at Yale or at Lookout Mountain. My guess is that you and I probably wouldn't even know we were looking at the inspiration for these holes unless we were told. If I am correct about this, then are you willing to say that the original Biarritz is not a Biarritz?
_______________________________________
Mac, I started to read the TEPaul posts about me, Merion, and such, but I stopped reading because I have no interest in them and don't want to risk getting sucked in. Instead I'll trust you and everyone else to sort through and figure out the validity and veracity. My only suggestion is that you base your opinions on VERIFIABLE FACTS rather than gossip, self-serving pontification, or unverified legend. Good luck.
-
David,
Just a couple of things quickly, my impression of the Biarritz was an abrupt trench in or just in front of the green. Abrupt could mean 10 - 15 yards from beginning to end, not a 30 yard low...but again this was my impression. If Macdonald and Wigham spoke about 80 and 30 yards short of the climb, why do you think they quickly ammended that to such an abrupt trench? The cross section of the (to me) typical trench looks pretty similar to the image George B posted on the Biarritz thread (currently on top of page 2)...not sure what that would mean in terms of playability though...the written description by Wigham certainly is detailed and would dictate an interesting and challenging hole.
-
What CBM penned in 1906 (apparently in Outing magazine) for a hole (#12) from Biarritz France of 210 yards with a hogsback feature before the green does not sound anything like any so-called "Biarritz" hole from Macdonald/Raynor that I've ever seen or played. The fairway area before the prominent swale of all the biarritzes I've ever seen are both fairly flat and also pretty much on the same level as the green behind the swale. Merion's 17th hole is very little like the latter and it definitely has no hogsback feature anywhere on it. Consequently it would be a true stretch to categorize Merion's 17th hole as a biarritz or biarritz concept. But to categorize the massive dip before the green on Merion's 17th as something akin to TOC's "Valley of Sin" makes somewhat more sense, even if the 17th hole may in fact be mostly a pre-existing (to golf) landform which would mean it really doesn't matter if Wilson and Committee just used it as it is (in 1911) before Wilson went abroad (in 1912) and actually saw TOC's "Valley of Sin" for the first time.
-
David M...
I finally had the time to read your latest posts in detail.
Good stuff.
I think you might be correct in your assertion, that if I had seen the inspiration for the Biarritz hole, the Chasm hole in France, I might not have thought it was a Biarritz. This carry idea is new to me, but based on all of your work and the other thread on Biarritz's that has recently been revived...I get it. The carry over the dramatic chasm starts the hole...like the pond at Yale or the rumpled ground at Lookout Mountain. Not identical to the Chasm, but identical in the intent and strategy of the original hole.
Also, you and Tom P have mentioned the idea of multiple holes being at Le Phare/Biarritz being combined to form the Biarritz hole concept of CBM. Tom P talkes about the 3rd and 12th hole at Le Phare being mentioned and I think it is his theory that these are the two combined holes. I think that is perhaps probable and I, therefore, understand the drive to search out knowledge and facts about it.
Cool stuff!!
-
What CBM penned in 1906 (apparently in Outing magazine) for a hole (#12) from Biarritz France of 210 yards with a hogsback feature before the green does not sound anything like any so-called "Biarritz" hole from Macdonald/Raynor that I've ever seen or played. The fairway area before the prominent swale of all the biarritzes I've ever seen are both fairly flat and also pretty much on the same level as the green behind the swale.
Tom,
I found this link www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1915/gi34k.pdf to a page that shows a plasticine model of the biarritz that was planned for the 8th hole at Lido. That was the hole that bordered the ocean, and ultimately shelved in favor of a MacKenzie submission. Well in any event, that plasticine model, looks like it has a hogsback ridge in front of the fairway.
CBM describes the Lido version as an improvement on the Piping Rock version of the hole. The major difference that is noted in the plasticine model, besides the ocean border, is the hogsback ridge that must be carried.
The odd thing about that ridge is it would have hidden the swale, which is the funnest part about playing the hole. I mean, depending on the height of the tee, and the ridge, you probably wouldn't even get to see the low trajectory ball disappear in the swale and roll back up for the hole. But then again, the ridge might knock down the low trajectory ball which would force players to hit a higher trajectory ball, now coming up short and leaving many a player putting or pitching from out of the swale?
Imagine how cool that would have been--a biarritz hole on the ocean.
-
Bradley...so the 8th at The Lido didn't go through with the Biarritz? What was Mackenzie's submission?
-
Mac,
The Biarritz was built along the ocean, ergo the name "Ocean" on the card. It didn't last long, being so close to the sea, and it was moved a few years after it was built.
Mackenzies hole was the 15th, I believe.
-
Bradley...so the 8th at The Lido didn't go through with the Biarritz? What was Mackenzie's submission?
I had that wrong. It was the 18th that was used for Mackenzie's drawing. See the link:
www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1923/gi184u.pdf -
-
Bradley,
Thanks for mentioning the Lido Plasticine. I just posted the Cape hole on another thread, but hadn't thought to post the Biarritz.
The Lido Plasticine is a particularly important resource because CBM had a free hand to shape the land the way he wanted it, at least in the planning stages. Also, the project was relatively pretty early chronologically, so presumably the core concepts hadn't involved too much by that time. Here is a blow up of the Biarritz at the Lido, from the article mentioned above.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/1915LidoBiarritzPlas.jpg?t=1259803682)
A few observations:
1. The hole featured a forced carry over a bunker of about 130 yards, and a carry of about 170 yards to get to the middle of the "hogsback."
2. The ditch/swale/valley/hole/trench/dip begins in earnest about 180 yards from the tee and appears to be around 20 to 25 yards from side to side. This is approximate because it is tough to tell exactly where it ends on the on the green side because of the camera glare and the roll of the green down into the swale. The drop off into the swale on the tee side appears to be more abrupt.
3. But whatever the exact measures, the ditch/swale/valley/hole/trench/dip was more substantial than what many associate with the Biarritz. That it, it was much further than 10 or 15 yards from further from beginning of the downslope off the hogsback and to the green.
4. The "hogsback" looks nothing like the front plateau closely associated with the Biarritz concept. Rather than being flat and uniform, it seems rather wild, with micro hills and hollows. It seems if it would be difficult to run a ball over it, so I wonder if the better play wasn't to almost clear it and hit on the downslope of the swale?
Below are the holes at Merion, Lido, and Piping Rock. The Lido was listed as a 220 yards, while the white line and yellow line on the other two are each 230 yards.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/BiarritzThree.jpg?t=1259811449)
-
www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1927/gi272g.pdf -
David,
See what you can make of this link. It looks like the 8th hole ended up as something different than what was modeled in plasticine. From what I have been able to magnify the green looks very elevated with a steep embankment - rather more like a knoll green than a biarritz green, and the yardage is only 160-165, which doesn't work at all too well for the biarritz hole concept.
I suspect that the ocean may have forced a change in plans here. Perhaps there was a biarritz style hole here, but only for a brief period and it was changed?
-
Bradley
Here is a blow up with a further blow up of the green.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Lido8thBiarritzZoom.jpg?t=1259815251)
It is hard to tell but I think I can make out something of a hogsback with more irrigated land behind it. I've marked what I think is the hogsback in yellow, and what might be the back of the green in red.
I recall reading (probably in George's book) that the Biarritz got brutalized by the weather and was one of the first to changed. I think it may have been shortened a number of times.
-
Brad:
Those are some pretty interesting analyzes of that Lido biarritz hole. Let me just say that there's a lot I sure don't agree with. As for some significant hogsback feature in that fairway before the swale I really don't see it at all on that on-ground photo (and I sure don't need someone's yellow outline on that on-ground photo that seemingly exaggerates it ;) ) and I don't see that Macdonald mentioned it either. He did mention a hogs-back feature at Lido but it was on the 7th hole and its fairway which he mentioned was a shorter version of NGLA's 5th hole which is a par 5 (now a par 4) that is named "Hogsback" on NGLA's card.
Why was Lido's biarritz shortened from 220 to 160? There was one sort of general explanation given but in my opinion there may've been another pretty good reason to shorten that hole that I've never heard mentioned before but actually shows up on both that on-ground photo as well as the plasticine model of the whole golf course.
Once again, I can't see that there was any "hogs-back" feature on any biarritz hole Macdonald/Raynor did. It looks to me like the only time he mentioned it was in 1906 in his article in Outing magazine about that 12th hole at Biarritz France which may or may not have been the same hole as the famous "Chasm" hole at Le Phare (most often mentioned as the 3rd (again, did Le Phare flip the nines at some point?) that had a forced carry over an inlet of the Bay of Biscay of well over 100 yards. And again, as far as I've ever known, no one really knows if that famous "Chasm" hole had a prominent swale before the green. And I have definitely never heard that the famous Chasm hole in Biarritz had something like 60 yards of terra firma over the inlet and before the green! ???
Actually, here's another potentially good reason that 210 yard hole (#12) Macdonald mentioned at Biarritz France with a hogsback feature may not have been the famous "Chasm" hole (#3?)-----I don't know that the Chasm hole at Le Phare in Biarrtz ever played close to 210 yards (at least not in 1906 when Macdonald and Whigam saw it). It may've been more like 160 max. (I think when Vanderbilt met Dunn at Le Phare in the late 19th century and was given a shot demonstration by Dunn on that hole I think the carry mentioned was something like 120 yards over the inlet).
-
Very interesting!!
-
Mac,
I agree.
David,
I had the impression of the "Hogsback" being an elongated mound running in the direction of the shot but that plastecine model looks like it runs perpendicular...unless you think that shiny area is the bunker. I assume it's the mound because it reflects the same way the green-side of the swale does.
Either way, it seems the playbility / shot test of the hole is to hit a long, low shot that carries to a point 15 - 30 yards short of the green and runs up the slope...when all along (based purely on the holes I had seen and the one I played) I assumed the decision when trying to get to the back shelf was either a well controlled high shot or an equally well controlled very low shot that would land on the front shelf and run down and then up ontl the green pad in the back. You would never intentionally land a ball in the trench at Yale.
Under the prescription of that plastecine model and Wigham's description of the hole, #17 at Merion could certainly fit the requirements...which begs the question of why the common Biarritz these guys created changed the dynalic so much? Any opinion?
-
Sully:
With Merion's 17th as some kind of "biarritz" concept the huge difference in Merion's is there is just no fairway area in front of some swale that is essentially at the same basic level as the green behind the swale. To me that is the huge difference between Merion's 17th and any other Macdonald/Raynor biarritz I have ever seen or heard of. For that reason along it pretty much takes Merion's 17 out of consideration as having anything to do with a biarritz type hole or concept.
-
Furthermore, I don't think I would put all that much stock in what one thinks are the contours of Lido's 8th hole off that plasticine model. Somebody on here may be implying that looking of that photoraphic image of that plasticine model is the same thing as looking at an aerial of a golf course with the light and shade in undulations. I've seen a couple of plasticine models in person, including the one of NGLA and even though they certainly do have undulations on them they are also often painted in various shades as well so I wouldn't necessarily say looking down on one shows vertical dimension as an actual aerial of a actual course in long light can and does.
Another significant and probably important question to ask and answer is what was a plasticine model like that one of The Lido done for anyway? Was it used as a model to construct the course or was it just done after the fact for some decorative reason? I think it was generally the latter and if that is the case it sure would be hard to match all the undulations on a plasticine model to what the course looked like in an aerial, not the least reason being that in 1914, 1915 probably few if any aerial photographs of golf courses had ever been done due to the incipiency of aviation itself at that time.
I think the earliest aerial photograph of a golf course or golf hole I've ever seen was 1917, and even that was remarkably early.
-
Tom,
The point I'm coming from is that #17 matches Wigham's description (David posted it a couple pages ago) other than the orientation of a hogsback and it's driving my curiosity as to why they never built one that actually matched his description of those playability requirements...
The perpendicular ridge (old rail cart line) at Merion could certainly suffice based on that plastecine model if the ridge was supposed to run side to side instead of down the direction of the hole.
My primary question for David (or anyone) is why this family of architects never built a Biarritz that matches the description Wigham gave of the shot requirement? Or did they?
-
Jim,
You may be right about the first light colored swath, but it looks like a bunker to me. My assumption was that the up slope of the hog's back approach is the shiny half circle just beyond what I thought was a bunker. Whigham's description describes the feature deflecting balls to the sides, so it must have had some sort of knoll or bump to do this. Either way, this doesn't look like anything I want to try to run the ball across.
I too have been trying to make sense of his description of the role of the hog’s back-then-30 yard dip-then green as well as Macdonald’s earlier description of hog’s back-then 80 yard dip-then-green. Surely CBM wasn’t contemplating running the ball 80 yards onto the green? Although I would probably try the shot, it seems a bit much, and if this was the “chasm” hole that doesn’t leave much room for the fearsome “chasm” even if the hole was 210 yards. Turns out Scotland’s gift contains a typo. The snippet from Outing is below; 30 yards between the hog’s back and the green, not 80 yards.
But CBM did describe it as a “sharp hog back” and when this description is considered with Whigham's description and the Lido plasticine, it is pretty clear that initially they were contemplating some sort of hog’s back (or bump or hill) which would deflect rolling or bouncing balls not hit perfectly true. I agree that this would make landing it on or short of the sharp hog’s back a rather unappealing option, and that on this hole the better play would be to carry to the down slope of the dip/valley/swale and let it run from there. But given that the dip was 30 yards, there would have been ample room to do this without hitting into the upslope.
As for why they never built such a “sharp hog back” it is difficult to say, but here are a few things to consider:
2. They did build the Lido, and the feature shown on the plasticine would reject balls as Whigham anticipated, and it did contain more room to land the ball on the downslope and run it up.
1. As you said, this would make the shot extremely demanding, especially with a wood, so perhaps they figured it was too demanding on shorter hitters and cut off the top of the hog's back to make a plateau.
2. Contrary to popular belief, for the most part CBM worked with what the site gave him (thus no Biarritz at NGLA.) And it may be that the early sites did not have such a feature to incorporate into the hole, and so he did without, realizing that the hole was plenty demanding anyway.
3. The landing area as a plateau still serves the purpose although to a lesser degree, if one misses is well off line the ball will roll down the steep sides of the plateau and into trouble.
4. Given that the full green valley/dip/swale, and hog's back would have been a monumental undertaking to create, it may have been more practical to compress things a bit, makin the swale more abrupt and less far across. But without ample room to land the ball on the downslope on the short side of the dip/swale/valley, the hog's back would have made the hole nearly impossible for the run-up, and a more forgiving approach would have been necessary.
5. All of CBM’s Biarritz holes were built by Raynor, and CBM had little or nothing to do with many of the holes we consider Biarritz holes. Raynor had never been to Biarritz that I know of, and the plateau may have been his take on the concept. (That is why I find the Lido plasticine model so compelling; it shows what CBM planned to do, whether it was perfectly carried out or not.
Not laying down the law here, just throwing out a few ideas of what might have happened, and keeping in mind the playability concerns.
Jim and Mac and anyone else, did anyone notice that two days ago TEPaul was arguing that the Valley of Sin short of Merion's 17th was the inspiration for all future Biarritz swales to come, yet now has concluded that Merion's hole has nothing to do with the Biarritz concept hole type or concept? I just wanted to point it out for your consideration.
-
David,
It seems to me that the key to the Biarritz concept it the very abrupt climb to the green pad at the end of a hole in which a long club must be used to reach in 1. You've focussed on the architecture of these holes when every (both) written piece(s) I've seen about the concept holes focusses exclusively on the playability requirements.
Think about this one...the hole is long enough that nobody should be able to fly it onto the green - the shot has to be truly played so as to carry the short garbage but still have the run to make it up the slope - the primary concession has been to ease things for those that didn't make the short carry. Think about how low the ball would have to be to bounce and run through 20 yards of fairway and still have the speed to go up a steep incline (I presume also cut at fairway height) when the fairways were as long as in those days.
-
Sully:
Concerning your #289 I guess I must have missed that description by Whigam on this thread. But the way you sort of just described Whigam's description I sure can't recall anyone building a biarritz hole or biarritz concept like Merion's 17th. I have also never seen this hogs-back feature on a biarritz hole by Macdonald/Raynor.
Frankly, I think Merion's 17th hole was largely found not built. I think if they did much of anything there it was probably just leveling the green enough off a gradual bank coming down from the left. Wayne mentioned the other day that the quarry track that creates that berm 30-40 yards before the upslope to the green probably got its fill from that huge depression before the green but of course that was probably long before the course there. As you know that was a working quarry on both #16 and #17 long before the golf course.
-
Sully:
With Merion's 17th as some kind of "biarritz" concept the huge difference in Merion's is there is just no fairway area in front of some swale that is essentially at the same basic level as the green behind the swale. To me that is the huge difference between Merion's 17th and any other Macdonald/Raynor biarritz I have ever seen or heard of. For that reason along it pretty much takes Merion's 17 out of consideration as having anything to do with a biarritz type hole or concept.
Tom,
Could that be a product of mowing patterns and not design? I have no clue as I've not seen the hole.
-
"Think about this one...the hole is long enough that nobody should be able to fly it onto the green - the shot has to be truly played so as to carry the short garbage but still have the run to make it up the slope - the primary concession has been to ease things for those that didn't make the short carry. Think about how low the ball would have to be to bounce and run through 20 yards of fairway and still have the speed to go up a steep incline (I presume also cut at fairway height) when the fairways were as long as in those days."
Sully:
That is precisely why I keep saying on this thread that every Macdonald/Raynor biarritz I have ever seen or heard of has the fairly extended fairway before the abrupt swale (both abruptly down and abruptly up extending no more than about 10-15 steps) on about the same level as the green space behind the swale. This is just not remotely the case with Merion's 17th.
Furthermore, I don't recall anyone ever calling Merion's 17th a Biarritz (all I've ever heard is the dip in front of the green looks like an interpretation of TOC's "Valley of Sin" on #18) other than this fellow you keep discussing it with. Personally, I think he just keeps pushing this idea of Merion's 17th as a biarritz or biarritz concept to try to keep assigning more and more of the architecture of Merion East to Macdonald and Whigam which was essentially the whole point of that highly speculative and speciously reasoned essay he wrote entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion." ;)
-
David,
It seems to me that the key to the Biarritz concept it the very abrupt climb to the green pad at the end of a hole in which a long club must be used to reach in 1. You've focussed on the architecture of these holes when every (both) written piece(s) I've seen about the concept holes focusses exclusively on the playability requirements.
I've been trying to address the playability issues, but was also trying to address some of the questions/issues raised about the architecture.
Think about this one...the hole is long enough that nobody should be able to fly it onto the green - the shot has to be truly played so as to carry the short garbage but still have the run to make it up the slope - the primary concession has been to ease things for those that didn't make the short carry.
1. I think perhaps that long hitters could fly it to the green under some conditions at least, and thus be tempted to try.
2. Not sure what you mean, but if you mean that the hog's back may have been flattened to a plateau to make the hole a bit less demanding on the shorter hitter, then I agree.
Think about how low the ball would have to be to bounce and run through 20 yards of fairway and still have the speed to go up a steep incline (I presume also cut at fairway height) when the fairways were as long as in those days.
No doubt between the two of us you are the expert golfer, but I nonetheless disagree. Are you perhaps considering these holes with today's technology in mind? Get yourself a hickory shafted driver from that period and go out to HV and hit a few (with about a 3/4 swing to match the way they were hitting the ball then.) I think you will find that the trajectory is very low, and that the run-out accounts for a surprisingly large chunk of the total distance. A brassie shot will fly a but higher but still low compared to today's equipment, and a skilled golfer can make the shot run-out a surprising distance (or so I am told.)
Here is what Ralph Livingston had to say about the old drivers on his terrific website hickorygolf.com: Drivers were viewed differently in that period than today, they were used for the trajectory and the amount of roll that characterized this club. They tended to be used for shots that were into the wind and for holes that had more forgiving fairways.
In short, my response to your scenario is: Only 20 yards? I hope the green plateau takes enough off it so it doesn't run through the green.
Seriously. One reason they may have made the hog's back into a plateau may have been to give the golfer more room to run the ball onto the green. Notice that many of these greens were slightly banked back to front?
Along these lines, if Merion's hole has a shortcoming as a biarritz it is that there may not be enough room to run in a driver and keep it on the green. I believe that the area just short of the steep downslope used to be maintained as fairway, and may still be for all I know. If so, why do you suppose it was? It wouldn't surprise me if the slope down used to be fairway as well.
TEPaul seems to think that if the hole was there naturally then it couldn't have been inspired by CBM's and HJW's early conception of the biarritz. By that logic, NGLA's Redan and Alps could not have been inspired by the originals because CBM and HJW found them! While some features were manufactured, most of Merion's holes were found instead of built, and this may explain Merion's enduring quality. I imagine CBM's and HJW's mouths were watering back in the Summer of 1910 when they first laid eyes on the site for this hole.
-
You know something, you guys might be arguing an irrelevant point in most people's eyes...that is Tom and David.
When I read your posts, I try to cut through the agendas and desire to be proven correct and simply discern the facts. And I find the knowledge and facts so intensely interesting, which I think you guys take for granted and use them to try to prove some other point.
Take David's last post...
He talks about how a hole's configuration might tempt a long hitter to try to pull of a shot that he might not be able to...but will neverhteless be tempted to try it.
Then he talks about how a ball struck by a hickory shafted club differs from what we hit today and how the architecture of a hole effects that ball and what the dangers are to the golfers score, etc.
That is the crux of the golf course architects job/challenge, right? To know these things, create illusions, challenges, opportunites, subtle clues for the golfer to see, things to potentially overlook, etc.
So from my perspective, I don't care if the 17th at Merion is a Biarritz or not. I don't care if CBM was the designer or if it wsa Wilson, Barker, or Whigam.
I am simply taking all the knowledge that you guys throw around on the site and absorbing. You guys take the knowledge for granted and are looking to prove specific and exotic points. And I get that...you are at a level far and above the average Joe and I get the importance of giving credit where credit is due. So keep it up and find the truth.
but from my perspective, if I cna listen and learn about what these architects are doing and why, then I should be able to appreciate it and understand it better and perhaps play a better game of golf and have more fun and enjoy the magic of the game even more.
So keep it up and honor the game!!
-
"TEPaul seems to think that if the hole was there naturally then it couldn't have been inspired by CBM's and HJW's early conception of the biarritz. By that logic, NGLA's Redan and Alps could not have been inspired by the originals because CBM and HJW found them! While some features were manufactured, most of Merion's holes were found instead of built, and this may explain Merion's enduring quality. I imagine CBM's and HJW's mouths were watering back in the Summer of 1910 when they first laid eyes on the site for this hole."
Well, that kind of thing would presuppose that Macdonald/Whigam actually routed Merion East in a SINGLE DAY about five months before the club agreed to consider buying it (and we don't even know the specificity of the land being offered at that time) and about 6-8 months before anyone finally routed it. Anyone who knows a damn thing about how golf course routing and architecture works today and certainly back then knows that's completely preposterous. Luckiliy, however, we have a letter to MCC from Macdonald in June 1910 explaining exactly what he and Whigam felt and DID SAY about that basic site (which Wayne Morrison found, by the way) and a routing and design from them was most definitely not even close to what they said or mentioned to MCC.
Macdonald/Raynor would not return to Merion East for the next ten months, and when Wilson and his committee went to see Macdonald and Whigam at NGLA in early March 1911 they recorded what-all they did there and planning the Merion East course was not even remotely reported. One can certainly speculate that might have been discussed but that is total speculation and there is not a single VERIFIABLE FACT ;) to indicate it!!
-
Mac:
There is one reason and one reason only Moriarty keeps trying to make these tenuous connections to Macdonald concepts with Merion and now a hole like Merion's #17 as a biarrtiz ??? and at this point I suspect you know what that reason is. But if you don't know, at this point, I would be happy to explain it to you. ;)
Believe it or not he has been trying to do this with Merion East for a number of years and MacWood has been apparently trying to do some variation of that for close to seven years now.
But this is your thread and you've done well with it so it's probably the time for you, AGAIN, to suggest this thread go on to some other item that is ground-breaking or revolutionary.
-
Tom...
I am hitting the rack and will check in tomorrow.
Later!
-
Mac,
My interest has never been to reach some preconceived conclusion, or to win, and I don't think I have all the answers. Like you I am here to find and analyze the facts. In this regard, I am dormy and always will be. So long as I ultimately come to a better understanding of what actually happened, I cannot lose.
I don't think you have had to wade through much other than facts and analysis from me lately, at least I hope you haven't.
-
David...
I agree with you and maybe I should clarify my point.
What you guys are brining to the table in terms of debate is more interesting and educational than you think it is because of the depth of the knowledge.
You might think that you are discussing point "x" but readers are learning about points x, y, and z.
Does that make sense? I am giving you all a compliment and urging you all to keep posting and debating regardless of arguments. I mentioned previously about Mackenzie and Colt arguing. It happens, no problem. Keep the knowledge flowing.
-
"Tom,
Could that be a product of mowing patterns and not design? I have no clue as I've not seen the hole."
JC:
That's a good question, but with Merion's 17th I don't think the mowing patterns on the area before the actual raised level of the putting green has much to do with it even though there is some green space before the upslope to the green and the upslope itself which is very large and steep is also green space and I think it always has been. That is not the case originally on any Macdonald/Raynor green that we know about. It seems now from some good recent research from various people including Tony Pioppi that all Macdonald/Raynor biarritzes had fairway cut throughout the area before the swale as well as throughout the swale and up until it got to the flat portion after the swale where green space began.
That would be mowing patterns but my point is I have never seen a Macdonald/Raynor biarritz that has so much space before the upslope that is SO MUCH LOWER than the green space behind the upslope as is the case on Merion's 17th. At most all other flat land biarritzes I've ever seen that 30 or so yards before the swale is at about the same level as the green space behind the swale and this goes directly to playability and shot options because it is so much easier to land the ball in that area and run it through the swale and up onto the greenspace behind the swale than it ever has been on Merion's 17th.
Hope that helps.
-
Here's the updated list...
Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Golf Courses
St. Andrews (Old)…no concrete evidence details when golf was first played on The Old Course; perhaps 1441, 1552, 1574. Regardless, it is a timeless gem and first “great” muni…course can be played forwards and backwards
Royal Blackheath…1608…first golf course in England
Royal Calcutta...1829…oldest golf course outside the British Isles
North Berwick…1832…first golf course to allow women…the original Redan
Westward Ho!...1864…first links course in England
Hoylake…1869…influential English golf course
The Country Club…1882 (1895?)…first country club
Le Phare Golf Course in Biarritz France…1888…home of the “Chasm” hole, potentially the predecessor of the Biarritz hole design
Hotel Champlain on Bluff Point…1890…first American resort course
The Machrie...1891…first British Isles resort course
Kelvinside…1984…first golf/residential course
Van Courtland Park…1895…first U.S. muni
Franklin Park…1897…first very good U.S. public golf course
Sunningdale (Old)…1901…one of the first great heathland courses, also one of the first courses to be formed from cleared land and whose course was grown from seed
--It should be mentioned that New Zealand G.C. was cleared and groomed in 1893
--And Woking was perhaps the first heathlands course 1893
---And Huntercombe was another earlier great heathlands course 1901
Springhaven Club…1903…first course laid out by a female (Ida Dixon)
Princes Golf Club at Sandwich…1904…UK course designed specifically for the Haskell golf ball
Chicago Golf Club, Garden City Golf Club, and Myopia…1895-1900, represent some of the significant early American golf courses
Pinehurst…1907…a great and historical golf resort…known for its shell-backed greens
National Golf Links…1911…the first world class course in America; a watershed moment in American golf course architecture…used classic British Isle courses for ideas for holes on the course
Merion…1912 (or 1914)…first 36 hole golf club in the U.S.
St. George’s Hill…1913…great gated housing/residential combined development
Lido…1914…first “mega-expensive” golf development that included ground building, its disappearance was also significant
1914-1918…World War I
Mountain Lake…1915…first American golf/residential combined development
Oakmont…1916-1927…our work suggests the course transformed to greatness during this time frame, coinciding with EMIL LOEFFLER becoming head greenskeeper…known for its “penal” architecture and bunkering...and their weighted furrow bunker rakes.
Pine Valley…1918…a great “collaborative” golf course
Pebble Beach…1919…first course to have piped irrigation to all 18 holes
Mid-Ocean…1921…great “tropical” golf course
Jasper Park…1925…first great mountain golf course
Yale…1926…one of the first great heavy construction golf courses
1929-1932 (1939)…Great Depression
Tokyo GC and Hirono…1932…great Japanese golf courses
Augusta National…1933…first golf course designed for spectator/tournament golf
Bethpage State Park...1935…historical course/golf complex built with Public Works Administration money which was provided by the government to help combat the Great Depression. Other courses of note regarding the P.W.A. were: Prairie Dunes, Ohio State GC, Indian Canyon, Memorial Park, North Fulton, Split Rock, and Mark Twain.
1940-1945…World War II
Peachtree Golf Club…1948…first great RTJ course…big/elongated teeing areas, big greens
Dunes Golf & Beach…1949…first course to use a template to aid real estate sales (RTJ)
Desert Forest…1962…first desert golf course
Victoria Golf Course…1962…first landfill golf course
The Golf Club…1967…minimalist golf course in the era of RTJ Maximism
Harbour Town…1967…another counter to RTJ
Shadow Creek…1989…ultimate expression of mans power to create; it is a lush oasis in the middle of desert waste land
Sandhills…1994…minimalist, first “build it and they will come” course
Bandon Dunes Complex…1999…??
Machrihanish Dunes…2009…minimalist golf course with minimalist maintenance
As always, thoughts, critiques, comments are welcome.
Should something be removed, should something be added?
Anyway, thus far…here is what I/we got.
-
Merion…1912 (or 1914)…first 36 hole golf club in the U.S.
A number of sources, including some from within Merion, reported that he old course closed at the time the East opened. Tom and Wayne have claimed differently but they have never produced any verifiable facts to support the claim. I don't care one way or another when the old course closed, but if you are going to include the 1912 date on your list it ought to be backed up by verifiable facts.
-
"Jasper Park…1925…first great mountain golf course"
Mac, I note you state "great" mountain course. There was actually golf at Banff starting in 1911 but there is no question ST did Jasper and then moved on to build the present Banff course in 1926. As for great mountain golf on the pre Thompson Banff layout, I doubt it was great but it was there!
-
Dale...
Interesting. using the term "great" is tricky. I am discussing a great hole on the Feeling a golf course thread. Do you have any thoughts on the use of the term great to describe a course or a hole?
-
"Jasper Park…1925…first great mountain golf course"
Mac, I note you state "great" mountain course. There was actually golf at Banff starting in 1911 but there is no question ST did Jasper and then moved on to build the present Banff course in 1926. As for great mountain golf on the pre Thompson Banff layout, I doubt it was great but it was there!
Who designed the Banff course from 1911?
-
Might not be groundbreaking, but it is ground soaking: Chicago GC is believed to be the first course to pipe water to the greens from a central plant.
-
Mac:
Merion (MCC--eg Merion Cricket Club, Haverford) had planned to shut down their previous Haverford course (18 holes) when they opened the Merion East course in Ardmore (Sept. 1912) but they actually did not shut down their Haverford course to play until the late fall of 1913. And so one could say in Sept. 1912 Merion probably became the first American 36 hole golf club.
In 1913 they bought more land in Ardmore and built and opened the West course in 1914 so I guess one could say then went back to an 18 hole club for about six months (but only in the winter when there is little play) and then returned to a 36 hole club again in 1914. But as a first 36 hole club in America one could say that happened in Sept 1912 at Merion.
Another interesting phenomenon is even being the first 36 hole golf club the over-crowding was pretty fierce early on in the fall of 1912 and 1913 with the Haverford course and the East course and then again with the East course and the West from 1914 on. This led to some membership defection and was actually responsible for the creation of my own club (Gulph Mills) in 1916.
-
Mac,
Probably not Groundbreaking/Revolutionary, but the Yountakah CC in Nutley, NJ, was the first golf course to install electric lights so its member could play in the evening. This was in 1908.
-
Merion…1912 (or 1914)…first 36 hole golf club in the U.S.
A number of sources, including some from within Merion, reported that he old course closed at the time the East opened. Tom and Wayne have claimed differently but they have never produced any verifiable facts to support the claim. I don't care one way or another when the old course closed, but if you are going to include the 1912 date on your list it ought to be backed up by verifiable facts.
The reason I say that verifiable facts ought to be produced is that oftentimes those facts are misread or misunderstood, and the only check on that is to put all the facts out their for proper vetting. Not just in this instance, but in every instance. Otherwise we end up with a record full of errors. This is supposed to be a discussion group, and we ought not to be expected to take another's opinion as gospel without reviewing their factual support.
-
David...if I changed the date to 1914 would that be a better idea?
-
"The reason I say that verifiable facts ought to be produced is that oftentimes those facts are misread or misunderstood, and the only check on that is to put all the facts out their for proper vetting."
Mac:
If you feel you would prefer to see for yourself the actual Merion records that indicate Merion was using 36 holes until the fall of 1913 (when they finally shut down the old Haverford course rather than take my word for it on here, we can certainly make them available to you. Neither Merion nor any of us here who have seen these records believe that they become verifiable facts only after David Moriarty sees them for himself and confirms that they are verifiable facts. ;)
As for being misread and misunderstood there isn't much possibility that Merion would make a mistake about when they shut down the use of one of their two 18 hole courses. That would really be a hard thing to make a mistake on when one just looks at the amount of people who played golf at Merion between Sept 1912 and the fall of 1913. Maybe they just squeezed all those golfers onto the one 18 hole course of Merion East but that would be a pretty neat trick, don't you think? Maybe they just figured they could send them all off at five minute increments and for the only time in golf's history it wouldn't really make any difference somehow! You know, Mac, back then was sort of rudimentary, don't you know? ;)
"David...if I changed the date to 1914 would that be a better idea?"
Mac, you can decide that for yourself since this is your thread but if you changed it to 1914 in the case of Merion it would not be historically accurate.
-
Tom...
It sound like you have the knowledge base on this one and if you are good with 1912, let's go with it.
-
Mac,
That is up to you. Is your list based on verifiable events or unverified claims? It may be that the 1912 date is correct, but all the verifiable first-hand sources thus far point to 1914.
If it stayed open that ought to be easy enough to prove up.
-
Mac:
Let me go back and check the fall of 1912 with the Haverford course but I am certain from the Merion records that both courses were in full operation and play for Merion in 1913. Of that there is no question at all. The reason the necessity for both courses apparently happened as it did, which was not at first expected, was because MCC (Merion) actually had a separate golf association membership before 1912 within the larger MCC club membership but they changed that to allow all MCC (Merion) members to play golf.
-
As I was typing Tom put his latest post up...I was going to say the following...
Tom says he has seen the records that state both courses open in 1912-1913 and he says if I want to come up and see them, he will make them available. Why isn't this verifiable evidence?
If he goes and verifies this information wouldn't we all have to agree it is fact?
-
The Jackson Park GC in Chicago (1899) was built on a landfill, not of garbage, but of the spoils from the consruction of the Columbian Exposition of 1893.
It was also the first 9 hole public course west of the Alleghenies.
-
Jim...
would you say this should be the first landfill golf course?
-
Mac,
It's not my list. ;)
-
C'mon Jim...help a GCA brother out!! :D
I'll dig into it and open up some discussion about it with you after I educate myself a bit.
-
Sorry to leave you hangin' Mac, but here's some more work.
Another 36 hole golf course besides Merion's comes to mind. Problem is I don't know how you'll classify it, resort or club. The folks who frequented it in the winter, and who had at least five years under their belts doing so, had their own organization called the "Stone Crabs", and it was The Belleair.
Upon his (Henry F. Plant) death his son, Morton F., continued the work which has brought into existence today the two 18-hole courses, known as No. 1, which is 6,200 yards in length, and No. 2, the original course, 5,800 yards long.The original beginning was a nine-hole course, laid out by Donald Ross. A few years afterward, around 1900, nine holes were added and five years later the No. 1 course was built. At the outset the big problem was in getting grass greens.This was solved by Mr. Plant who imported carload after carload of top-soil from Indiana and Ohio. The result of this enterprise was that at Belleair there are now grass greens as good as any to be found anywhere in the north.The No. 1 course is still one of the best tests of championship golf in the south and nearly all of the most famous players—amateur, professional and women—have tested its mettle one time or another. No. 2, while much shorter, is an exceedingly interesting course, sporty enough to give complete satisfaction. It was on the No. 2 that Walter Hagen, in the West Coast Open championship last Winter, established his miraculous record of 62. And it was here also that Mrs. Caleb F. Fox, "golf's grand old lady," twice defeated Miss Glenna Collett, the national women's champion, in tournament play.The outstanding features of each course is the number of really fine two shot holes. There are also a number of excellent drive and pitch holes and the one-shotters are superb tests of accuracy. In building the course, Mr. Ross took full advantage of the innumerable ravines that cut in here and there, furnishing natural hazards. The fairways, bordered by pine woods and palmettos, call for precision and the stragglers off the line find woe in abundance awaiting them.
So it appears that the Plant (aptly named I'd say) family not only had themselves a well respected 36 hole layout by 1905, but they had one with grass greens, something Pinehurst would not have until 30 years later.....and this was in Florida, not in the more commodious climate of N.C.
Man, you took on a load! ;D
-
Mac, The reason we need to vet and verify the basis for claims is so we get it right. Simple as that.
It is not enough to just make unsupported claims. We all have to back them up. That is the truth seeking process; offer proof and let that proof be scrutinized, vetted, and challenged. And not just by those who we feel we can sway, but to anyone and everyone who wants to challenge our ideas. That is the truth seeking process; offer proof and let that proof be scrutinized, vetted, and challenged. Only then are people in a position to make up their own minds.
As I was typing Tom put his latest post up...I was going to say the following...
Tom says he has seen the records that state both courses open in 1912-1913 and he says if I want to come up and see them, he will make them available. Why isn't this verifiable evidence?
Because Tom, Wayne, Merion, whoever, are sequestering the key information from those of us who are in a position to actually understand and vet that information.
If he goes and verifies this information wouldn't we all have to agree it is fact.
Agree that what is fact? What is the claim based upon? Does Tom telling you it is fact make it a fact? Is he infallible? Are his claims not open to challenge? I guess that is for you to decide, but I can tell you that I am not infallible, and all of my claims are open challenge. I welcome it because I know that it the best way to get at the truth.
Look Mac, even if I trusted TEPaul (I'm not going to lie to you and pretend I do) I'd still need to see the basis for the claim before I accepted it as fact. Oftentimes this stuff is difficult to figure out, and mistakes happen. And unfortunately those with the best access to the information are often the most susceptible to misunderstanding that information, as they are just to close and too connected to their own preconceptions to see clearly.If I were to count the number of mistakes, misrepresentations, ommissions, and errors that TEPaul and Co. have made about this stuff I'd run out of fingers and toes long before I was through. And while I am quite satisfied with my facts and analysis on this issue, I too have made some mistakes. It is an ever evolving process and it depends upon full disclosure.
In 1914 Robert Lesley wrote this of the East Course (emphasis added:)
The ground was found adapted for golf and a course was laid out upon it about three years ago by the following committee: Hugh I. Wilson, chairman, R. S. Francis, H. G. Lloyd, R. E. Griscom, and Dr. Hal Toulmin, who had as advisers, Charles B. Macdonald and H. J. Whigham. This course, which is described at a later period, was opened to the Merion players September 4, 1912, upon which date the old course on the north side was formally closed, a glorious and hilarious club dinner for men and women golfers marking the final ringing down of the curtain upon the old links which so many had enjoyed.[/color]
Later in the same article he wrote this of the new West course, (again with my emphasis:)
Work was begun in the spring of 1913 and the new course was opened to the members on Decoration Day of this year, when Merion players were afforded an opportunity of playing thirty-six different and varying holes upon two full championship eighteenhole courses.[/color]
Now maybe Lesley was mistaken, or maybe "was formally closed" doesn't mean it was really closed, and "ringing down of the curtain upon the old links which so many had enjoyed" was some sort of double-speak for keep open for another season. Maybe when he wrote "Decoration Day of this year" he meant some other date and year.
Seriously, it's possible that the course stayed open. But the information out there seems to indicate otherwise, and Robert Lesley was there, involved, and one of Merion Golf's and Philadelphia's Golf's most distinguished figures. Given a choice between Robert Lesley's understanding of what happened and TEPaul's understanding, I'll go with Lesley every time. Give me some facts, and I may see it otherwise.
-
How is it that ANGC was built for spectator golf? I doubt Bobby Jones would agree with that.
Garland,
I agree with you 100 %.
I don't think accomodating spectators had anything to do with the design and construction of ANGC.
Importing elements, primary elements of TOC was one of the driving forces at ANGC, not spectator accomodation.
Many forget that Professional Golf was almost a non-entity in 1934.
There was no TV, no PGA Tour, no modern transportation to remote areas, and while it was a destination resort, ANGC was far removed from the beaten paths and a lot cooler than South Florida in the winter.
David Moriarty,
I agree with you regarding Myopia and GCGC.
While both courses were exceptional, architecture took a quantum leap with the introduction of NGLA.
Many forget that GCGC had 13 holes with roads that crossed the line of play, and one hole had two roads that crossed the line of play.
While it's true that NGLA had a road that crossed the line of play on two holes, the differences in the two courses is substantial.
One course, GCGC is about as close to the ground as possible.
Tees are at ground level and greens transition seemlessly from the fairways.
There's not much in the way of construction at the green ends.
Whereas, at NGLA, construction at the green ends is significant/substantial.
The constructed nature of NGLA, and the topography, IMHO, is what seperates it from GCGC
Mac, while C&W's work is extensive and a terrific resource, I wouldn't consider their pronouncements as "The Gospel"
-
Great stuff guys.
David...regarding the Merion 36 hole date...and let's try to make this a general point and not specific to Merion. If someone has access to a clubs records, minutes that details a clubs history and provides specific dates when things occured would you think that was verifiable evidence?
As always, I am not arguing either way...I am just curious as to what is the end all be all definitive fact source for golf historians.
-
Mac
You are about to enter where ‘Angles fear to tread’ going into the history of Merion. Please do not ask who the designer was or when did Wilson go to GB&I as this whole site might just self-destruct after 5 seconds.
Have you ever seen the film ’The Duellists’ (1977) re French Officers life long duel with each other over the late 1790-1815 period with Carradine & Keitel. Well we have our own GCA.com version with TEPaul & D Moriarty, but don’t ask me who is who.
Melvyn
-
Mac:
Here are the exact facts of Merion as a 36 hole club and when from Merion's archives (board and committee meetings);
1. Merion (MCC---Merion Cricket Club) played golf on an 18 hole course in Haverford from the late 1890s until Sept. 14, 1912. The land of this course had nine holes owned by prominent Merion member C.A. Griscom (his son Rodman Griscom served on Wilson's committee that began in 1911 and created the East and West courses). The other nine holes of the old Haverford course were owned by the Pennsylvania RR. Both nines were leased by MCC.
2. The East course at Ardmore was opened for play on Sept. 14, 1912 and the Haverford course was closed at the same time.
3. Play on the East course was remarkably crowded in the fall of 1912 and so MCC requested from C.A. Griscom and the PRR that the old Haverford course be used again in 1913 which it was. The old course was finally shut down for good at the end of 1913.
4. In late 1912 and/or early 1913 MCC secured the land for the West course which was built in 1913 and opened for play in the spring of 1914.
And so that would mean that in the year 1913 Merion was apparently the first golf club in America to have 36 holes of golf with their use of the new East course and the old Haverford course. In the following year they had 36 holes in play with the East course and the new West course.
-
"Because Tom, Wayne, Merion, whoever, are sequestering the key information from those of us who are in a position to actually understand and vet that information."
Mac:
Neither Wayne Morrison nor I nor Merion is sequestering any key information or any information that we have permission to physically release copies of. Merion G.C. has an awesome historical archives facility as of about five years ago and it truly is an example for all clubs interested in cateloguing and preserving their history. The Merion archive is open to all serious researchers and parties provided they abide by Merion's process to research and analyze Merion's archive and its voluminous material. At this point, it is my understanding that any researcher must go to Merion after arranging access to the archive through the club and Merion's historians. At this point, I do not believe Merion's historians regularly just send out copies of Merion materials for obvious reasons of manpower shortage or otherwise. I am told that eventually most all of Merion's archive material will be digitized and put on Merion's website. I have no idea, at this time, if that will mean anyone from anywhere in the world will be able to access it over the Internet (some to most clubs actually require PINS and such to access club websites).
Is it possible for Merion to deny access to someone? Frankly, I don't know about that but the fact that Merion is a private organization I suppose they could and may if someone did not abide by their process or even if Merion or any other private club or organization like it felt they did not want to provide access to someone for whatever their reason----such as perhaps viewing someone as a total pain-in-the-ass or someone who they felt did not deserve access to the club's historical material! ;) If you would like me to speculate for you privately why that kind of thing might happen or to whom I would be glad to do that for you for your edification. I say that as I feel you seem to be such a good and commonsensical and objective and polite researcher and interested objective analyst who does not seem to have any interest or any inclination of being rude or obnoxious or demanding or adverserial on an Internet website towards any golf club or its members, historians and friends. The latter, in the realm of private clubs, is probably no different for someone regarding archive access as it would be for someone to play their golf course or use their club. In other words, in the world of private organizations in America not anyone can access these organizations simply because they demand it if they claim they are interested in a private club, its course or its history.
You should also understand something else about Merion, Mac. That is that for approximately 40 plus years golf at Merion operated under a Golf Association (actually a separate corporation known as "The Merion Cricket Club Golf Assocation" that owned the land of Merion East and West and leased it to Merion Cricket Club) within the larger club of Merion Cricket Club. On December 7, 1941 (the date that will live in infamy---eg Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese beginning WW2 for the USA) MCC and the MCC Golf Association voted to take the golf and golf courses of MCC into a separate entity that in 1942 became another corporation known as Merion Golf Club.
Therefore, there is certain historical and documentary material that is not now in the possession of or belongs to Merion Golf Club, it belongs to Merion Cricket Club that is a separate organization from Merion Golf Club and that is why some of us who have access to MCC's material do not feel we should release actual documents without the permission of Merion Cricket Club, not Merion Golf Club.
Hope that helps, Mac.
-
Totally...thanks Tom!
-
Great stuff guys.
David...regarding the Merion 36 hole date...and let's try to make this a general point and not specific to Merion. If someone has access to a clubs records, minutes that details a clubs history and provides specific dates when things occured would you think that was verifiable evidence?
No. Unless the information is available for those interested to review, vet, and challenge, unverified gossip has no place in this discussion.
The clubs can do whatever they want with their information within the privacy of their own walls, but when it comes to public discourse, there can be no double standards. They must play by the same rules as the rest of us. If I made a claim contrary to the commonly understood history of one of these clubs, my views would likely be politely challenged ::) and I would be asked to make my case and produce the factual basis for my claim. That is the way it should be as has to be. Otherwise my "claim" would amount to nothing more than unsubstantiated gossip.
The truth seeking process is a dialogue, not a monologue. For it to work properly there must be a back and a forth. It is not enough for someone just to tell us what to believe, we've got to be able to examine the facts and challenge them, see how they hold up to scrutiny in the daylight. Allowing clubs or their representatives to tell us what to tell us what to believe amounts to dictate, not discourse. And what we are left with then is legend, not history.
In this particular case we have a 1914 article written by the person who was likely in the best position to know exactly what happened regarding the two courses. Now maybe he was mistaken or lying, but we ought not to come to that decision lightly. We should carefully review and discuss the facts before discarding the words of a man like Robert Lesley.
As for the policies of these particular clubs, there is no need to get into that here except to say that I strongly disagree with what has been represented above.
Bottom line is that if Robert Lesley was wrong or lying, and the Merions and/or their representatives want to set the record straight, then great. Let's see the documents. If they are not willing to show us the documentation, they have no business in this conversation.
-
"In this particular case we have a 1914 article written by the person who was likely in the best position to know exactly what happened regarding the two courses. Now maybe he was mistaken or lying, but we ought not to come to that decision lightly. We should carefully review and discuss the facts before discarding the words of a man like Robert Lesley."
Mac:
The above is a good example of how distortions of fact and distortions of interpretation happen on this website, and lead to misunderstandings on here.
Above, you have the remarks of a contributor to this website suggesting someone might be implying Robert Lesley was mistaken or lying in the statement from Lesley this same contributor to this website posted above.
Lesley mentioned in that statement referred to that the old Haverford course was closed to play at the same time the new East course in Ardmore was opened for play (Sept. 14, 1912). That is a true statement from Lesley, it is factually correct and the club records reflect it.
What Lesley did not say in that statement is that the old course was used again in 1913 due to overcrowding on the new East course in the fall of 1912 and that the old course was shut down for good at the end of 1913 and before the new West course in Ardmore was first opened for play in the spring of 1914.
Lesley was not mistaken or lying about anything he said in his statement above as this contributor on here is apparently suggesting some on here might be implying. Lesley simply did not mention the old course was used in 1913, at least not in that particular statement this contributor posted on here above! ;) That he did not mention it is certainly not indicative that Lesley was mistaken or lying, it's merely just a matter of the fact that he didn't mention it as he was essentially talking about the new West course and when it opened (spring of 1914).
And yes, Lesley was most certainly in a position to know all about all of this since Lesley served as the chairman of the committee that looked into the securing of land for the new West course in 1912 and 1913 and he would mention in other Merion documents that the recommendation was to be made that C.A. Griscom and the Pennsylvania RR be asked to keep the old Haverford course open during the year of 1913 despite the fact it had been shut down to play in the fall of 1912.
-
As always, interesting and fascinating.
Earlier, I made the point that you guys might be discussing point X, but I learn about x, y, and z during your debates.
Here is an example…
In post 186, I mentioned I would like to put in some courses with specific architectural breakthroughs on the list. I did this because Tom Macwood kept asking things like, what impact did Course X (specifically Bethpage) have on golf course architecture. Frankly, I thought he had a great point so I started the discussion on that topic.
Here is a direct quote from that post regarding architectural breakthroughs…
“Biarritz green at Biarritz golf course in France...is that right?”
Jim Nugent responds in post 195 that know one knows for sure that there was a Biarritz green in Biarritz, France.
My internal response was “how could that possibly be?!?!” But discussion ensues and I learn that some of the “requirements” of a Biarritz hole is a carry over a “chasm” like feature. And it actually appears to me that this is an essential feature of a Biarritz hole. Furthermore, David M. points out a distinction between a feature on a hole and an entire concept of a hole. Like the “Valley of Sin” feature in contrast to the Biarritz concept…carry the chasm to a green with a swale like feature and two flattish landing areas on either side of the swale…perhaps both landing areas are maintained like greens…but perhaps only one side in maintained like a green.
Fascinating and educational.
Then we begin talking about Piping Rock, Merion, etc. It comes out that although Wilson is given credit for being the designer of Merion, others helped him and/or consulted with him. This makes good sense and provides good background for why Tom MacWood was adamant that Pine Valley was not the first great “collaborative” golf course.
Also it makes common sense, especially if you look at today’s architecture practices. Didn’t Tom Doak work for Pete Dye prior his launching his solo career? If so, I find it hard to believe that Mr. Doak didn’t add any value or opinions to Dye’s creations. Furthermore, it is my understanding that Alice Dye adds significant ideas to the Dye courses. Add in his work with Jack Nicklaus, etc, etc, etc and you’ve got nothing but collaborations.
This would have had to occur throughout time as “golf nuts” seem to come together to discuss the game…even if they don’t see eye to eye.
And now we are debating if I should put down whether Merion had 36 holes in 1912, 1913, or 1914. And again, I totally get why that is important…so it must be discovered.
Anyway, I could put a lot of posts like this one detailing what I learned while people were discussing something else entirely…but I think you get the point.
The knowledge and information thrown around on this site are extra-ordinary. And even when you guys don’t think I am listening or taking notes…rest assured I am. Take the two nuggets I got from Tom Macwood…even though he dropped out of here awhile back…perhaps thinking I wasn’t listening or caring.
In closing, I think the work being done here it truly amazing and I am very happy to be a member of the site.
Thanks…again!!
-
Mac, I don't give a damn whether Merion closed their old course in 1912 or 1913, or both. My point is a more general one about the nature of our discussions and what should and should not pass for fact. Surely you realize this, don't you?
For the record, I don't think Lesley was a liar. To me he is perhaps the most interesting and compelling character on the Merion side of the drama, and certainly the one I can relate to most. So far, everything I have read from him and about him has checked out.
So I take him at his word when he reported that:
1. The old course was closed on September 14, 1914.
2. On that same date, the membership celebrated the final curtain falling on the old course.
3. Declaration Day (July 4) of 1914, was the date on which the members could play both courses.
Lesley did discuss the overcrowding of the course in the article, but made no mention of the course reopening in 1913, and as you can see that is rather inconsistent with what he said about the course closing, the final curtain, and two courses being available beginning Declaration Day of 1914.
Now if for whatever reason this isn't the full story or is otherwise inaccurate or misleanding, then all TEPaul needs to do is provide the information proving differently.
To clarify my position, Mac, I am not saying for sure when the other course was closed. I wasn't there, so I have no basis for saying one way or another. All I can do is analyze the available evidence and base my conclusions on that evidence. But TEPaul's claim as to what between what evidence says and means CANNOT substitute for actual, verifiable evidence. The same goes for what I might declare some source material might say or mean.
Let me give you a few examples.
1. If I told you I had a photograph of the hog's back, swale, and green that served as the inspiration for CBM's concept, and then I proceeded to tell you what the hole looked like, would you take my word for it or would you want to to see the photograph. If I were you, I'd want to see the photograph. Likewise, if I were you I'd want to see whatever it it is that TEPaul is basing this current claim on.
[By the way Mac, this may not be a hypothetical. I do have a photograph that may well show the original inspiration for the Biarritz, at least the area from the "hog's back" on, but I am still looking into it.]
2. [Second Example Removed and text below slightly modified.]
But the problem isn't that document's are misinterpreted. As I said, this is to be expected and is part of the process. The problem is when POSTERS REFUSE TO BACK UP THEIR CONCLUSIONS WITH THE SOURCES. The related problem is that MOST HERE D0 NOT CHALLENGE UNSUPPORTED CLAIMS OR DEMAND THAT THE CLAIMS BE BACKED UP WITH FACT. It may seem the polite thing to do, but it is a recipe for shoddy history, mistakes, and the continuation of unsupported and unsupportable legend.
There are dozens of real world examples) of what can and will happen when we rely on those with relationships with these clubs to simply tell us what the records mean instead of examining the documents and figuring it out for ourselves. Haven't you noticed the number of official club histories that have their own information wrong? This could all be avoided by an open discourse and vetting process.
In fact, that is the real beauty of an open discourse and vetting process. It works. Relying on another's word for it, no matter how well meaning, doesn't work.
-
Mac:
That last post of Moriarty's is exactly why those so-called hugely adverserial "Merion threads" began and why they continued, and apparently vis-a-vis that last post why he would like to see them continue.
I'm not interested in that on this DG anymore. The way both me, Wayne, a number of people here and at Merion look at all this is very different from the way Moriarty just described it. This whole thing with MacWood and Moriarty goes back close to seven years on here, particularly with Moriarty in recent years.
If you're interested in understanding my take, Wayne's take and the take of some people here and at Merion, including those who run the place and are responsible for its history then we can talk about it on the phone. OK?
-
Mac,
While it was entirely true and accurate, I thought better of my second example above and deleted it, and slightly modified the text thereafter. TEPaul is correct that we shouldn't be getting into that now. (Athough he seems to think that his constant shots at me regarding Merion and my essay are somehow exempt from this. Go figure?)
This is a pretty simply situation. If Merion, TEPaul, Wayne, or whoever wants to establish that Merion reopened the old course in 1913, then all they have to do is produce the documents that prove this up. That way we can vet the information and see how it holds up to scrutiny. That is exactly the same as I would expect from you if you came up with a novel take on the history of one of these clubs, and that certainly has been expected of me when I have. In these conversations, Merion and its self-appointed representatives have to play by the same rules we do. Otherwise it is no longer a discussion but instead a dictate. I don't like being told what do believe. Do you?
-
"(Athough he seems to think that his constant shots at me regarding Merion and my essay are somehow exempt from this. Go figure?)"
Not really. I don't look at it in the context of any exemption. Your essay is simply massively wrong both interpretively and historically. Of course if you would consider massively altering it to reflect the factual and historical accurate events of Merion during that early time I doubt there would be anyone who would think to take any shots at you or your essay. But if you do that perhaps this time you should become as familiar with ALL the material involving Merion as we are, and not just portions of it as you are. It's too bad you never went there for that purpose over 5-7 years ago. We've been doing this there for close to a decade even if our first efforts only involved Flynn's part in it because that was the subject of the book
Oh well, maybe the next time you decide you want to understand the architectural history of some significant American golf course.
-
"If Merion, TEPaul, Wayne, or whoever wants to establish that Merion reopened the old course in 1913, then all they have to do is produce the documents that prove this up."
Again, neither TEPaul, Wayne or Merion feels the need to establish that Merion reopened the old course in 1913. That fact is not exactly interpretative and plenty of good architectural analysts have reviewed it, vetted it, scrutinized it and analyzed it. None of us, including Merion feels that any of this stuff must be put on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com so a David Moriarty can review it and "vet" it ;) and scrutinize it carefully to confirm its accuracy and the bona fides of the documents that explain it. If he wanted to do that he should have done it years ago when he first proclaimed on here how interested he was in understanding the architectural history of Merion. :-*
-
"(Athough he seems to think that his constant shots at me regarding Merion and my essay are somehow exempt from this. Go figure?)"
Not really. I don't look at it in the context of any exemption. Your essay is simply massively wrong both interpretively and historically. Of course if you would consider massively altering it to reflect the factual and historical accurate events of Merion during that early time I doubt there would be anyone who would think to take any shots at you or your essay. But if you do that perhaps this time you should become as familiar with ALL the material involving Merion as we are, and not just portions of it as you are. It's too bad you never went there for that purpose over 5-7 years ago. We've been doing this there for close to a decade even if our first efforts only involved Flynn's part in it because that was the subject of the book
Oh well, maybe the next time you decide you want to understand the architectural history of some significant American golf course.
"If Merion, TEPaul, Wayne, or whoever wants to establish that Merion reopened the old course in 1913, then all they have to do is produce the documents that prove this up."
Again, neither TEPaul, Wayne or Merion feels the need to establish that Merion reopened the old course in 1913. That fact is not exactly interpretative and plenty of good architectural analysts have reviewed it, vetted it, scrutinized it and analyzed it. None of us, including Merion feels that any of this stuff must be put on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com so a David Moriarty can review it and "vet" it ;) and scrutinize it carefully to confirm its accuracy and the bona fides of the documents that explain it. If he wanted to do that he should have done it years ago when he first proclaimed on here how interested he was in understanding the architectural history of Merion. :-*
Mac,
Are you starting to see what I mean with regard to the double standard regarding the Merion issue? I remind you again that you shouldn't assume I agree with TEPaul just because I don't respond to him.
I should have mentioned above that one thing that I am sure has happened and will continue to happen is that TEPaul and Co. will take the discussion offline, via phone calls, messages, etc., continuing to bash me behind my back and try to convince you of the correctness of their position.
This is another example of how they think this process ought to work-- they cannot bare to have their ideas scrutinized so they take it to the back channels. I guess they are afraid that their claims are like Vampires which will shrivel up and blow away if they are ever exposed to he light of day.
You won't get this from me. I prefer all discussion about these things be out in the open. My interest is the truth and a little light never hurt.
-
"This is another example of how they think this process ought to work-- they cannot bare to have their ideas scrutinized so they take it to the back channels. I guess they are afraid that their claims are like Vampires which will shrivel up and blow away if they are ever exposed to he light of day."
Mac:
I know you're pretty new here and don't remember those so-called Merion threads but that remark is really amazing. Our ideas were scrutinized for about six and half years on here on multiple threads on Merion that probably total a couple of hundred pages and literally thousands of posts.
If you want my take on how it began and why it played out as it did let's talk about it on the phone. I think this website has had more than it can stand of that subject.
-
Hello...just got back from Cavalia...awesome show...think Cirque de Soleil on horse back...totally awesome...was with my 5 year old son, 7 year old daughter, wife, and mother-in-law...got a tour of the stables afterwards...met some of the performers...it was cool.
Tom...I think you are correct on Merion. I have actually read David's "Missing Faces of Merion" and some of the old threads on this website discussing it. The bottom line is that there is plenty of material for people to read regarding it.
Additionally, concerning this thread the only thing up for debate now about Merion is whether it had 36 holes in 1913 or 1914. David said he doesn't care about that, so we are good. Moving on.
I would repost my last post, but since that was a more detailed rendition of a prior post detailing what I've learned from you guys as you've debated other points...I don't think I need to. Simply re-read it.
I have learned a whole heck of a lot during throughout this thread. I currently have a lot of follow-up reading and researching to do...thanks Jim!!!! ;)
If new things come up I will re-post the updated list.
-
TEP is absolutely correct , David's essay on Merion was scrutinized like no other essay on GCA, and take my word for it that is saying something. Of course when TEP and Wayne were encouraged to write their own counter essay they refused. Actually at one point they indicated they would present their own account and then backed down as usually. And I hope they change their mind regarding their Flynn book on CD, and offer it to anyone interested as opposed to their plan to offer only to those deemed friendly.
-
Tom MacWood:
It's true, "The Missing Faces of Merion," was scrutinized on here almost like no other essay on this website. That scrutiny took place over a number of years and a number of threads now sometimes labeled "The Merion Threads." I would say there was all that scrutiny for a few primary reasons;
1. Many people felt the essay was incomplete in its research, highly specious in its reasoning and speculative in its analyses.
2. For various reasons the scrutiny in those numerous threads was also adverserial amongst its participants.
It is true that we, probably Wayne and I (or probably more accurately just me), did consider, a few years ago, writing a "counterpoint" essay to it and putting it on here. However, on reflection, I'm glad I didn't do it as I don't think that essay ("The Missing Faces of Merion") really deserved a counterpoint essay on here or anywhere else.
I feel Merion's architectural history is more than capable of standing on its own to anyone's scrutiny as Merion has arranged it now and as researchers may want to analyze it both at and with the actual comprehensive and very impressive archives of Merion GC (for instance, there is a lot more architectural material in Merion's archives than is reflected in Merion's latest history book by Desmond Muirhead which you have been critical of for being somewhat incomplete or misleading). I think Merion's archive itself is where any competent researcher or essayist on Merion's architectural history of any time or period should begin, as I have always said the researcher/essayist of "The Missing Faces of Merion" should have done (or yourself, for that matter), but never did.
-
If it didn't deserve a counter essay, why did you spend so much time addressing it (and continue to spend time addressing it)? I reckon you personally have contributed close to a thousand posts addressing the essay, or the equivalent of several counter essays. I think it boils down to not having the courage and/or conviction to present your own case.
-
If it didn't deserve a counter essay, why did you spend so much time addressing it (and continue to spend time addressing it)? I reckon you personally have contributed close to a thousand posts addressing the essay, or the equivalent of several counter essays. I think it boils down to not having the courage and/or conviction to present your own case.
They don't have the courage or conviction, but they don't have something even more important-- The facts. In particularly, they don't have the facts to support their apparently ceaseless and substanceless attacks on me and my Essay.
To openly address my Essay, they'd have to come forward with the information and records they have been hiding from us. They'd also have to address my actual essay instead of just throwing out blanket insults and baseless pronouncesments. They'd also have to give up control of the record, and we all can see how important that is to them. This isn't even getting into the fact that, far from trashing my essay, the information they have obtained since my essay came out confirms every major point in my essay, as well as the vast majority of the minor points. It would be pretty difficult to continue to try and portray us as idiots, charlitans, fools, and villlians, when in the end we have been pretty much right about just about everything we have argued with them about over all these years. You and I know that being proven correct isn't the point, at least not to us. But it would too much for them to bare if their promised but never forth-coming "point-by-point-counterpoint" proved the essay to be largely correct. So TEPaul will stick to launching baseless grenades while Wayne continues to hide the remainder of the source material. Until Merion wises up to them, at least.
I've got to hand it to Wayne, though, for he apparently realizes that attacks on the essay can have no merit until and unless the supporting facts and analysis are made available for vetting, scrutiny, and critcial review. Or perhaps Wayne, more than TEPaul, just better grasps the old adage:
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, rather than to speak up and remove all doubt.
-
Tom MacWood:
Your questions are good ones on post #343 about why we didn't just write a counterpoint essay instead of spending the time to post hundreds or thousands of posts on here on the subject. Obviously, at the time, we felt a direct discussion or dialogue or even debate on the subject on the DG of this website was a good idea and fairly inclusive on here with others. In retrospect, because of the entrenched positions, it probably wasn't a good idea. Would just a "counterpoint" essay have been the best way to go about it? Perhaps it would have but as I said on here above, in retrospect, probably neither would've been the best way for us to deal with that essay "The Missing Faces of Merion" because (again, as I said above) the Merion archives on all this can stand on its own as to what the truth is and what the Verifiable Facts are of Merion's architectural history of that particular time and who architectural attribution for it should go to.
And as you may or may not remember, the architectural attribution back then was given to Hugh Wilson and his committee with some help and advice from those two good and kindly amateur sportsmen gentlemen, C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam (recorded as such in MCC committee and board meeting minutes from 1910 and 1911).
I realize you did not know that Merion recorded it that way back then when you found that article about seven years ago that mentioned CBM and Whigam and the help they gave MCC on Merion East back then (prompting you to post the thread "Re: Macdonald and Merion?" back in Feb. or 2003) but MCC and Merion sure did know it from from their beginning and so did we for some years before you ran across those articles that have probably been in the Merion archives now for close to 95 years. And what we did not know that remained at MCC, it was Merion's historians who found that material in the last few years, and certainly not either of you two. Apparently your researching compatriot on this subject, the author of the essay in question, didn't have that information either that Macdonald/Whgam had advised MCC (back in 1910 and 1911) before 2003 or even before 2007.
And so now what are we left with on this subject on the DG on this website? After all these years we are only left with the constant responses like the following one from the post just above this one:
"They don't have the courage or conviction, but they don't have something even more important-- The facts. In particularly, they don't have the facts to support their apparently ceaseless and substanceless attacks on me and my Essay."
We have the facts alright, all of them that anyone we know of is aware are extant, and we've had just about all of them for many years. If either of you two wanted to know what we had or have or what Merion had or has, you should have begun all this back before 2003 by just coming to us first or at least going to Merion and its archive----SOMETHING, I should add, neither of you has done YET! ;)
-
Gentlemen - I'm in a pissy mood today so bear with me.
Why must every thread devolve into The Great Merion Debate? The rest of us deserve better than the on-going pissing match; as another Page 1 thread indicates, others pay to support the site too.
Earlier in this thread someone commented that the Groundbreaking/Revolutionary discussion was engaging and reminicent of the old days. I agree. Take it over to one of the other many threads please. Rant over.
-
Matt...I'm with you!!! Here is something I've been thinking about, please comment as y'all see fit...
The Architects of the Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses…
Architects who had 3 course which made our list…
CB MacDonald/Seth Raynor
The Chicago Golf Club; Mid-Ocean; and Yale
Architects who had 2 courses which made our list…
CB MacDonald-- National Golf Links and The Lido(should the Lido be MacDonald and Raynor or just MacDonald)
William Campbell--The Country Club and The Machrie**
Donald Ross--Franklin Park and Pinehurst
RT Jones--Peachtree and Dunes
Pete Dye--The Golf Club and Harbour Town
Coore and Crenshaw--Sandhills and Bandon Trails
David Mclay Kidd--Bandon Dunes and Machrihanish Dunes
Architects who had 1 course which made our list…
Seth Raynor--Mountain Lake
Mother Nature; Old Tom Morris legendary greenskeeper--St.Andrews
Robert Chambers and George Morris--Hoylake
Tom Bendelow--Van Courtland Park
Willie Park, Jr.--Sunningdale (old)
Ida Dixon--Springhaven Club
Charles Huthings--Princes Club at Sandwich
D. Emmet--Garden City Golf Club
Herbert Leeds--Myopia Hunt
Hugh Wilson (and others)--Merion
HS Colt--St. George’s Hill
Henry Fownes--Oakmont
George Crump (and others)--Pine Valley
Neville and Grant--Pebble Beach
Stanley Thompson--Jasper Park
Charles Alison--Hirono
K. Ohtani--Tokyo
Alister Mackenize--Augusta National
AW Tillinghast--Bethpage
Red Lawrence--Desert Forest
William Bell--Victoria
Tom Fazio--Shadow Creek
Tom Doak--Pacific Dunes
Courses in which I don’t know who the designer/architect was…
Royal Blackheath
Royal Calcutta
North Berwick
Westward Ho!
Le Phare in Biarritz France
Hotel Champlain on Bluff Point
Kelvinside
Interestingly enough as a tandem…Raynor and MacDonald have 6 courses on our list. Way more than anyone else. Are they the most groundbreaking/revolutionary architects in the history of the game?
Are they any architects who are not on the list that should be? If so, what courses have they designed which should be on our list?
As always, any and all comments are welcome.
** I think I might have a mistake on this list...is William Campbell the same as Willie Campbell? I am thinking "no" but I am unsure.
-
Mac
I can't seem to find an architect for the original course at The Hotel Champlain, but AWTillinghast did the one that's there now.
Somehow the Belleair courses should make the list. Possibly as the first Florida courses with grass greens.
That's how it always seems to go with Macdonald/Raynor/Banks, check out the list of classic courses and you'll always find 10 to 15 of their works on it......and don't forget, Macdonald's vision is still being used as a catalyst to this day. Impressive.
-
Thanks for the private and public posts helping me with this list...
Jim...two things...I will get the Belleair courses on there on the next rendition...but your comments on CB MacDonald are really interesting. It does seem to all come back to his work. Hmmm.
The Architects of the Groundbreaking/Revolutionary Courses...
Architects who had 3 course which made our list…
CB MacDonald/Seth Raynor
The Chicago Golf Club; Mid-Ocean; and Yale
Architects who had 2 courses which made our list…
CB MacDonald-- National Golf Links and The Lido(should the Lido be MacDonald and Raynor or just MacDonald)
William Campbell--The Country Club and The Machrie**
Donald Ross--Franklin Park and Pinehurst
RT Jones--Peachtree and Dunes
Pete Dye--The Golf Club and Harbour Town
Coore and Crenshaw--Sandhills and Bandon Trails
David Mclay Kidd--Bandon Dunes and Machrihanish Dunes
Old Tom Morris… Kelvinside and Westward Ho!
AW Tillinghast—Bethpage and Hotel Champlain on Bluff Point
Architects who had 1 course which made our list…
Seth Raynor--Mountain Lake
Mother Nature; Old Tom Morris legendary greenskeeper--St.Andrews
(should I simply attribute this to Old Tom Morris?)
Robert Chambers and George Morris--Hoylake
Tom Bendelow--Van Courtland Park
Willie Park, Jr.--Sunningdale (old)
Ida Dixon--Springhaven Club
Charles Huthings--Princes Club at Sandwich
D. Emmet--Garden City Golf Club
Herbert Leeds--Myopia Hunt
Hugh Wilson (and others)--Merion
HS Colt--St. George’s Hill
Henry Fownes--Oakmont
George Crump (and others)--Pine Valley
Neville and Grant--Pebble Beach
Stanley Thompson--Jasper Park
Charles Alison--Hirono
K. Ohtani--Tokyo
Alister Mackenize--Augusta National
Red Lawrence--Desert Forest
William Bell--Victoria
Tom Fazio--Shadow Creek
Tom Doak--Pacific Dunes
Courses in which I don’t know who the designer/architect was…
Royal Blackheath
Royal Calcutta
North Berwick
Le Phare in Biarritz France
Interestingly enough as a tandem…Raynor and MacDonald have 6 courses on our list. Way more than anyone else. Are they the most groundbreaking/revolutionary architects in the history of the game?
Are they any architects who are not on the list that should be? If so, what courses have they designed which should be on our list?
As always, any and all comments are welcome.
**Can someone confirm or deny that Willie Campbell and William Campbell are the same person?
-
Mac,
I thought someone said Tom and Willie Dunn for Le Phare.
There are a lot of Willies (glad this isn't a Tiger thread), but I'd go with 'yes', they're the same guy. WC came to the US after he built Machrie and landed at Brookline.
edit: that last sentence got lost somehow?
-
Mac:
Willie Dunn did design Le Phare at Biarritz or at least that's what W.K Vanderbilt thought and said when he met Dunn at Biarritz in the late 1880s, was given a demonstration of golf by Dunn and consequently brought Dunn to America where he designed Shinnecock first and then Westbrook, Tuxedo etc.
I would think that would put Willie Dunn as one of the earliest immigrant architects in America with perhaps Alex Findlay who apparently got to America in 1888.
-
Mac
The Machrie - original layout was indeed Willie Campbell however have seen newspaper reports which suggest 6 new holes in 1920's by John McAndrew (long time pro/greenkeeper at Cruden Bay)
Kelvinside - not only Old Tom but also Willie Fernie
Niall
-
Mac:
As you know fairly recently I've been particularly interested in the very first really good golf architecture in America.
As seems to be confirmed by contemporaneous accounts from back then (including Macdonald's) the first good courses and architecture in America were Myopia, GCGC and Chicago GC. The first two both preceded NGLA by almost a decade and the latter by almost fifteen years.
I don't know that much about the entire architectural history of Chicago GC at Wheaton so I have no real idea how much it has changed since its beginning in the mid 1890s. Myopia and GCGC ironically are courses that happened just about simultaneously (with apparently little to no collaboration of ideas between their architects) right around 1900 and were pretty much the way they are now with their routings anyway. Myopia is probably the most similar now to back then. And as such it very well may be the FIRST of the best really early American golf architecture laboratories we have today that has changed the least from the furthest back. Some of the greens of GCGC were changed from back then and with Myopia fewer still were changed from back then (by my count probably only 2-3). Bunkering over the years was a somewhat different story on most all those courses because the interesting similarity with them is that their architects all kept working on improving them in little ways for many years and often decades. The same modus was true with Oakmont (1903), NGLA (1908), Merion East (1911), Pine Valley (1913).
Where does Newport Country Club fit in this conversation? 1893 or 5....and 1st US Am and Open venue a la Prestiwick?