[Duncan Cheslett]

I was getting my thoughts together to post something very similar to what Sean just said.  Colt and Fowler were 'gentlemen' and the type of architect who would appeal to more affluent clubs.  Braid would have been considered 'trade' and his services sought by clubs with less to spend. He seems to have spent a couple of days at most at each commission, submitted a plan, and then moved onto the next. It is no wonder that some of his work was fairly routine. That he achieved the heights that he did working in this journeyman fashion is remarkable.

MacKenzie is an interesting half-way house.  Much of his work in northern England just before and after the Great War doesn't exactly have the mark of greatness about it. Clearly he too could churn out OK stuff for a reasonable day rate if the land was not inspiring.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Just to add my 2p worth.


While agreeing with Sean and Duncan I think the recent book disappoints in that it could have gone further and make clearer which of Braids courses were
Built with Carter’s seed co
Built with Strutt and Co
Built by an other/local greenkeeper.


Clearly he had a strong relationship with the first two at various times and they would have understood what he wanted and implemented those wishes. What distinguishes him from Hackett are his greens. He wasn’t on site to sculpt them but he chose the sites beautifully.  ON the St Enedoc Thread there’s the comment they are all circular but although I haven’t played there, that would be typical. But the key thing is that was only revealed by an aerial analysis and from Sean’s description they don’t lack interest.   Some times his greens are built up, more often they are in a place of interest or on a particularly interesting slope (this might be a “characteristic”).  They are not that often spectacular but they still play beautifully all these years later.  I think he chose where to place his green pins most carefully.  He was a fast worker but he got results.

[Thomas Dai]

Not really criticising one side and praising another, but in a different profession I have heard it said that an expert can do for £10 what anyone can do for £100. Would the lesser, ie 'cheap-n-quick', courses within Braids overall large portfolio fit into this scenario? And just because someone has the ability to work quickly doesn't mean they are not thoughtful and thorough. Near silk purses and near sows ears? Just musing.
atb

[Sean_A]

If folks really look at the individual merits of the holes its quite surprising how good so many holes are.  There really isn't anything close to a dud in the lot.  The real issue comes down to the terrain.  Either folks accept their will be some wild stuff and that this helps in defining what Perranporth is in positive way, or they write off what is essentially good architecture.  I am especially impressed with the 3s and 5s.  Every hole is very good and there is some great variety displayed amongst the lot.  Perranporth is in the same mould as Rosapenna Sandy Hills and Ballybunion Cashen, but it I think it is considerably better than either.  Perranporth is holiday golf, but an exceptional example of such.  I will post the card at the top of the original post, it makes for interesting reading. 

Ciao

[Niall C]

Ally

i think you have it about right. With Braid it was largely about the routing. He could produce a terrific course with an interesting bit of land, while on more mundane sites his work was well, workmanlike and solid I suppose, and maybe lacked the artistic flair that Colt or MacKenzie had with their greens/features although having said that he got into natural looking bunkers as well at one point. There's no doubt in my mind from the little I've seen of MacKenzies that Braids routings have stood up better with time.

I don't think Braids working methods were that far apart from the Oxbridge crew in that a lot depended on who did his construction. Unlike the other guys I suspect that once he did his layout, that was it, and they probably didn't see him again until perhaps the exhibition game to open the course. Gleneagles was an exception to that.

Sean/Duncan

I think you're wrong with regards the level of commissions that Braid got. For sure he had a different background and social standing to Colt etc however he did play golf with all the politicians and great and the good at Walton Heath who were flattered to be in his company. Likewise got an awful lot of work from a lot of prestigious clubs/courses, at least up in Scotland. For instance;

Gleneagles
Carnoustie
Troon
Prestwick
Turnberry
Glasgow
Pollok
Panmure

Niall

[ward peyronnin]

I must apologize for associating Braid with Saunton. It is chronic habit as I found that I asked Tom MacWood to clarify a Braid/Saunton association on a thread years ago.

I do not apologize for asking Ryan to back up his generalized statements with specifics. I belong to a Fazio course and I enjoy some of his work but I deplore his arrogance. I really haven't played enough of his courses to comment regarding his body of work. But I submit it is a different ability that allows Mr Fazio to demand and receive comparatively unlimited dollars to recast an entire landscape to fit his talented eye as compared to James Braid making something out of whatever he is given with very few dollars.

As for pious I reserve that demeanor for a higher authority than a gca and it is a preferable attitude to flippant unsupported criticism in any case. But really I think Ryan is criticizing those on this site who do reserve a reverence for those designers who respect the land and work with what they have rather than Braid so much.

In any case the thread has revealed that Braid has a diverse body of work for very good reasons and that has pretty much superceded whether Braid's lesser body of work drags him down from the accomplished level.

[Ryan Coles]

I must apologize for associating Braid with Saunton. It is chronic habit as I found that I asked Tom MacWood to clarify a Braid/Saunton association on a thread years ago.

I do not apologize for asking Ryan to back up his generalized statements with specifics. I belong to a Fazio course and I enjoy some of his work but I deplore his arrogance. I really haven't played enough of his courses to comment regarding his body of work. But I submit it is a different ability that allows Mr Fazio to demand and receive comparatively unlimited dollars to recast an entire landscape to fit his talented eye as compared to James Braid making something out of whatever he is given with very few dollars.

As for pious I reserve that demeanor for a higher authority than a gca and it is a preferable attitude to flippant unsupported criticism in any case. But really I think Ryan is criticizing those on this site who do reserve a reverence for those designers who respect the land and work with what they have rather than Braid so much.

In any case the thread has revealed that Braid has a diverse body of work for very good reasons and that has pretty much superceded whether Braid's lesser body of work drags him down from the accomplished level.

To summarise, you piped in with descriptions of carelessness, and negligence and then embarrassed yourself by crediting Braid with Saunton. You've played virtually no Braid courses, including the one in question. Yet you loftily wheel out platitudes about 'respecting the land.' 

On the sheer volume of  courses he's credited with in a four or five year span, he would've barely seen the land let alone 'respected it'. Remove all the phoney nostalgia and reverence and judged on the courses, he did some great, many very good, but a huge number you wouldn't cross the road to play. But, hey, why let this get in the way of saying what you think everyone wants to hear.

The old guys worked with what they had. It's one of these silly statements like 'taking one shot at a time'. No shit. If Braid had budget and machinery, you can bet he would have spent it rather than dashing to do a new course every fortnight. Similarly if Fazio was on site for only two days, he'd post them his routing a month later and leave them to get on with it.

As for Perranporth, I found to be a horrible experience in the wind. A good links course is enhanced by wind, Perranporth, I found miserable and offered very little in terns of achievable shots/routes. I found that it was impossible to bounce the ball in and it made pro, decent amateur and hacker all hopeless equals. It asks too many questions to which there is no answer and removes skill or even any hope of luck. Fun if you like crazy, I suppose.

May be a perverse view to you, albeit you've never played it, but I assure you it very much divides opinion in this part of the world.

[Tom_Doak]

MacKenzie is an interesting half-way house.  Much of his work in northern England just before and after the Great War doesn't exactly have the mark of greatness about it. Clearly he too could churn out OK stuff for a reasonable day rate if the land was not inspiring.

Duncan:

I am sure you know this, but it was an entirely different business before 1920 and after that date.  Prior to 1920 most existing clubs did not take golf architecture too seriously -- they were only interested in paying an architect to come in for a day or two to make recommendations, which they would then build (or not) as they had time and money.  That was the business environment in which MacKenzie, Braid, and others learned the trade -- and most of their work was remodeling existing courses.

After 1920, it was seen as a more serious endeavour, and new course clients obviously wanted more than a day's visit.  Still, architects like Braid and MacKenzie had learned to work fast by necessity, and had delivered good results that way, so they were not inclined to change their m.o.  MacKenzie's famous visit to Australia included advising something like 17 clubs in a six-week time period!  I suppose he could have spent all that time at Royal Melbourne, but they were years away from making some of his planned changes -- and it couldn't have turned out much better, regardless.

[Sean_A]

Niall

I mentioned the biggies of Gleneagles and Carnoustie.  The others are tid bit commissions - no?  You couldn't really say Braid was the man at Troon, Prestwick or Turnberry.  Which is part of my point.  Braid got very few proper big time commissions.  I think a major reason for this was his background as a professional player; not only socially, but also because the man spent a lot of time playing tournament/exhibition golf and tending to his members.  Its incredible he had his hand in architecture as much as he did.  It is undeniable the Oxbridge crew cleaned up compared to the pro crew in terms of juicy gigs.  I am only saying that it seems to me when Braid was given a good opportunity he produced on par with the Oxbridge crew. 

Tom

I think Colt was taking architecture very seriously well prior to 1920.  I also think Colt was sought after by the Oxbridge set to some degree as "one of their own".

Ryan

Practically every links I know suffers in true wind simply due to lack of width.  So, I would take issue with your idea of a good links because very few exist using that definition.  Where I would agree is P'porth has several holes which offer little respite for mistakes.  That is the damnation of raw links of this nature.  It is also its glory.  Is it horrible?  P'porth sure isn't great, but its miles from horrible.  Is it a course I would want to play every week?  Hell no - there are few links I would want to play every week.  But then I would much rather play P'porth than a great many supposedly great links because at least I get a laugh out of the course, unlike say Troon, or Lytham or countless others which offer very little originality or lasting intererest.  I fear we look for different things in architecture - to each is own.

Ciao

[Ryan Coles]

Sean

I'm referring to approach shots rather than off the tee.

In the wind, most links courses I like give an option or a modicum of chance for only a very good shot. At Perranporth, too many approach shots, good bad ugly and indifferent end up in the same place. You can't run it in. You cant fly it in. So much so that you may as well not hit it, rather walk down and place it in the inevitable spot.

Like you say, each to his own.

[Sean_A]

Ryan

That sure wasn't my experience this week.  The course played short and not yet too keen to cause chaos.  I don't have to imagine what its like in 20mph wind because I saw that last year and in some of the most keen conditions I have ever seen.  For the most part, it wasn't much fun simply because the course isn't big enough for those conditions.  One has to play safety golf all the time.  I think there are way too many cool holes and shots to dismiss P'porth so emphatically.  There is plenty of strategy, its just that there is plenty of penal golf as well. At least the course is short enough to manage a bit more.

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Ryan,
I played Perranporth in a 20 mph wind with gusts to 30,in periodic sleet and occasional rain.
I loved it- had an absolute blast.
Can't comment if it would've been better without wind-but nearly every links I've played in little to no wind I've found it to be a poorer experience.

I'm sure Braid has some clunkers as no doubt he rarely was around for construction and an average piece of land was unlikely to yield spectacular results. So be it-

[Niall C]

Niall

I mentioned the biggies of Gleneagles and Carnoustie.  The others are tid bit commissions - no?  You couldn't really say Braid was the man at Troon, Prestwick or Turnberry.  Which is part of my point.  Braid got very few proper big time commissions.  I think a major reason for this was his background as a professional player; not only socially, but also because the man spent a lot of time playing tournament/exhibition golf and tending to his members.  Its incredible he had his hand in architecture as much as he did.  It is undeniable the Oxbridge crew cleaned up compared to the pro crew in terms of juicy gigs.  I am only saying that it seems to me when Braid was given a good opportunity he produced on par with the Oxbridge crew. 

Sean,

A lot of those courses got changed almost on a yearly basis with various architects brought in. Of the ones I listed;

Gleneagles - it's in the very first Minutes of the company that they wanted Braid to do the design, and that was before Hutchison was appointed as Director of Golf. MacKenzie claims he saw the site first but still didn't get the gig.

Carnoustie - Allan Robertson, Old Tom Morris, Willie Park and Tom Simpson worked at Carnoustie but it's known as a Braid course and it was Braid who got asked back to make changes before and after Simpson.

Troon - Braid did substantial redesign work including putting in 80 bunkers ahead of the Open in 1923. I'd certainly call that a significant instruction.

Turnberry - Braid designed the second course in 1921

Glasgow - redesign of Killermont consisting relocating a few greens and an overhaul of the bunkering system. Until Dave Thomas's input in recent years, this was pretty well the only work done on Old Tom's second last design.

Pollok - along with Glasgow GC Pollock is known as one of the top clubs in the West of Scotland. Braid worked there over the same timespan as MacKenzie with the club taking his advice over MacKenzies in relation to 1st and 18th holes.

Panmure - the posh club of Dundee. Braid made changes to the course in 1922. Not sure who extensive those changes were but the point is that they used Braid and not Colt or Simpson etc.

All in all, Braid's standing was as high as the others if not more so and he got more than his fair share of quality jobs.

Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall

We shall have to agree to disagree as I think Colt etc were considered the cream of the crop of British archies then and now.  Braid is regretfully often mentioned as a "what about Braid" afterthought.  I think this is a great shame, but thats life.  Folks will always point toward Braid as first and foremost a player when in truth he was an incredibly important servant to the game and a highly skilled architect.  I don't think there was anybody that compares well to Braid - he was that special.   

Ciao

[ward peyronnin]

Gosh I am embarrassing myself all over this thread.

I have now realized that  it is pointless to question an opinion offered with no supporting specifics from a guy who unequivocally knows the thoughts and intentions of a man dead almost 64 years! That trumps anything I got.

[Niall C]

Niall

We shall have to agree to disagree as I think Colt etc were considered the cream of the crop of British archies then and now.  Braid is regretfully often mentioned as a "what about Braid" afterthought.  I think this is a great shame, but thats life.  Folks will always point toward Braid as first and foremost a player when in truth he was an incredibly important servant to the game and a highly skilled architect.  I don't think there was anybody that compares well to Braid - he was that special.   

Ciao

Sean

I think we will have to disagree. Where I think you are wrong is in how Braid was generally perceived then but you are probably right about how he is generally perceived now. It's interesting to think how the change happened and I think that may well be due to the likes of Darwin and others writing about the Oxbridge crew in a way that they didn't about Braid, Taylor and Hawtree. Reading Darwins book on Braid and it's clear he's not really interested in the subject of the book. If there was any snobbishness or cliquishness it was more within that tight knit group than with the wider golfing public/clubs IMO.

Niall

[Richard Muldoon]

Put me down as a big Braid fan.

Sean, I would tend to agree with your theory re the commissions, but it would be interesting to see how Oxford fits into this. Wasn't the original course a Braid and then modifications were made by Colt?
Why was Braid approached in the first instance, especially as you couldn't get a more Oxbridge connected course than this? Timeline?

Ryan, I would be interested to hear what Braid courses you consider poor. Do they still represent the original Braid design or have they been butchered by some 'know better' committees?

[Sean_A]

Richard 

I don't know the answer to your good question.  I suspect, as was often the case, Braid worked on an existing course.  Perhaps when (if?) the Oxford Blues/University GC gained enough university respect and new (higher land) was obtained, higher ups banged their heads together and called Colt in (by now - early '20s - very famous as an archie) to create a new course.  We do know that some Braid work remains and there is some evidence that the string of fine golf from 4-7 is actually Braid's work! 

Jeepers - has the mud hole on 18 had much negative effect on the overall design?

Ciao

[Richard Muldoon]

I played the course on Monday evening with my old boss whom you met and he says that apart from the seniors and ladies the glorified goldfish pond is generally well liked.
No accounting for taste.
Interestingly just as we were leaving I noticed a proposed course plan from 1922 which showed the back to back par 4 5th & 6th approximately where they are today, but the par 3 4th was actually at the other end of the par 4's running from the 5th green to the 6th tee.
If this was actually done then there would not be any complete Braid holes left on the course as the 5th green doesn't look like an original and the 6th was probably lengthened by pushing the tee back into the corner where the 'old' par 3 green would have been.
I didn't have time to look at this properly or take a photo, but it does give an excuse for a re-visit.
If your interested sometime in September I would be up for a game.

[Niall C]

Sean/Richard

You seem to be under the impression that either Braid did mainly redesigns and bunkering schemes and that Colt and the Oxbridge crew only/mainly did new courses instructed by the great and the good. Let me suggest that is far from the case. The Oxbridge guys weren't above doing minor redesigns and travelling the length of the country to do it. Let me also suggest that Colt's reputation was secure well before WWI never mind the 1920's.

Niall

[Sean_A]

Richard - I think 1922 is about the time Colt should have turned up.  I also think the land (4,5 & 6) around the barracks was worked on by Braid - at a later visit, probably not long before Colt turned up.

Niall

Yes, for sure Braid had a lot of original designs, and Colt did many revisions, but jeepers, its very obvious to me that Braid's original commissions as a whole are nowhere near in the class of Colt's.  I am not even convinced Braid was chasing a lot of the same work as Colt.  I strongly suspect these two guys were operating in seperate design worlds.  That doesn't mean Braid wasn't highly respected, but remember, he always entered Walton Heath from the trademan's entrance even as honorary member of Walton Heath, a director and shareholder in the club, the only honorary member of the Parliamentary Golfing Society and most cherished of all, elected as an honorary member of the Royal and Ancient Club.  Braids connections at Walton Heath carried him a long way, but very much in an honorary way  .  

Anyway, we already agreed to disagree about this subject so lets kick on.

Ciao

[Richard Muldoon]

Niall,
I not sure my posts gave that impression but if they did my apologies. I've no argument that Braid and Colt etc had varied portfolio's of new work and redesign.
My agreement with Sean is that it seems that Braid didn't often get the best land to work with, nor the budget, but still managed to produce wonderfully interesting and fun courses.
I'm always amazed when I play Pennard how someone could visualise a routing on that piece of land and design such a great golf course.

[Jon Wiggett]

I am surprised at the direction this thread has taken and the impression many seem to have that a top GCA is judged by the number of great courses designed and to a lesser extent the % of clunkers.

Braid designed/ had a hand in many top courses that have stood the test of time and even more lesser courses such as Brora which are equally as good. It is saddening to see that from a GCA point of view many regard good GCA on a so called championship course better quality than a non championship course. Is Brora poorer quality from a GCA point of view than say Gleneagles? I think not yet many here seem to hold this to be true. Bluff over substance me thinks

Surely designing for the average golfer is as important as for the top players. In this respect does not a course such as Strathpeffer present the average player with a more interesting challenging than say Carnoustie for the average player? Carnoustie might be great GCA for the top players but can GCA be considered great if unplayable. Is Carnoustie therefore not poor GCA for the average player? Is therefore Strathpeffer better GCA for the majority of players than Carnoustie?

Jon

[Sean_A]

Jon

Excuse me if I got it wrong, but it seems to me you are channeling Johnnie Cochran.  Are you saying that architecture for the average player is truly what great architecture is about?  If so, I fail to see why most truly great architecture isn't for the average player. If its isn't, then who is it for?  Could you be confusing our conversation about high profile designs to mean great designs?  

Besides all that, what do you think of the course?

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Sean,

what I am trying in my convoluted way to say is that my impression is many hold GCA for the top player in higher regard than that for the average player. I am a great believer in great GCA offers an interesting but equally solvable question to a player. I do not think that ease or difficulty is part of the equation but rather playability and interest. My impression from the courses being talked about with Braid especially is that a hole that is easy or a course that is simple to score on is considered lesser because of the easiness.

I would suggest that Brora is equally as good quality GCA as Carnoustie and for the average player off 18 handicap better GCA as Carnoustie is beyond the playing ability of said golfer in places.

As for the course, I have never played it but your tour suggest it presents an interesting and quirky challenge that will retain its interest over time. As with most courses that I really like I suspect it is a better matchplay course than strokeplay.

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()