Canadians and The Curious Case to Disregard History

[snaphook]

Circa 1977/78 we used to play the British sized ball as a friend had brought over quite a few, which he handed out as gifts. Believe they were called 'Ace'?

In the 1990s often played the TopFlite Magna which was 'larger' than regular golf balls. But still 'legal'. Actually believe that it helped my putting.

I had a hickory shafted, mallet headed putter that came with my first set of clubs. Wish that I still had it.

Yes the Penfold Ace
i was always pleased to find the odd one at Toronto munis since they definitely went further

[Arthur Dailey]

Yes the Penfold Ace
i was always pleased to find the odd one at Toronto munis since they definitely went further

Thanks. Yes that is the ball. After you mentioned it I looked it up and recognized the Ace of Spades that those balls had on them.

[namcneilly]

Golf in Canada has a unique history because of its relationship with Britain, which is why the three oldest golf courses in North America (Royal Montreal, Royal Quebec, Toronto) are here. We also have a unique part of golf history because of how closely related we are to the US and what happens there.

Both these factors made our history rather compelling, with H.S. Colt, Donald Ross, Willie Park Jr., Charles Alison, Walter Travis, Fazio's, Robert Trent Jones Sr., Tom Dunn, Tom Bendelow, Devereux Emmet, Alister Mackenzie, A.W. Tillinghast, A.V. Macan, Dick Wilson, Bill Coore & Ben Crenshaw, Donald Steel, Rod Whitman, Herbert Strong, and of course the shining star of our country, Stanley Thompson, contributing to our golf landscape. In total, those individuals, who are some of the greatest architects of all time (with many contenders for THE best like Colt or Mackenzie) contributing to a whopping 225+ golf courses. 225! Even C.B. Macdonald, the architect behind National Golf Links of America and Yale, was born in Canada!

Given those numbers, why isn't our top 100 stronger? Why do boards, clubs, general managers and architects continue to ruin classic golf courses built by some of the best ever? Why is there a Rees Jones over a Bendelow/Ross/Thompson at Lambton? Why is there a Michael Hurdzan/Thomas McBroom design sitting over top of a Willie Park Jr. on SAND in Ottawa? Why is Kanawaki hiding their history with Donald Ross heavily involved in renovating the course, and a potential more noteworthy architect helping design or FULLY designing the original golf course? Why is Royal Mayfair in the state it currently is, or Manoir Richelieu, which was said to be Herbert Strong's crowning achievement? Why is there the Midwest's only Devereux Emmet hidden under a club pretending to be a Thompson (even going as far as claiming they "restored" the Thompson course when Thompson wasn't even on property!) I could keep going on, there's numerous examples.

Of course, not everything they did was great, and I won't sit here and pretend everything was a 10. That being said, the vast diversity in our architects from the golden age was incredible, and many left excellent work here. Tom Doak once stated that roughly 10% of the world's golf courses deserve to be restored. There's 2400 golf courses in Canada, approx., and let's guess three eighths were pre-1950, that means roughly 90 or so should be fully restored. There's been four authentic restorations in Canada: Cherry Hill, Highlands Links, Essex, and Victoria, with Toronto, St. George's, Calgary being sympathetic renovations based on the evolution of the golf course that can't go back (St. George's for example. Not sure why Toronto couldn't have gone back fully). There's courses that are well preserved, too, like Capilano & Jasper.

Ironically, most times, it was at the hand of the Thompson family tree who went in and butchered some of the countries greatest works, with Howard Watson, Robbie Robinson, Bob Moote, Les Furber, Thomas McBroom and Doug Carrick unfortunately renovating far too many golf courses. An architect can renovate tastefully: see, Robert Trent Jones Sr. adding the bunkering to Banff Springs' famous 4th. Also note: Trent Jones was apart of Thompson's family tree, so it wasn't every single person he touched! There was also other culprits, like Darrell Huxham & Graham Cooke, too.

This begs the question... why do Canadians not care about such excellent architects, and the gift they gave us some 100 years ago (and some modern ones, too!)? It's something I've been grappling with for awhile. Some of them are pure urban expansion, but even in the US, they've fought hard to go against urban expansion. Why is it such a Canadian thing to let history die? Australia, well preserved. England, coming back now. Scotland, never really left, minus some minor grassing lines. USA, massive boom in restorations getting back the golden age the past 20 years, Japan restoring Kawana, Hirono, etc. New Zealand: see Australia. Netherlands, well kept. France, starting to restore (France is probbaly our closest companion in this battle it seems!).

As sort of a happy ending, the "new school" of architects from Canada truly care about this stuff. Jeff Mingay, Ian Andrew, Keith Cutten, Christine Fraser, Josh McFadden, Ben Malach, Tyler Kearns, Riley Johns, Trev Dormer, they all see the benefit of at the very least renovating what's been lost to pay homage to the original architect if it can't be saved (Algonquin).

I'll be curious to what y'all lads think.

I am not sure if this thread is about Golden Age architects not getting credit for work they did in Canada or alterations made to courses worked on by Golden Age architects resulting in a seemingly lesser product.

Golf attracts people for a variety of reasons and a great many golfers are not aware of the architects who contributed to the courses on which they play. There is no agenda in it but in some ways, this may also be contributing to the gems that have been lost or are fading away. It's good that you are raising awareness.

Architects are fully aware that some of their courses will not survive for a variety of reasons. I do not believe there are any owners, boards, clubs, general managers and architects who set out to ruin a golf course. The decision to embark on changing the property would be with the intent to further enhance "best ever" work and improve their business positioning regardless of how it eventually turns out.

It's easy to look back and iterate through botched jobs and there is a recurring undertone here with strong preference for original work but it doesn't mean that all such properties should resign themselves to hold station.

I would imagine when James Braid was given the nod to tweak Carnoustie Golf Links Championship course, or James Wright after him it would have been met very unfavourably given that they would be tweaking work from Allan Robertson and Old Tom. Carnoustie is considered today as one of the best links golf courses in Scotland and we will never know what it's reception would have been without Braid and Wright but given that it hasn't been altered significantly in the last 70 years, it's fair to conclude that deviating from the original work ended up being well received.

Every case is different and the real strength of a golf course is one that can be appreciated by golfers of all levels. It should inspire repeat play and drive continuous referrals. If we have more properties like this in Canada then our top 100 will be strong.

[Bosco]

I think we need to build more courses like what this guy is doing:

https://www.lyingfour.com/conversations-blog/2019/6/6/mike-young

them old courses, sure there’s some legacy there but the modern game is moving on

[drewharvie]

I am not sure if this thread is about Golden Age architects not getting credit for work they did in Canada or alterations made to courses worked on by Golden Age architects resulting in a seemingly lesser product.

Golf attracts people for a variety of reasons and a great many golfers are not aware of the architects who contributed to the courses on which they play. There is no agenda in it but in some ways, this may also be contributing to the gems that have been lost or are fading away. It's good that you are raising awareness.

Architects are fully aware that some of their courses will not survive for a variety of reasons. I do not believe there are any owners, boards, clubs, general managers and architects who set out to ruin a golf course. The decision to embark on changing the property would be with the intent to further enhance "best ever" work and improve their business positioning regardless of how it eventually turns out.

It's easy to look back and iterate through botched jobs and there is a recurring undertone here with strong preference for original work but it doesn't mean that all such properties should resign themselves to hold station.

I would imagine when James Braid was given the nod to tweak Carnoustie Golf Links Championship course, or James Wright after him it would have been met very unfavourably given that they would be tweaking work from Allan Robertson and Old Tom. Carnoustie is considered today as one of the best links golf courses in Scotland and we will never know what it's reception would have been without Braid and Wright but given that it hasn't been altered significantly in the last 70 years, it's fair to conclude that deviating from the original work ended up being well received.

Every case is different and the real strength of a golf course is one that can be appreciated by golfers of all levels. It should inspire repeat play and drive continuous referrals. If we have more properties like this in Canada then our top 100 will be strong.

You make some good points, and I'd guess you're right about James Braid tweaking Carnoustie, or Colt overhauling Muirfield back in the day. As for your first question, it's more to do with renovations, but certainly a few golf courses completely disregarding their history and claiming another architect (this is a weird one to me).

With that being said, I think the biggest difference between Braid and co. overhauling Links courses and McBroom, Carrick, Cooke & Huxham overhauling golden age courses is the styles of architecture. When the original Links, and many of the original golf courses in North America/Canada, were built (certainly by Bendelow and Tom Dunn), they were Victorian Style in nature. Penal and rather cruel, they weren't thinking about strategy, which is where the Golden Age came in and the centreline bunker at Woking sort of changing everything.

Colt, or Braid, or Simpson -- any of these architects who renovated a lot of the Links in Britain at the turn of the century -- their work didn't need to be renovated yet again to be "restored" BACK to the Victorian Era because they were better strategically and more interesting. Lots of courses have had to remove the work architects in the 60's-2000's have done. No different than Oakland Hills ripping up the work RTJ Sr and Rees did, or Oak Hill/Inverness Club ripping up the work the Fazio boys did. I'd bet a lot of money we'll never see an Inverness Club restoration to the work Fazio left behind.

Another example, stateside, of golf courses getting better is Ross & Thompson at Banff. Nobody in their right mind would suggest to restore it back to Ross' golf course because it was fairly rudimentary and rather simple. Thompson also got access to more land where Devil's Cauldron would become. Ross wasn't lucky enough to get the land where 3-5 is now.

Those examples of Carnoustie, or Muirfield, or Banff are different than Ottawa Hunt, or Manoir Richelieu, or Shaughnessy. And no question, there was golf courses worth overhauling. After all, Ross & Thompson both overhauled Mississaugua and Lambton, and Thompson reversed the routing of Willie Park Jr.'s Beaconsfield! Tillinghast blew apart Cumming's Scarboro and so forth.

I'd have to think about a golf course built before 1950 in Canada that has gotten better with age. Happy to hear suggestions. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's one or two, but history has not been kind to the golden age lads up here.

But to get back to the point Manoir Richelieu was considered by many (and Herbert Strong himself) to be his best design. Likewise for Royal Montreal, which was usually in the discussion for Dick Wilson's best effort (the story about the membership and the Red greens is funny). Ross/Thompson's Mississuagua is quite a bit more interesting than Carrick's, and Thompson's Westmount before Robinson, Carrick and McBroom was better, IMO (the first three holes played over the driving range). Shaughnessy had some of Macan's finest work, but it's lost a bit of its flair. Ottawa Hunt & Royal Ottawa had originally had exposed sand because they're built on sand. Sand!

Some, for sure, are purely because of issues none of us can fix, like Colt's Bowness having their owner and core investor die off the hop, plaguing the course with financial issues for 60 years, or Kelowna losing a couple Macan holes to the city to build the cemetery. Likewise for Charles Alison's York Downs, that's just unlucky.

My point is simply that we as a country can and should do better, and when we do we'll see our quality of golf courses go up. Similar to the US in the 90' and 2000's with all their restorations, That's mostly what I'm talking about. Understanding the golf course, what it was, the style of architect, and finding the proper architect to honour the courses legacy. It's getting better, but we can do more!

[namcneilly]

You make some good points, and I'd guess you're right about James Braid tweaking Carnoustie, or Colt overhauling Muirfield back in the day. As for your first question, it's more to do with renovations, but certainly a few golf courses completely disregarding their history and claiming another architect (this is a weird one to me).

With that being said, I think the biggest difference between Braid and co. overhauling Links courses and McBroom, Carrick, Cooke & Huxham overhauling golden age courses is the styles of architecture. When the original Links, and many of the original golf courses in North America/Canada, were built (certainly by Bendelow and Tom Dunn), they were Victorian Style in nature. Penal and rather cruel, they weren't thinking about strategy, which is where the Golden Age came in and the centreline bunker at Woking sort of changing everything.

Colt, or Braid, or Simpson -- any of these architects who renovated a lot of the Links in Britain at the turn of the century -- their work didn't need to be renovated yet again to be "restored" BACK to the Victorian Era because they were better strategically and more interesting. Lots of courses have had to remove the work architects in the 60's-2000's have done. No different than Oakland Hills ripping up the work RTJ Sr and Rees did, or Oak Hill/Inverness Club ripping up the work the Fazio boys did. I'd bet a lot of money we'll never see an Inverness Club restoration to the work Fazio left behind.

Another example, stateside, of golf courses getting better is Ross & Thompson at Banff. Nobody in their right mind would suggest to restore it back to Ross' golf course because it was fairly rudimentary and rather simple. Thompson also got access to more land where Devil's Cauldron would become. Ross wasn't lucky enough to get the land where 3-5 is now.

Those examples of Carnoustie, or Muirfield, or Banff are different than Ottawa Hunt, or Manoir Richelieu, or Shaughnessy. And no question, there was golf courses worth overhauling. After all, Ross & Thompson both overhauled Mississaugua and Lambton, and Thompson reversed the routing of Willie Park Jr.'s Beaconsfield! Tillinghast blew apart Cumming's Scarboro and so forth.

I'd have to think about a golf course built before 1950 in Canada that has gotten better with age. Happy to hear suggestions. I can't think of any off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's one or two, but history has not been kind to the golden age lads up here.

But to get back to the point Manoir Richelieu was considered by many (and Herbert Strong himself) to be his best design. Likewise for Royal Montreal, which was usually in the discussion for Dick Wilson's best effort (the story about the membership and the Red greens is funny). Ross/Thompson's Mississuagua is quite a bit more interesting than Carrick's, and Thompson's Westmount before Robinson, Carrick and McBroom was better, IMO (the first three holes played over the driving range). Shaughnessy had some of Macan's finest work, but it's lost a bit of its flair. Ottawa Hunt & Royal Ottawa had originally had exposed sand because they're built on sand. Sand!

Some, for sure, are purely because of issues none of us can fix, like Colt's Bowness having their owner and core investor die off the hop, plaguing the course with financial issues for 60 years, or Kelowna losing a couple Macan holes to the city to build the cemetery. Likewise for Charles Alison's York Downs, that's just unlucky.

My point is simply that we as a country can and should do better, and when we do we'll see our quality of golf courses go up. Similar to the US in the 90' and 2000's with all their restorations, That's mostly what I'm talking about. Understanding the golf course, what it was, the style of architect, and finding the proper architect to honour the courses legacy. It's getting better, but we can do more!

Thanks for the in-depth follow up as it has definitely helped me to better understand and grasp the initial case you had been making. That is, there should be a more concerted effort to maintain, preserve and celebrate Canadian golfing gems.

You've also highlighted the contrasting styles in architecture, say strategic vs penal, that enabled architects from the Golden Age to make choices that would contribute to more interesting golf.

I believe those architects also understood that technology would evolve and would attempt to allow for some elasticity in their designs, though they may not have envisioned the extent of what we are seeing today.

I've been visiting this forum 2 or 3 times a week over the last several years to get the latest updates on "hot topics" related to golf courses in Canada. This year in particular, you posted several interesting items - especially earlier in the pandemic when it seemed like the world was paused. I'm confident that this will serve to provide more enlightenment either directly or indirectly to Canadian golfers and those who contribute to the ongoing development of the sport.