[Sean_A]

Tom & Bob

Yes, the 20s were a busy and creative period in London as well despite the war - they had a roarings 20s too.  So it should be no surprise that gca was also doing quite well on both sides of the pond. It is interesting that gca was still going strong in Britain, but British golf was surplanted by US player after the war. 

I think a major difference after WWII was Britain remained in a war state with rations and vastly reduced production for quite some time.  We must remember that nationalization and loss of market share (given away in deals with the US) was borne out of WWII debt.  It could be argued that WWII didn't end for GB until Thatcherism deprivatized the nation and busted union power.  In the US there was a totally opposite story with an economic boom after WWII. 

I wonder if a lack of top notch golfers had a negative effect after WWII in Britain.  I reckon this same effect wasn't so bad after WWI because all the stalwatrs of British golf (players, writers and archies) were still about giving it a go.  By the time of WWII certainly, probably by the depression those ties with original masters of all facets of golf were severed. 

Ciao

[Ian Andrew]

The 1950’s was an optimistic period. The war was over and the infrastructure that was developed to support the war was now focused on making people’s lives easier. People were looking forward to a happier and easier existence brought by mechanization and modernization.

Golf Design fell in step. The courses were built cheaper and quicker through the use of available machinery. They were designed to be maintained by machines to make them cheaper and easier to maintain. The architecture emphasized clarity, simplicity and efficiency. It reflected the desire of the times


I think much of the Renaissance Movement has to do with where we find ourselves today. We are overwhelmed by technology and information. What was supposed to make our life simpler and easier has left many of us wishing we could turn back the clock.

This is very much like the Art and Crafts Movement where the reaction to early mechanization was a desire to go back to more hand-made and ornate objects. Our reaction to so much technology and science is to try and find something that feels man made and rooted in nature.

I think design often picks up on themes found within society as a whole. I think it is important to point out that excess wealth has played a role in this Renaissance Movement too.

[Peter Pallotta]

Interesting to speculate that the reason we have a Big World in gca (and that the renaissance is a significant but not yet monolithic development) is that there are still many who prefer the ethos of the 1950s and early 60s - a directness of demands (a simple and clear-cut moral code in other words) and the 'fairness' that reminds them of the days before progressive income tax rates.  

Peter

[JNC Lyon]

The 1950’s was an optimistic period. The war was over and the infrastructure that was developed to support the war was now focused on making people’s lives easier. People were looking forward to a happier and easier existence brought by mechanization and modernization.

Golf Design fell in step. The courses were built cheaper and quicker through the use of available machinery. They were designed to be maintained by machines to make them cheaper and easier to maintain. The architecture emphasized clarity, simplicity and efficiency. It reflected the desire of the times


I think much of the Renaissance Movement has to do with where we find ourselves today. We are overwhelmed by technology and information. What was supposed to make our life simpler and easier has left many of us wishing we could turn back the clock.

This is very much like the Art and Crafts Movement where the reaction to early mechanization was a desire to go back to more hand-made and ornate objects. Our reaction to so much technology and science is to try and find something that feels man made and rooted in nature.

I think design often picks up on themes found within society as a whole. I think it is important to point out that excess wealth has played a role in this Renaissance Movement too.

How do you think excess wealth played a role in this renaissance movement?

This goes back to the question of Pete Dye vs. Robert Trent Jones on Hilton Head Island.  I did some biking around Harbour Town today to figure out what makes Dye's course so different from RTJ.  I noticed that Harbour Town has some penal, one-dimensional aspects to it, mostly because of the narrow fairway corridors.  However, I observed a few key differences.  Harbour Town's features seem more simple.  While the strategies at Trent Jones layouts like Palmetto Dunes are simple, the actual features are highly ornate.  Trent Jones uses flowing, gentle curves in his fairway and mounding lines, and he builds intricate bunkers filled with capes and bays.  On the other hand, Dye's features at Harbour Town are sharper and bolder.  The one feature that really strikes me is the famous railway-tie bunker at the 13th.  The bunker is just THERE--he made no attempt to mold it or blend it into something artificially artistic.  The bunker just sits there, cool as a cucumber.  I was struck by how it was just as manmade as RTJ's bunkers at Palmetto Dunes.  Yet somehow, it was completely different.

It was as if Dye's work evolved from something, by prescription.  While Trent Jones' work appears completely conjured, Dye's bunkering at Harbour Town came from somewhere else.  It is not just a reaction against RTJ, it beckons the most enduring features of courses like Prestwick.  To me, Dye's work was "fresh" because it had some grounding in the great architecture of the past.  Trent Jones' work has none of that.

The difference between modern and classic architecture is just about how various styles fit into their time.  I believe classic architecture recalls the best features of the past while doing something different.  Modern architecture is contrived, without any roots in the work of the great masters.

Thoughts?

[Mac Plumart]

That bunker at 13 at Harbour Town is simply awesome.  You come 'round the corner of the tight and twisty fairway and blammo!!  There is this HUGE bunker with intimidating wooden planks surrounding the walls and this teeny-tiny green.  Awesome.  That is the feeling that bunker brought out of me when I first laid eyes on it.



And, yes, Ian...you can't drop a bomb about excessive wealth influencing architecture and then not explain it.  Please, go on.

[JNC Lyon]

Mac,

The thing that surprised me most about that bunker is how shallow it is in person.  While it is bold and daring, it does not impose to greatly upon the landscape.  It is fearsome and dramatic without being overly intrusive.  Though I didn't play it today, the hole was cut in the front tongue today--crazy!

[Tim Nugent]

Sorry Ian, ain't buying it.   Nice spin though.  Many are bouncing around it but have failed to identify it.  And that it was the mentality of the Depression childern that became the architects of the 50's and 60's.  They were around in the 30's and saw many "unneeded" facets of courses removed in the name of economy.  Only the most economical courses would survive the "next" depression so that's what they designed for.  
Anything flamboyant was out of the question. Waterfalls? - hah.  100+ bunker courses?  - are you kidding me?  Fairways wider than 30 yds? - who's mowing them?

Don't look at RTJ or Dick Wilson, look at RB Harris if you want to understand what the mentality was.  The guy could count the cars in a parking lot and tell you how much $$$ was in the cash register.  Form followed function, plain and simple.  And plain and simple was easy to build and maintain.

I read all this "minimalist" stuff here and then, in the same breath, read people deriding the stuff of the 50's and 60's.  Well, I've seen the plans of courses that are being derided and they don't have any grading in the roughs; very, very little in fairways (only if something wouldn't surface drain or wouldn't be able to be mowed with the equipment of the day) and the majority of the grading done solely for greens, tees, and bunkers. And there were so few bunkers that you would see individual details for each, just like a green or tee.

If all you do is look to the famous or "top" private clubs from yesteryear, you will have a small and skewed sample set.  There were thousands of public and average Joe clubs built too.  In some ways it was a time of minimalism's first coming. Luckily, today we have that history to look back upon and analyze where they went wrong and what they did right.  And, like then, it took financial distress to allow everyone to focus on it.
And I do believe that the construction and maintenance equipment of the day had a great bearing on what was built.  Just as it is today.

JNC, I think Modernist were more influenced by tournament golf than the Golden Age guys.  It was on TV and any golfer who had a TV set was exposed to it.
It became more of an exercise in Compare and Contrast.  In the GA, most golfers might experience a few local courses and those were probably similar in terrain and vegitation.

[BCrosby]

JNC says:

"It was as if Dye's work evolved from something, by prescription.  While Trent Jones' work appears completely conjured, Dye's bunkering at Harbour Town came from somewhere else.  It is not just a reaction against RTJ, it beckons the most enduring features of courses like Prestwick.  To me, Dye's work was "fresh" because it had some grounding in the great architecture of the past.  Trent Jones' work has none of that.

The difference between modern and classic architecture is just about how various styles fit into their time.  I believe classic architecture recalls the best features of the past while doing something different.  Modern architecture is contrived, without any roots in the work of the great masters."

Interesting, though I'm not sure I'm good with your your distinction. RTJ learned his craft from Stanley Thompson. Arguably, RTJ had a better grounding in GA/classic design principles than Dye. Dye came along a generation later and learned the classics directly from British courses (among other sources). Which suggests that their differences weren't about the degree to which one or the other was "rooted" in the great masters. They both were.

I think their differences reside elsewhere. Each tried to find ways to distinguish their work from earlier, GA designs. Their differences are more about the different solutions each came up with to that problem. Neither was shy about admitting that their courses owed debts to earlier, classic designs.

Bob

[BCrosby]

Tim -

I don't think anyone disagrees with your point. The moderns sold themselves as purveyors of golf courses that were inexpensive to build and maintain. And with some exceptions like Peachtree or Firestone, that's what they did.

But that doesn't answer the mystery.  Why, even though operating with limited budgets, were so many basic GA design principles forgotten so quickly? It does not require unlimited capital resources to build a good strategic hole. Was it a failure of architectural imagination? Did many architects in the 50's and 60's simply not know what made the great GA course great? I doubt that, but what was going on?

Along those lines, a Modern architect I would like to know more about is David Gill. He was based in Chicago and worked from the 50's into the 80's. He did mostly second tier privates and some publics. I assume all his projects were money constrained. I have never seen his work discussed here. I'd imagine that getting to know more about him (or maybe Harris too) would help sort out what was going on during the Modern period.

Bob

[Ian Andrew]

Most great work in the arts comes during a period of economic growth.

In some instances this is linked directly to patronage for the artist. In other cases great artists find a benefactor who promotes their work and becomes the catalyst to their success. In a more modern context personal success often gives the artist the ability to choose between commissions. All of this tends to happen during periods of economic growth where the wealthy begin to put some of their excess money back into the arts.

The first golden age was linked to golf’s biggest expansion, but also took place during one of the largest increases of wealth in modern history. The recent golden age once again saw an almost unprecedented 20 year expansion of the economy and a massive increase in wealth, particularly among the wealthiest members of modern society.

Money provides opportunity. Work of consequence requires a talented artist and the opportunity for them to show their talent. That’s why most significant artists come from particular eras. It’s not different in golf architecture, being born in the right period matters and arguably more than talent when you look at the last run.

It’s not hard to imagine that the Renaissance has actually come and gone and the next generation of hot young architects will never get ample opportunity to express themselves because of a lack of work. If there is limited work for a generation, we are unlikely ever to have a breakout architect.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bob,

Yes, David Gill is an intersting study, and both Tim and I could probably tell you more about him and it would be worthwhile. I don't know if George Williams, who partners with Dave's son Garret is still checking in, but he could tell you even more.  A very good techician and as Tim suggests, all the conversations I ever had with him focused on building what made most sense from an economics POV.

He had a period where he built clusters of bunkers, to combat the cow trails around the edges of bunkers that blocked natural traffic flow, for instance.  He was one of the first to completely loop his greens in irrigation, so that the pressure at each sprinkler was more equal to lead to better coverage.

But, it wasn't all maintenance. I recall a conversation with him about my bunker shapes when he sponsored me in ASGCA.  Basically, it was an indept analysis of how he drew his shapes with French Curves vs radius because the asymetrical curves better reflected nature.

Sorry to go OT, but it does sort of illustrate Tim's point that the RTJ courses at the top end were such a small part of the pie that they aren't really reflective of what was happening.

Another point. I don't think anyone forgot anything. I think they thought golden age principles were outmoded for how golf was played then.  And, I am not sure they were wrong, either.  At least, not totally wrong.  At that point in history, they were forward looking, as has been discussed, and who can blame them, when looking back at the decade they had just endured?  Besides Ian's talk of great wealth, their designs were based on the rising but moderate wealth of the emerging middle class, which ain't all bad either.  Lastly, if great designs come when there is great wealth, what kind of designs emerge when there is great nostalgia, as Ron Whitten opined a month or so ago?

[Tom_Doak]

Most great work in the arts comes during a period of economic growth.

In some instances this is linked directly to patronage for the artist. In other cases great artists find a benefactor who promotes their work and becomes the catalyst to their success. In a more modern context personal success often gives the artist the ability to choose between commissions. All of this tends to happen during periods of economic growth where the wealthy begin to put some of their excess money back into the arts.

The first golden age was linked to golf’s biggest expansion, but also took place during one of the largest increases of wealth in modern history. The recent golden age once again saw an almost unprecedented 20 year expansion of the economy and a massive increase in wealth, particularly among the wealthiest members of modern society.

Money provides opportunity. Work of consequence requires a talented artist and the opportunity for them to show their talent. That’s why most significant artists come from particular eras. It’s not different in golf architecture, being born in the right period matters and arguably more than talent when you look at the last run.

It’s not hard to imagine that the Renaissance has actually come and gone and the next generation of hot young architects will never get ample opportunity to express themselves because of a lack of work. If there is limited work for a generation, we are unlikely ever to have a breakout architect.

100% dead on true, except hopefully not the last part!

For a few years there, I thought I'd been born about 5-10 years too late, and just missed out on making a name for myself in time for the boom of new golf course construction.  And I did miss out on being Tom Fazio!  But, the very end of the boom was the time when a few patrons of the art decided to build their own special projects, and when they came around, I was glad I wasn't Tom Fazio after all.

Talent is important; enthusiasm is more important; persistence is even more important.  But you still have to be in the right place at the right time.  The nightly news of the last two or three weeks is ample reminder of that.

[Niall C]

Tom & Bob

Yes, the 20s were a busy and creative period in London as well despite the war - they had a roarings 20s too.  So it should be no surprise that gca was also doing quite well on both sides of the pond. It is interesting that gca was still going strong in Britain, but British golf was surplanted by US player after the war.  

I think a major difference after WWII was Britain remained in a war state with rations and vastly reduced production for quite some time.  We must remember that nationalization and loss of market share (given away in deals with the US) was borne out of WWII debt.  It could be argued that WWII didn't end for GB until Thatcherism deprivatized the nation and busted union power.  In the US there was a totally opposite story with an economic boom after WWII.  

I wonder if a lack of top notch golfers had a negative effect after WWII in Britain.  I reckon this same effect wasn't so bad after WWI because all the stalwatrs of British golf (players, writers and archies) were still about giving it a go.  By the time of WWII certainly, probably by the depression those ties with original masters of all facets of golf were severed.  

Ciao

Sean

Interesting comments and indeed an interesting thread throughout.

Regarding your points on the 1920's, I think the reason why its was the golden age and it stemmed from the UK, eg from MacKenzie, Colt, Abercrombie etc. has to do with the impetus that it got from WWI. Before WWI gca was just coming into its own, stretching its legs if you like, and then along came the war which not only shut down the building of new golf courses it also led to a great many existing courses reverting back to agriculture. Then the war ends and not only do you have existing courses to rebuild but new ones as well as the government actively helped finance development through funding the unemployed to work in the construction. MacKenzies courses at Duff House Royal and Hazlehead are two examples of each.

The golden age guys were well placed to take advantage of this and after 4 years of wondering whether they would ever design another course, they must have relished the opportunities that the new age brought. More jobs and bigger budgets, similar to whats happened in the last 20 years.

With regards to which war had greater impact, I would argue that WWI had far more of an impact on the top players than WWII. I don't think its any coincidence that thats when you starting seeing america starting to dominate. Who knows how many of the next generation of golfing superstars were lost in the WWI trenches.

BTW, don't agree with your comment that WWII only ended when Thatcher came to power. That would make me a war baby and I'm not having that.

Niall

  

[JNC Lyon]

JNC says:

"It was as if Dye's work evolved from something, by prescription.  While Trent Jones' work appears completely conjured, Dye's bunkering at Harbour Town came from somewhere else.  It is not just a reaction against RTJ, it beckons the most enduring features of courses like Prestwick.  To me, Dye's work was "fresh" because it had some grounding in the great architecture of the past.  Trent Jones' work has none of that.

The difference between modern and classic architecture is just about how various styles fit into their time.  I believe classic architecture recalls the best features of the past while doing something different.  Modern architecture is contrived, without any roots in the work of the great masters."

Interesting, though I'm not sure I'm good with your your distinction. RTJ learned his craft from Stanley Thompson. Arguably, RTJ had a better grounding in GA/classic design principles than Dye. Dye came along a generation later and learned the classics directly from British courses (among other sources). Which suggests that their differences weren't about the degree to which one or the other was "rooted" in the great masters. They both were.

I think their differences reside elsewhere. Each tried to find ways to distinguish their work from earlier, GA designs. Their differences are more about the different solutions each came up with to that problem. Neither was shy about admitting that their courses owed debts to earlier, classic designs.

Bob

Bob,

I think Trent Jones' style in the 1950s and 1960s is very different from Stanley Thompson's work in the 1920s and 1930s.  Thompson's layout at St. George's, while difficult, is highly strategic, with some of the most difficult par fours being a joy to play because of their options and variety.  Even Trent Jones' solid work is more penal than Thompson's style.  Trent Jones also apprenticed with Donald Ross, and, again, he does not imitate a great amount of his work.  Trent Jones' routings are usually inferior to those of Ross and Thompson.  While Trent Jones' might have learned from the masters, he does not apply their lessons as Dye applied the lessons of Scotland.

Trent Jones architecture seems to have been something entirely new, and that was a bad thing in some ways.

[Tom_Doak]

Trent Jones apprenticed with Donald Ross?

When, and exactly how?

[JNC Lyon]

Trent Jones apprenticed with Donald Ross?

When, and exactly how?

Our historian at Oak Hill discovered that Trent Jones worked on the construction crew at Oak Hill under Ross' tutelage.  Trent Jones was from just outside of Rochester, did most of his early work in Upstate New York (Midvale, Durand Eastman, Green Lakes State Park, Sodus Bay Heights, Cornell), and would have been familiar with Ross' work up there.

[Tom_Doak]

Trent Jones apprenticed with Donald Ross?

When, and exactly how?

Our historian at Oak Hill discovered that Trent Jones worked on the construction crew at Oak Hill under Ross' tutelage.  Trent Jones was from just outside of Rochester, did most of his early work in Upstate New York (Midvale, Durand Eastman, Green Lakes State Park, Sodus Bay Heights, Cornell), and would have been familiar with Ross' work up there.

JNC:

That's very interesting.  I interviewed Mr. Jones extensively for GOLF Magazine years ago, and asked him in particular about his personal experiences with MacKenzie, Tillinghast, Ross and others.  He mentioned spending time with Mr. Ross at Pinehurst, but nothing about working at Oak Hill.  How much time did Ross spend on site at Oak Hill, and do you think that Jones spent time with him personally while he was there?

From reading Brad's book, it sounds like Ross spent more time at Teugega than anywhere else upstate.

[BCrosby]

JNC -

My point was not that RTJ's courses are like Thompson's. They clearly aren't.

My point was rather that when RTJ struck out on his own after the Great Depression and WWII, his 'new' style was not developed out of ignorance of older Golden Age precepts, as your post seemed to suggest. To the contrary, RTJ was well imbued with classical, Golden age design ideas, in part because he learned the trade from Thompson. In some ways, RTJ can be seen as designing courses in the 50's and later that went against the grain of what he was taught about designing golf courses. I suspect some of that was quite intentional.  

BTW, RTJ connections with the GA were actually pretty murky. Yes, his courses often look engineered and distinctly 'Modern'. But his famous three part distinction between 'penal', 'strategic' and 'heroic' holes borrows heavily from GA concepts. There is a very thin wall between such ideas and discussions and debates in the 1920's. RTJ built many wonderfully strategic holes that might have made MacKenzie proud. Even though RTJ sometimes claimed he was exploring a brave new architectural world.

RTJ was a man of many contradictions. He doesn't make a lot of sense until you understand that he was golf architecture's greatest and most unabashed self promoter.

Bob  

[JNC Lyon]

Trent Jones apprenticed with Donald Ross?

When, and exactly how?

Our historian at Oak Hill discovered that Trent Jones worked on the construction crew at Oak Hill under Ross' tutelage.  Trent Jones was from just outside of Rochester, did most of his early work in Upstate New York (Midvale, Durand Eastman, Green Lakes State Park, Sodus Bay Heights, Cornell), and would have been familiar with Ross' work up there.

JNC:

That's very interesting.  I interviewed Mr. Jones extensively for GOLF Magazine years ago, and asked him in particular about his personal experiences with MacKenzie, Tillinghast, Ross and others.  He mentioned spending time with Mr. Ross at Pinehurst, but nothing about working at Oak Hill.  How much time did Ross spend on site at Oak Hill, and do you think that Jones spent time with him personally while he was there?

From reading Brad's book, it sounds like Ross spent more time at Teugega than anywhere else upstate.

Tom,

I'm not sure how much time Ross spent at Oak Hill.  I know he spent a good deal of time in Upstate New York, but it's hard to know how much time he spent on the site.  It does seem, however, that RTJ spent time with Ross while he was on site.

Bob, I agree that many of his holes were strategic, but his trademark concepts, such as "hard par, easy bogey," penal bunkering, and architecture that places the full emphasis on the aerial game were antithetical to strategic architecture.  That last concept seems to have changed the game permanently for the worse.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bob, Jeff B, JNC - that seems to me to be at the heart of this question. That is, it's not that pre-renaissance architects couldn't emulate the past masters, it's that they didn't want to.  And they didn't want to - I suppose - for three simple reasons, 1) they assumed there wasn't any money in it, 2) they found the ethos and style outdated and, in being outdated, inferior, and 3) they knew they couldn't make a name for themselves by creating second-rate Ross' or MacKenzies (in the same way Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie knew enough not to try to out-do Coleman Hawkins and Louis Armstrong).  What's interesting about Pete Dye is that he had the moxie and ambition to design for the PGA (for big time television in other words), but the good sense to borrow/steal from the very best.  (If I were an architect starting out today, I'd steal wholesale from Pete Dye).

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

Bob, Jeff B, JNC - that seems to me to be at the heart of this question. That is, it's not that pre-renaissance architects couldn't emulate the past masters, it's that they didn't want to.  And they didn't want to - I suppose - for three simple reasons, 1) they assumed there wasn't any money in it, 2) they found the ethos and style outdated and, in being outdated, inferior, and 3) they knew they couldn't make a name for themselves by creating second-rate Ross' or MacKenzies (in the same way Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie knew enough not to try to out-do Coleman Hawkins and Louis Armstrong).  What's interesting about Pete Dye is that he had the moxie and ambition to design for the PGA (for big time television in other words), but the good sense to borrow/steal from the very best.  (If I were an architect starting out today, I'd steal wholesale from Pete Dye).

Peter

Peter:

If you were going to steal from Pete Dye, you'd have to be as good as Pete Dye at what he does.  I decided long ago that was a tough road to take, and that it would be easier to steal from the old dead guys, instead.

[JNC Lyon]

Bob, Jeff B, JNC - that seems to me to be at the heart of this question. That is, it's not that pre-renaissance architects couldn't emulate the past masters, it's that they didn't want to.  And they didn't want to - I suppose - for three simple reasons, 1) they assumed there wasn't any money in it, 2) they found the ethos and style outdated and, in being outdated, inferior, and 3) they knew they couldn't make a name for themselves by creating second-rate Ross' or MacKenzies (in the same way Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie knew enough not to try to out-do Coleman Hawkins and Louis Armstrong).  What's interesting about Pete Dye is that he had the moxie and ambition to design for the PGA (for big time television in other words), but the good sense to borrow/steal from the very best.  (If I were an architect starting out today, I'd steal wholesale from Pete Dye).

Peter

That's all well and good, but isn't there a corollary to that?  Wasn't the work of the post-Renaissance artists both different and inferior from a strategic standpoint.  Diz and Bird were pushing the boundaries of improvisation, whereas Trent Jones and company rolled back the clock on options and improvisation in golf.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - you know, that idea is one that has never occurred to me, i.e. that to steal from you have to be as good as.  It seems to me that inferior talents steal from their betters all the time, in every art-craft form, and always have.  Ahh, I see - you are not talking about being satisfied just to be working, or happy being indebted/inferior to one's idols.  Yes.

JNC - I guess you're right, but I used a poor anology that time; there is a lot of music -- and a lot of great music -- that has nothing at all to do with improvisation, and not much to do with interpretation even.  Maybe a better anaology is to say that much of the post WWII work was akin to 3-chord rock and roll (as oppossed to the harmonic richness and complexity of bop)....but then again, I lot of people love rock, and it did become the dominate/popular music of the day within a very short time. 

But I'm out of my element here as the conversation becomes more detailed and specific.  Thanks for pushing this thread along.

Peter

[JNC Lyon]

Peter,

I think both analogies work decently.  I think we can all enjoy simple three-chord rock every once in a while, just as I can enjoy a Trent Jones layout, but it's great jazz that really stretches the brain and forces you to think.  I think your Diz/Bird metaphor explains what was great about someone like Dye.  He didn't imitate the greats note for note, but he used some of their better ideas and applied them to modern design.  That, to me, is the distinction between modern golf architects and renaissance golf architects.  Modern architects, starting with Trent jones and moving all the way to folks like Arthur Hills, react against the Golden Age and ignore their lessons.  Renaissance architects, from Dye onward, don't copy the greats note for note, but they definitely apply their lessons with vigor.

My next question is, did some of the Golden Age's message get lost along the way?  Are the Renaissance men of today still constrained by the backward progress of the moderns?

[Ian Andrew]

JNC,

The jazz comment was interesting.

My next question is, did some of the Golden Age's message get lost along the way?  Are the Renaissance men of today still constrained by the backward progress of the moderns?

Definitely not - Influence, style and philosophy are all a free choice.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()