Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: JNC Lyon on March 13, 2011, 09:18:37 AM
-
You all can find this week's piece, Tom Paul's "A Renaissance Movement in Golf Architecture," here: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/opinionpaul (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/opinionpaul)
I'd like to post a few questions to get the discussion started, and then go from there.
In his article, Tom Paul states, "I propose the formation of a 'renaissance movement,' an organized movement to serve as a source of education and understanding of proper maintenance practices and restoration practices for the classic and strategic courses."
So far, Golf Club Atlas seems to have served this purpose very well. Furthermore, clubs around the country are beginning to understand the benefits of restoration as a means of improving their golf courses. How much impact has Golf Club Atlas had on this change?
Should golf architecture enthusiasts, both amateur and professional, be doing more to promote classic architecture as Tom Paul suggests?
He also contends that golf course architecture lost its way between the 1940s and the 1990s. What made these courses so undesirable? I happen to like some of the courses built in that era, particularly some by Robert Trent Jones. I remember reading in Pete Dye's book that Dye tried to build Harbour Town as a complete reaction against Trent Jones' architecture, particularly Trent Jones' new course at Palmetto Dunes. Was Dye doing this because Trent Jones' work was everything that was wrong with the architecture world? Or was he doing it because he was simply trying to be different?
-
In his article, Tom Paul states, "I propose the formation of a 'renaissance movement,' an organized movement to serve as a source of education and understanding of proper maintenance practices and restoration practices for the classic and strategic courses."
So far, Golf Club Atlas seems to have served this purpose very well. Furthermore, clubs around the country are beginning to understand the benefits of restoration as a means of improving their golf courses. How much impact has Golf Club Atlas had on this change?
We could do so much more. I think the vast majority of us agree on the nuts and bolts, we bicker over the little things. We could be better organized with a cadre of people (committees if you will) to branch out and take this thing to the next level.
Should golf architecture enthusiasts, both amateur and professional, be doing more to promote classic architecture as Tom Paul suggests?
YES!
He also contends that golf course architecture lost its way between the 1940s and the 1990s. What made these courses so undesirable?
Chris Buie's new IMO piece on Pinehurst #4 is a GREAT example of what these guys did to golf course architecture that negatively affected original golf course designs.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/buie-chris-a-history-of-pinehurst-4 (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/buie-chris-a-history-of-pinehurst-4)
-
In his article, Tom Paul states, "I propose the formation of a 'renaissance movement,' an organized movement to serve as a source of education and understanding of proper maintenance practices and restoration practices for the classic and strategic courses."
So far, Golf Club Atlas seems to have served this purpose very well. Furthermore, clubs around the country are beginning to understand the benefits of restoration as a means of improving their golf courses. How much impact has Golf Club Atlas had on this change?
We could so much more. I think the vast majority of us agree on the nuts and bolts, we bicker over the little things. We could be better organized with a cadre of people (committees if you will) to branch out and take this thing to the next level.
Should golf architecture enthusiasts, both amateur and professional, be doing more to promote classic architecture as Tom Paul suggests? YES!
He also contends that golf course architecture lost its way between the 1940s and the 1990s. What made these courses so undesirable? Chris Buie's new IMO piece on Pinehurst #4 is a GREAT example of what these guys did to golf course architecture that negatively affected original golf course designs.
Mac,
I understand the negative things these architects did to great classic layouts. Oak Hill is exhibit A on how the Trent Joneses and Fazios of the world tore through the work of Golden Age architects like bulls in a china shop. What was it about their original courses that were so bad? What went wrong, and how?
-
You all can find this week's piece, Tom Paul's "A Renaissance Movement in Golf Architecture," here: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/opinionpaul (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/opinionpaul)
Should golf architecture enthusiasts, both amateur and professional, be doing more to promote classic architecture as Tom Paul suggests?
He also contends that golf course architecture lost its way between the 1940s and the 1990s. What made these courses so undesirable? I happen to like some of the courses built in that era, particularly some by Robert Trent Jones.
I remember reading in Pete Dye's book that Dye tried to build Harbour Town as a complete reaction against Trent Jones' architecture, particularly Trent Jones' new course at Palmetto Dunes. Was Dye doing this because Trent Jones' work was everything that was wrong with the architecture world? Or was he doing it because he was simply trying to be different?
JNC,
Pete has written and told me personally that he has great respect for Jones work, and that he did it simply because he knew that to hit it big, he had to do something completely different. I played at Prestwick with Pete years ago, and when we reached the 18th tee, he told me that ditch on the right of the fw started it all for him. He knew RTJ was doing gentle, natural curves, and thought doing straight lines would set him apart.
As far as promoting classical architecture, I suppose I should support it in hopes that any course not designed in the 1930's would feel bad about themselves and retain an architect to rebuild the course! That said, I would think this new era would then obtain the sameness that seems to be the complaint about the 50's to 90's and perhaps even MORESO since the sameness percieved really isn't true as thought. Trying to mandate any one style is sure to backfire, IMHO. And, IMHO and experience, we should be looking at the best practices of all eras of design, rather than pick one as best, since all eras are simply responding best to all the factors before them.
And, I still wonder about any design movement based on nostalgia! Is golf really played the same way it was before? To be honest, if firm and fast is the goal, I think we just wait around until water restrictions do it for us. And, accept the fact that in water rich places, like Minnesota, that the courses may play differently than in the desert, which also might be a good thing for golf. Why substitute a one size fits all standard (or defacto) of one kind for another? Nothing good can come from a small group of "intelligentsia" telling all the rest of us what to do, as much as we think we know what's best for everyone. Who knows what great idea you might limit by pre-deciding what is "good?"
If TEPaul proposed such a thing as a renaissance movement, I am sure he would agree, also being the author of the big tent theory of design.
-
I remember reading in Pete Dye's book that Dye tried to build Harbour Town as a complete reaction against Trent Jones' architecture, particularly Trent Jones' new course at Palmetto Dunes. Was Dye doing this because Trent Jones' work was everything that was wrong with the architecture world? Or was he doing it because he was simply trying to be different?
JNC: Was that in Mr. Dye's book? He told that story to me when I was working on the construction crew at Long Cove, in 1981. There are three or four stories I've told from those personal experiences, that I always wondered if I should tell, because they were shared with a lowly student and construction intern, and not with a golf writer; but I've noticed in the past ten years that Pete has shared some of them with a wider audience, so I guess it was okay.
What Pete said to me [thirty years ago this summer -- so I'm paraphrasing] was that up until Harbour Town, he had admired Mr. Jones' work and had been following the same trend toward longer, bigger golf courses. But when he was building Harbour Town, he kept driving past Palmetto Dunes, and he realized that trend could not go on indefinitely; so he decided to go the opposite direction, and keep Harbour Town short and narrow.
I think the answer to your question is "some of both," but mostly, I think Pete was trying to be different. Also, it did not occur to me at the time, but since Harbour Town was routed by George Cobb through a development, his hands were tied on making the course much longer; to make it difficult, all he could do was decide to keep more of the trees. So, at least part of his decision was a practical choice based on the limitations of the site, and trying to put a positive spin on them.
-
I remember reading in Pete Dye's book that Dye tried to build Harbour Town as a complete reaction against Trent Jones' architecture, particularly Trent Jones' new course at Palmetto Dunes. Was Dye doing this because Trent Jones' work was everything that was wrong with the architecture world? Or was he doing it because he was simply trying to be different?
JNC: Was that in Mr. Dye's book? He told that story to me when I was working on the construction crew at Long Cove, in 1981. There are three or four stories I've told from those personal experiences, that I always wondered if I should tell, because they were shared with a lowly student and construction intern, and not with a golf writer; but I've noticed in the past ten years that Pete has shared some of them with a wider audience, so I guess it was okay.
What Pete said to me [thirty years ago this summer -- so I'm paraphrasing] was that up until Harbour Town, he had admired Mr. Jones' work and had been following the same trend toward longer, bigger golf courses. But when he was building Harbour Town, he kept driving past Palmetto Dunes, and he realized that trend could not go on indefinitely; so he decided to go the opposite direction, and keep Harbour Town short and narrow.
I think the answer to your question is "some of both," but mostly, I think Pete was trying to be different. Also, it did not occur to me at the time, but since Harbour Town was routed by George Cobb through a development, his hands were tied on making the course much longer; to make it difficult, all he could do was decide to keep more of the trees. So, at least part of his decision was a practical choice based on the limitations of the site, and trying to put a positive spin on them.
and keeping more of the trees help to hide the effects of the development
-
Jason...
I hope everyone reading this already knows for certain that I am no expert on things like this, rather an intereted on-looker. But, regardless, I'll disclaim my thoughts anyone...just to be clear. Nevertheless, here are some of my thoughts...
You ask, what went wrong from 1940 to 1990's in terms of golf course architecture? And the name Robert Trent Jones gets mentioned.
I have wondered aloud, recently on this site (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47618.0.html (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47618.0.html)), if non-minimalist golf courses are sustainable. It seems RTJ's legacy is maximalism, make the land fit your original course idea, bulldozer, remove, add, route with out too much regard for natural landscapes, etc. And I think this was really neat and new and his PR machine took the whole thing to a rock star type of level. But in the end, is any of that good for the game of golf? I don't think it is.
On the rock star type of status golf course architects get, is that good for the game? Eh, tough one. If they deserve it and design sustainable, good, and affordable courses...maybe. But if they are just a hype PR machine deal, doesn't that just jack up the cost to build a course (given the design fee they will demand) and make the specific courses they design less likely to be sustainable? What is that Tiger Woods course in Dubai (I think) that he pocketed $55 million on that has gone under? An extreme example for sure, but perhaps it illustrates the point. Every dollar wasted, if a dollar wasted. If it is $55 million, if it is $1 million, if it is $100,000...doesn't matter...it is wasted, someone lost it, and the business owners need to recoup that costs somehow.
Furthermore on the rock star status of golf course architects...think of some of the greatest courses of all time. Are they great because of who designed them...or are they great because they are great courses? For instance, who designed North Berwick? Who designed The Old Course?
Speaking of maximalism, we talk a lot about land fit for the game and RTJ seems to have spearheaded building a golf course anywhere. But back in the day, there are stories of Old Tom Morris taking a single say and staking out a course. Then they played golf (focus on that process, and don't evaluate this in terms of Tom Morris' golf course architectural skill). The land was so perfectly suited for the game of golf...you could simply play golf on the land that was already there. Talk about saving on construction costs. But perhaps RTJ isn't the epitome of maximalist architecture in this regards, maybe it is Fazio at Shadow Creek, Dye at TPC Sawgrass...hell, maybe we saw man's desire for this "conquest" being revealed at The Lido. But in the end, this extra cost has to eat up excessive amounts of money and this will put a strain on the operating budget of the courses/clubs in question and, therefore, make it harder for sustainable golf.
Additionally, how many of these maximalist golf courses stick around the Top 100 lists? Of course, say what you will about the lists...but they are the best proxy we have for great courses that stand the test of time. I've analyzed these lists and I see some of these types of course have made an initial splash on the lists and faded over time. I think that speaks volumes.
FYI...3 posts popped up while I was typing...haven't read them yet.
-
Mac,
No doubt the rock star status affected design from building to play a game to building a monument.
I also liken it to rock stars who put out a few good albums (thinking Chicago at the moment) and after they are a hit with nice pop sounds, decide they need to make "serious" music and go downhill immediately.
I have also called it "self conscious" architecture (or architecting). I felt it when I got my first big resort course deal. No doubt I overcooked it a bit because I was so self conscious of it being compared to the big boys. Basically, if you hit the playoffs with the running game, its not a good idea to start relying on the forward pass at that point. Dance with who brung ya.
Have I packed enough cliches into one post yet?
PS- I actually tend to believe that its only one factor in changes to gca. Construction technology, a general trend to bigger scale in almost every design field (two lane roads to superhighways, for example) and maintenance innovations and demands, etc. Can we blame anyone in particular for wanting irrigation to keep turf alive? At what point did we "go too far" in irrigation, for example?
They summed up one Simpsons episode years ago with the meaning of what happened with "I guess it was just a whole lot of stuff that happened."
BTW, I think our views on this are also affected by "time compression" problems. The fifties wasn't a one day event as the name sounds, it was ten progressive years. 40, if you say 50's to 90's. Lots of stuff just happened.
-
Have I packed enough cliches into one post yet?
Jeff...
First off, if it ain't broke don't fix it! :)
But secondly, I've been thinking a lot about the type of thing you are touching on in your quote here, "Trying to mandate any one style is sure to backfire, IMHO."
If you take a minamlist approach to golf course architecture, you should get many different styles...if done correctly...because the land should dictate what the course is. I am thinking of potential examples, St. Andrews Old looks totally different from Sand Hills, which looks totally different from Prairie Dunes, which looks totally different from Bandon Dunes, which looks totally different from Stone Forest in China. I can't speak to the minimalist nature of all these courses but the landscapes are certainly different.
-
Does the work of the late Mike Strantz enter into this discussion?
To the amateur, me, it seems he was feeding steroids to the usual elements and / or was he just was trying to differentiate himself?
-
Carl...
I think Strantz absoluetly deserves to be in the discussion. I am not educated enough on maintenance and construction of golf courses to know if his work fits the sustainable bill or not, but to me that is a real key question regarding an architects work. People will favor certain styles, shots, bunker work, greens, etc...but in the end if it isn't sustainable (economically and environmentally) then that is a real issue.
But what is weird, is that since Tom Paul wrote this article I believe a lot of contributors to this site have taken the ball and ran with in the context of precisely what Tom suggested needed to be done.
Here is just one instance...
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46846.0.html (http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46846.0.html)
-
Another factor that may be at the root of the cause, is over booking the architects time.
The Fazio Push thread's subtext is that with the ability to focus on one job, more, the archiitect turns out a better product.
I suppose Ross, could be the exception, but with his detailed drawings, maybe a picture is worth a thousand words?
-
Doesn't the question of "enlightened" vs. "unenlightened" architecture go way beyond construction techniques and maintenance practices?
I'm in Hilton Head for the week, and we played the Trent Jones Course at Palmetto Dunes today. I wasn't just struck by the scale of the course and manufactured look. The course was Penal Architecture 101. Although the fairways and greens were big, most holes had only one option: drive it down the middle and hit a high, solid iron shot into the green. With the exception of two holes, 4 and 13, bunkering does not dictate strategy: it merely exacts a penalty on the golfer. The course was extremely one dimensional. There was nothing terrible about it, and it was a beautiful course to play. The course was just boring as a strategic layout. To top it all off, the greens, while not terrible, were repetitive and very easy to putt. It is the type of course that the good player will eat up and the bad player will struggle with immensely.
Why did golf course architects begin building anti-strategic golf courses in the second half of the 20th century?
-
I used to imagine that 'rebirths' were the results of profound shifts in consciousness. I now think they are more the products of hungry and ambitious young artists trying to make a name for themselves with art that means something to them. BUT -- why a renaissance gains momentum and is ultimately successful/of lasting and historical value and worth is another question, and the more interesting one. In that sense, I think rebirths do capture or embody and/or shape the spirit of the times. In golf, I think we wanted to experience something more natural and (seemingly) simple and old-fashioned, since we'd been satieted by the crass and over-indulgent, and had found that modernity wasn't all it was cracked up to be.
Peter
-
Why did golf course architects begin building anti-strategic golf courses in the second half of the 20th century?
JNC, Dr. Klein's famous quote about rich people comes to mind. But the real answer is not just one thing. Looking at Behr's warnings of "Whims of the day", I believe, catches most of the reasons why. Ignorance and a rush to build are the others.
This leads into one of your other questions about gca's roll.
IMO, the roll has been to disseminate information, not so much as guiding a movement. I suppose in the end, armed with the facts and the information, people will end up making the intelligent choice. But, even today, that isn't always true.
-
JNC - also, I do think it had to do with demographics. Millions of post war GIs coming home and starting families and needing homes, and so golf courses -- like suburbs -- were built fast and cheap and simple, and wherever they could be as close to where people needed to live and work as possible; and so, with golf courses, if the land that was best suited geographically wasn't well suited for the game, all we needed was to big in the big machines and whip it into shape (after all, it was the Big Machine that helped win the war).
P
-
JNC - also, I do think it had to do with demographics. Millions of post war GIs coming home and starting families and needing homes, and so golf courses -- like suburbs -- were built fast and cheap and simple, and wherever they could be as close to where people needed to live and work as possible; and so, with golf courses, if the land that was best suited geographically wasn't well suited for the game, all we needed was to big in the big machines and whip it into shape (after all, it was the Big Machine that helped win the war).
P
Peter: Not only that. Perhaps, psychologically, the people who won the war (or simply survived it) yearned for an earlier day when right and wrong were simple and straightforward, where there was little room for nuance or freedom if it could lead to trouble. That's certainly what Trent Jones and Dick Wilson gave them, and they ate it up.
-
JNC - also, I do think it had to do with demographics. Millions of post war GIs coming home and starting families and needing homes, and so golf courses -- like suburbs -- were built fast and cheap and simple, and wherever they could be as close to where people needed to live and work as possible; and so, with golf courses, if the land that was best suited geographically wasn't well suited for the game, all we needed was to big in the big machines and whip it into shape (after all, it was the Big Machine that helped win the war).
P
Peter: Not only that. Perhaps, psychologically, the people who won the war (or simply survived it) yearned for an earlier day when right and wrong were simple and straightforward, where there was little room for nuance or freedom if it could lead to trouble. That's certainly what Trent Jones and Dick Wilson gave them, and they ate it up.
Yes, but what I see from RTJ is not usually straightforward. One example is a type of long par he uses often. The green will be bunkered to the left and open to the right. However, he builds up the green so that a long, running shot will either find the bunker or be shrugged off to the right of the green. 15 at Crag Burn, 16 at Seven Oaks, and 6 at Palmetto Dunes all contain this type of green. Many of his holes appear straightforward, but they are only straightforward if you hit long, high tee shots. There is one standard for the best players at his courses, but for anyone else his courses are gimmicky. They can be unrelenting and impossible to play without perfect shots. Is this what the postwar world wanted or needed, something that was uncompromising?
I'm not sure it was a renewed search for security. It may have been an oft-repeated tendency to tear down what had come before. People saw the old order (Golden Age courses) as obsolete, and tried to replace them with a new order.
How much of a role did the new equipment play in this type of architecture? Does modern equipment restrict the renaissance movement that Tom Paul proposes?
-
Peter -
I'm not sure the 'returning GI's need new golf courses' thesis works. There wasn't much of a post-WWII boom in golf course construction. Things began to pick up by the '60's. Much of that was restocking lost inventory. If I remember correctly the number of courses in the US didn't return to its pre Depression numbers until the late 60's. More than 20 years after the end of WWII we were still just getting back to even.
Like Tom D, I tend to think there was a mindset change. Ten years of economic depression followed by five years of death (or the fear thereof), separations from family, sacrifice, lives put on hold, etc. will do things to young men. Whatever the shortcomings of RTJ or DW as architects, they understood all that in their bones. They would have understood my father, for example. Perhaps better than I ever have. But that's another story.
I'd think that part of that mindset change was about mocking (sneering?) at the extra-architectural things that people like Low, Simpson, Darwin, MacK, Behr and others thought that well designed, strategic courses were supposed to offer. The GA notion that good courses should test your judgment, measure your sporting mettle, entice you to take risks, all that sort of stuff seemed laughable after you had watched buddies go down in B-17's over Germany.
All off the cuff speculation. But something did change after WWII. The good news is that we spent the last couple of decades digging out from whatever it was. There is, in short, something to TEP's Renaissance thesis.
Bob
-
Peter -
I'm not sure the 'returning GI's need new golf courses' thesis works. There wasn't much of a post-WWII boom in golf course construction. Things began to pick up by the '60's. Much of that was restocking lost inventory. If I remember correctly the number of courses in the US didn't return to its pre Depression numbers until the late 60's. More than 20 years after the end of WWII we were still just getting back to even.
Like Tom D, I tend to think there was a mindset change. Ten years of economic depression followed by five years of death (or the fear thereof), separations from family, sacrifice, lives put on hold, etc. will do things to young men. Whatever the shortcomings of RTJ or DW as architects, they understood all that in their bones. They would have understood my father, for example. Perhaps better than I ever have. But that's another story.
I'd think that part of that mindset change was about mocking (sneering?) at the extra-architectural things that people like Low, Simpson, Darwin, MacK, Behr and others thought that well designed, strategic courses were supposed to offer. The GA notion that good courses should test your judgment, measure your sporting mettle, entice you to take risks, all that sort of stuff seemed laughable after you had watched buddies go down in B-17's over Germany.
All off the cuff speculation. But something did change after WWII. The good news is that we spent the last couple of decades digging out from whatever it was. There is, in short, something to TEP's Renaissance thesis.
Bob
How or why was the reaction after WWI any different than WWII?
Ciao
-
Peter -
I'm not sure the 'returning GI's need new golf courses' thesis works. There wasn't much of a post-WWII boom in golf course construction. Things began to pick up by the '60's. Much of that was restocking lost inventory. If I remember correctly the number of courses in the US didn't return to its pre Depression numbers until the late 60's. More than 20 years after the end of WWII we were still just getting back to even.
Like Tom D, I tend to think there was a mindset change. Ten years of economic depression followed by five years of death (or the fear thereof), separations from family, sacrifice, lives put on hold, etc. will do things to young men. Whatever the shortcomings of RTJ or DW as architects, they understood all that in their bones. They would have understood my father, for example. Perhaps better than I ever have. But that's another story.
I'd think that part of that mindset change was about mocking (sneering?) at the extra-architectural things that people like Low, Simpson, Darwin, MacK, Behr and others thought that well designed, strategic courses were supposed to offer. The GA notion that good courses should test your judgment, measure your sporting mettle, entice you to take risks, all that sort of stuff seemed laughable after you had watched buddies go down in B-17's over Germany.
All off the cuff speculation. But something did change after WWII. The good news is that we spent the last couple of decades digging out from whatever it was. There is, in short, something to TEP's Renaissance thesis.
Bob
How or why was the reaction after WWI any different than WWII?
Ciao
Sean:
A very good question!
In the USA, of course, World War I had nowhere near the impact on daily life that World War II did. It was more like a recession, with a vigorous bounce back after two or three years of relative inactivity. World War II, on the heels of the Depression, was a sea change, not least because the gap was so long that very few of the architects who were busy before the Depression were still around to pick things up after the war.
But in the UK, certainly, World War I should have had a deep psychological impact, and yet the end of it was the kick-off to a very busy and creative period for Colt, MacKenzie and Alison, among others.
-
Sean -
I wondered about that too. I'm not sure I have a good answer, but a couple of thoughts.
Frist, from the American perspective, WWI was brief and involved sacrifices from relatively few people. We went immediately into the Roaring Twenties and all of that. A happpy, care free decade. Nothing like the post -WWII recessions, Korean War, Cold War, nuclear bombs, Vietnam, civil rights and on and on.
WWI was, however, a meatgrinder for Britain. Note, though, that nothing like the Great Depresssion preceded WWI. The Edwardian Age as a prosperous couple of decades. But I don't know why British designers in the Twenties didn't take the no-nonsense approach of RTJ in the US in the 1950's. I don't have much of a feel for British attitudes at the time. It would be worth looking into.
Bob
-
Bob - that's a better thesis than mine, fuller. And I like and think true that men like RTJ felt the shift "in their bones". And yet, architects weren't philosophers -- they were, among other things, business men, and so by temperament and necessity they transmuted the spirit of the age into practical expression, literally, on the ground. And in that practical sense, I think the spirit of the post war age -- growth and stability and new homes and suburbs and technology as the saviour -- did lead to, for lack of a better word, a 'utilitarian' view of golf and giolf courses and what courses should be and how they should be built.
Sean - just a guess oif course, but I think that after shock of the first world war, many felt the need to let loose and celebrate life and passions and personal expression (e.g. the jazz age, and market speculation, and F SCott Fitzgerald and 'Ulysses' etc), while after the second war a more sombre and utilitarian view took hold.
Peter
edit - just saw the two good posts
-
WWII was preceded by The Great Depression as well. Maybe that fits into Peter's call on a more somber mood for the people of the era.
-
Bob - that's a better thesis than mine, fuller. And I like and think true that men like RTJ felt the shift "in their bones". And yet, architects weren't philosophers -- they were, among other things, business men, and so by temperament and necessity they transmuted the spirit of the age into practical expression, literally, on the ground. And in that practical sense, I think the spirit of the post war age -- growth and stability and new homes and suburbs and technology as the saviour -- did lead to, for lack of a better word, a 'utilitarian' view of golf and giolf courses and what courses should be and how they should be built.
Sean - just a guess oif course, but I think that after shock of the first world war, many felt the need to let loose and celebrate life and passions and personal expression (e.g. the jazz age, and market speculation, and F SCott Fitzgerald and 'Ulysses' etc), while after the second war a more sombre and utilitarian view took hold.
Peter
edit - just saw the two good posts
Peter,
Most architects in the Golden Age did not make golf architecture a business, mainly because they were already set financially. Donald Ross managed to make golf course architecture a business, but he built courses that go beyond basic utilitarian needs. His courses have a charm and flair that go beyond most architecture in the modern era. He even built many of these courses in the Depression and postwar periods. Furthermore, Robert Trent Jones did some of his most daring work in the earlier part of his career in the immediate postwar era. How should we reconcile that?
I'd still like to know if this change in the mindset about golf architecture was due to changes in technology. Does this technology, which remains today, restrain a renaissance movement?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/HarbourTown13II.jpg)
And, yes, Ian...you can't drop a bomb about excessive wealth influencing architecture and then not explain it. Please, go on.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
Trent Jones apprenticed with Donald Ross?
When, and exactly how?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
What great modern courses are under 7,000 yards? By and large, the 7,000-yard layout is a product of the modern era, yet today's renaissance architects still feel the need to build extra-long courses. There seem to be some principles of the modern era that have carried over into renaissance GCA.
-
Isn't Pacific Dunes, something like, 6,700 yards? Are any of the Bandon Dunes resort courses over 7,000 yards?
-
Mac,
The first three are under 7,000, and Old Mac is right around 7,000. It does not surprise me that the Bandon courses are this short, but I believe there are others by the renaissance archies that are well over 7,000.
-
By and large, the 7,000-yard layout is a product of the modern era, yet today's renaissance architects still feel the need to build extra-long courses. There seem to be some principles of the modern era that have carried over into renaissance GCA.
I think you are correct.
Perhaps Bandon's success and the sub-7000 yard courses there could change this trend. If need be, let's go par 70 or 71. I always find that a cool little quirk. Get away from 7,000 being a magic number, same for 72.
-
Gents - I once started a thread on the "Hierarchy of Values", and Ian's recent post reminded me of it. If there is one thing I know I shouldn't ever do is to judge another man's hierarchy of values, even when -- especially when -- I think I know a man well enough to determine what those values are. Further complicating the matter (or adding nuance) is the fact that a man's hierarchy of values rarely matches his actual talents (or range/hierarchy of talents); and even then, those talents need to match the times he lives in and the opportunities that life presents him. (Tom D said all of this better with his list of the 3 important things). Maybe genius and accomplishment are just the perfect dovetailing/matching of Values + Talents +Opportunities (and perhaps this is why we're told not to judge another until we've walked a mile in his shoes). It seems to me that for many of the 'moderns', creating classic and timeless and truly great golf courses simply was not at the top of their Value System -- and so their Talents were directed elsewhere. And as far as I can tell, none of them had the luxury of being amateurs, and so Making a Living had to rank pretty high on the list. And so I come back to much earlier posts - WHY did they think they could best make a living creating the kind of courses that they did -- and to that I say it was a reflection of a marketplace that above all wanted stability and growth and a clarity of purpose and belief.
Peter
-
Peter,
I see what you are saying to an extent, but at some point Trent Jones decided to do things the way he did--and THEN the market started demanding it. He capitalized when he figured out he could make a great career out of it, but, at some point, he and he alone had to make the creative decision to build courses that way. He, not the marketplace, came up with the penal style of architecture. To me, the marketplace explains the proliferation of modern architecture, but not the advent of it.
I think it is easy to label Robert Trent Jones as the eternal self-promoter who built courses the way he did to do good business. But plenty of his courses show enough flair and strategy to reveal that Trent Jones had plenty of creativity. Where did that unique style come from?
-
What great modern courses are under 7,000 yards? By and large, the 7,000-yard layout is a product of the modern era, yet today's renaissance architects still feel the need to build extra-long courses. There seem to be some principles of the modern era that have carried over into renaissance GCA.
JNC: Pacific Dunes is 6700 yards. Barnbougle Dunes is 6700 yards. St. Andrews Beach is 6600 yards. Stone Eagle is 6800 yards. Stonewall is 6600 yards. Friars Head was well under 7000 yards, to the point that they didn't put the yardages on the scorecard so as not to draw attention to it. Cuscowilla is 6600 yards, and Bandon Trails 6700.
I would love to draw more attention to this, but sadly, our clients do not want to draw attention to it because they are afraid some people will dismiss these courses out of hand as being too short, and make their decisions about where to travel based on a scorecard yardage they wouldn't play, anyway.
I will continue to build shorter courses whenever a client is amenable to it. Some are not amenable to it. Our current client in Florida, who is a low handicap player and a long hitter, asked both Bill Coore and me to make our courses 7500 yards, although he'll settle for 7200 or so. So, we build a few tees we otherwise wouldn't, and hope that most people have the sense not to play from back there. Julian Robertson wanted a longer course in case it made a difference getting the New Zealand Open. Michael Pascucci wanted Sebonack to be very long because he likes to see Tour players humbled, I think. Rock Creek and Common Ground are both well above 7000 yards because they're at altitude; they don't play nearly as long as the card says.
I know I am fighting the tide here. I know that most architects refuse to fight alongside me, and it's one main reason there aren't more other architects whose work I really respect ... because so many have dropped the ball on this issue. Great golf courses are about character, not about length. Just look at the Barnbougle thread -- the holes that generate the most interest are the really short ones.
-
Good stuff, Tom. I guess I'll have to see some of these courses at some point! You mention that most architects continue to build courses longer. Do you think that pressure has been held over from the modern era to build courses that exceed the 7,000 mark? As I see it, there is no other explanation. Most of these modern layouts won't host professional tournaments any time soon, and modern equipment only truly helps the top 5% of golfers.
-
Outsider looking in...
This idea of a dark age post war misses the boat. The post war/baby boom years grew golf's popularity, that's the foundation for the most recent boom.
From many recent posts, the Arcihitects of that era delivered engaging venues that fueled the game's growth. Open. Accessible. Affordable by design. Fun. These seem are the tenets of the Renaissance, too, with the addition of strategic.
It seems that in that era, GA was a regional business. Architects plied their trade regionally. Like building archiectects today, few are trying to be the next Gehry or Pei. Most are happy to pay for kid's soccer with a workable school, office park or fire house. In that era, that meant a reasonably priced, engaging, public access course. That the course didn't sell RE or bring private jets in was not a concern. What was a concern was a good round for the locals, day in, year in.
RTJ and Pete Dye are the scripted antagonist and protaganist of this mid-century story. Is this really appropriate? If RTJ is the master self-promoter, accepting his promotions as the standard of his era does a disservice to the other architects of the era? And if Dye wanted just to be different from RTJ, why should that counter response frame the other work of that era? From a local perspective the work of this era fueled the game's growth. Isn't this the model to follow? For if golf itself is in distress due to demographic and generational changes, maybe looking to the architects who spurred the mid-century golf boom will yield lessons a more romantic view might obscure?
(like there's anything to build :-/
Respectfully, DH
Dave
-
David,
You stated, "It seems that in that era, GA was a regional business." I would disagree with you when it comes to the truly great architects of that time. A few Tillinghast exampleas.
In the fall of 1919 he was at work at Baltusrol, November he was in Arizona. The end of the month in Los Angeles redesigning the greens at Midwick from sand to grass. He went up the coast to SF in early december and was their through the end of January 1920. He travelled to the midwest before finding himself in Dallas in March where he designed Brook Hollow, Cedar Crest and Dallas CC. From their he went to Oklahoma before heading back to the New York area with Stops in Ohio and Pa. on the way. His wife Lillian made this trip with him.
Tilly made a number of trips like this throughout his career before his 2+ year national course consultation tour. Another example is his September 1915 Florida trip which was followed by his going to San Antonio and working their on Brackenridge Park, Ft. Sam Houston and the San Antonio CC from the end of September through the first week of November. He then headed on up to Oklahoma and was interviewed in Des Moines after the first of the year before heading back east.
Ross may have "mailed in" many paper designs, but he certainly did his share of large scale traveling as did Mackenzie and Raynor and others.
-
Phil...
That line struck me as odd as well. However, I wonder if it just a simple mix-up in the meaning of the abbreviation GA. I think a lot of you guys are using it to mean Golden Age, but I wonder if in this instance it was meant to mean Golf Architecture.
-
Phil, what I meant by GA was golf architecture, and the era I was referring to was the post war boom. I was touched by the Jim Spears obit, and my research into the limited number of courses I've had access to and enjoyed. Many of these have turned out to be from the dark age of freeway design, by less known architects whose body of work is regional.
As far as the stars of the business go, Tilly, MacDonald, Dr. M, RTJ, Dye, the Fazios, and many of members of this board are clearly established as national or international talents whose work epitomizes the best of the craft and is worthy of study.
However, as we talk about the Renaissance in GCA today, given how some of these post war courses by the lesser lights are still relevant to many players, and not the 5-10% of the big spending players, but the 80-90% of the working Joe's in a Tuesday night league with their buddies, does that era also offer lessons that should go into Renaissance?
-
Hi David,
No apology needed; it was my misunderstanding.
-
Phil, what I meant by GA was golf architecture, and the era I was referring to was the post war boom. I was touched by the Jim Spears obit, and my research into the limited number of courses I've had access to and enjoyed. Many of these have turned out to be from the dark age of freeway design, by less known architects whose body of work is regional.
As far as the stars of the business go, Tilly, MacDonald, Dr. M, RTJ, Dye, the Fazios, and many of members of this board are clearly established as national or international talents whose work epitomizes the best of the craft and is worthy of study.
However, as we talk about the Renaissance in GCA today, given how some of these post war courses by the lesser lights are still relevant to many players, and not the 5-10% of the big spending players, but the 80-90% of the working Joe's in a Tuesday night league with their buddies, does that era also offer lessons that should go into Renaissance?
Popularity for popularity's sake is not necessarily good for the game. The modern idea of the architect as self-promoter has created a set of "signature" architects who make money off their name. This is what Robert Trent Jones started doing after his initial creative years. This trend has led to a boom of courses that are of little substance or merit to the golfing world. In my mind, it is better to hire an architect who will take on a few projects and focus heavily on each project than a well-known architect of the modern era who just churns out Blueprint Number Seven.
This is why talk of expanding the game at all costs troubles me: it is quality, not quantity, that matters.
-
Outsider looking in...
This idea of a dark age post war misses the boat. The post war/baby boom years grew golf's popularity, that's the foundation for the most recent boom.
From many recent posts, the Arcihitects of that era delivered engaging venues that fueled the game's growth. Open. Accessible. Affordable by design. Fun. These seem are the tenets of the Renaissance, too, with the addition of strategic.
David,
Thanks for pointing out the obvious! If the courses of the 50's were as bad as advertised here, would there have been a golf boom? If courses of the 90's were so bad, why were they the ones that were busiest, while older courses were the ones that were closing?
By and large, newer courses are more attractive to golfers. Naturally, the best of the best in any generation maintain their status. That said, RTJ in the 50's was trying to bring Oakland Hills type golf to the masses, more in a resort setting, for those who couldn't join the club. In the next golf booms, many gca's were trying to localize that even further, bringing a reasonable fascimle of club level golf to the local muni and privately owned publics.
In general, the goal was always the same - to improve gca and minimize the difference between publics and privates that existed in the beginning of golf in America. It seems to have worked, although you would never know it by the talk here, even though I am guessing we all fell in love with golf on some lesser than top 100 golf course.
Until your post, I would have never thought to think of RTJ as the Tom Bendelow of his generation! Grahted golfer standards continued to rise, as early golfers were satisfied with much less.
Basically, doesn't gca just respond to the market? And the market ALWAYS wants something new and different. All I know is that at some point, what we think is good today will look like beehive hairdos at some point. The difference between great architecture and bad archiitecture is the number of years until our perceptions of it change.
-
JNC "LP"
Stimulating thread! While golf's post WW ll boom certainly took golf design in a different direction for many, that really shouldn't be looked at as a travesty. As the ability of man to "shape" the land changed, with the advent of technical machinery capable of rapidly completing larger tasks, it seems only logical that they would want to try out their possibilities. While a more manufactured presentation often resulted, if the design was solid, is that a bad thing?
A more natural course presentation has always appealed to me, but I've never slighted a course on that criteria alone, especially if the other elements in evidence are well done. Kelly touches on the return to, or borrowing of styles from designers past, as perhaps lacking some originality or creativity. There may be some truth in that, though their timeless utility, and the efficiency of the routings and sequencing of holes by the real stars of yesteryear are most certainly worth emulating today.
That to me, is a lot of what Tom Paul speaks to...the craft and careful thought that went into taking a less is more approach, yet still consistently delivering interest and fun in a solid test. Certain ground will naturally offer more potential and today that setting can even be created artifically.
The goal for us should be that "responsible" golf design should be the order of the day. If we want a healthy game, it has to start with the living canvas over which we play! That hasn't always been the case and while we are doing a better job in that area, there is a long way to go.
A quick glance at some real questionable projects being done overseas in Asia and elsewhere is quick valdiation of that. The idea that...well it's dead here in the states, let's go crap it up somewhere else, doesn't fly.
The real stars in my book are the golf designers that will walk, or not even entertain doing certain projects, because they KNOW it's not the right thing to do at a certain site!
-
Kris,
The "right thing" would be a lot different to different designers. Take for example the Kohler course proposed south of Bandon by Pete Dye. It will look a lot different than what Tom Doak's version would be. Even if Doak was hired, what would his vision for a competing/complementary course there be? We know Old Mac was his response to doing a second course at the same place. Would he alter his PD style to do something different in a similar setting?
Should we be excited about a "typical Pete Dye course" in a great setting? Should Pete change his style to accomodate the site?
Short version, not sure if there is a right answer for any specific site. Its all influenced by a lot of other stuff.
Which is why I agree with you that the 50's wasn't a travesty at all. Take:
New technology,
Need for affordability
A desire to put the recent past behind us (WWII) even architecturally by developing new styles in all kinds of design (look at old TV shows and movies from the 50's for that sort of Art Deco furniture!)
A modernistic mind set overall
Given all those factors, can anyone envision that the collective best minds of the era weren't putting out the best possible product that met the needs of the then consumer?
-
Jeff, et al:
I'm not sure if I buy the argument that we can give the 50s courses a pass because of their historical context. Surely we have some standards that we can use to judge golf architecture across time periods? Many architects today have managed to build courses with strategy and options while dealing with "new technology" and the "need for affordability." Why couldn't the architects in the 1950s do it?
As for the architecture depending on what type of site the architect receives, that claims seems more reasonable to me. Pete Dye is an interesting case because it seems like he never gets the ideal sites. Harbour Town, The Ocean Course, Whistling Straits, and Teeth of the Dog were all seaside sites, but they were dead flat and, in TOTD's case, swampland. It would be interesting to see what Dye did if he actually receive a great site on the Oregon coast.
-
Thanks for pointing out the obvious!
....
Until your post, I would have never thought to think of RTJ as the Tom Bendelow of his generation! Grahted golfer standards continued to rise, as early golfers were satisfied with much less.
Jeff, You've discovered my secret power, Master of the Obvious!
Unfortunately, the Tom Bendelow reference is lost on me, so I'll take it as a compliment. :)
Tom Paul's original premise is a Renaissance movement in GCA, using the Golden Age as the model. Much of this recent thread, IMHO, has seen praise along with greater historical context for the work of the 50's and 60's boom, an era that at times is stereotyped as bland or insipid, at other times blamed for the deconstruction of the GA works.
To Tom's points, here in 2011, everyone with any love of GCA would agree that the courses bequeathed to us from the GA should be treasured, preserved, and maintained to capture the spirit of their intent. Their aren't going to be any more of them built, and they are important historically, and enjoyable today, too.
What to me is more interesting, and speaks to what Kris is saying about "responsible" design, is what would be/are the attributes of a Renaissance GCA. Looking to the GA, and also to some of the comments about the better work of the 50's and 60's, the work that made the golf boom possible, and that leaves us with many courses still relevant today, especially in the muni/public space, is it possible to boil down the qualities that would define a Renaissance GCA?
I'd propose:
Strategic Qualities/Playability (including all of the qualities of routing, interest, challenge, variety from hole to hole, day-to-day, and across skill levels)
Economy
Style
Walkability
What it would not include would be:
Naturalistic
Site
Houses
Everyone gets Strategic Qualities. To me this is a large part of the Craft of Golf architecture, and the imperative to honor the unique opportunity to speak to the end users/consumers, the golfers.
Economy, to me, involves both the hidden side of GCA: removing water, sustainable practices, affordability (where the GCA decisions impact this), etc. I'm sure the professionals on here take this part to heart. This is the Profession of GCA.
Style should not be confused with stylish. Raynor bunkers, Ross greens, Dye RR Ties; these are affectations of the GCA's style, and to the extent that GCA is Art, these qualities should be honored and encouraged in any GCA Renaissance.
Walking, though not as fundamental as the other dimensions, should be a priority where possible. Sure, some sites aren't suited for it, but designing unwalkable courses on sites that could support takes away an important part of the experience for many.
I love Naturalistic settings, but I wouldn't make a prerequisite of a Renaissance style. Instead, I see that as an expression of Style, and in some cases a means to Economy, but not the only means or direction to reach either.
Great sites tee the ball up for great courses, no doubt about it. But a Renaissance GCA should not be limited by the quality of the site. If golf can be played on a piece of land, a Renaissance Architecture should bring about an excellent course.
Finally Houses. The business model behind many courses is Real Estate. I'm sure there are a lot of good or even great courses out there that wouldn't exist if there weren't some plots backed up to the fairway. But, I've never felt that a course was made better by a closeup view of 1000 grills, pools, and lanais.
If I've managed to capture the obvious again, I've done what I set out to do!
Dave
-
I’ve always wondered about the fact that so many of the designers from that era seemed to end up in design by accident. Some were builders, others agronomists, many were superintendents and others were engineers, but so few had set out to be architects. The leadership had ties to some of the greats, but most had little previous experience in design and were thrust into that position through circumstance.
-
Which is why I agree with you that the 50's wasn't a travesty at all. Take:
New technology,
Need for affordability
A desire to put the recent past behind us (WWII) even architecturally by developing new styles in all kinds of design (look at old TV shows and movies from the 50's for that sort of Art Deco furniture!)
A modernistic mind set overall
Given all those factors, can anyone envision that the collective best minds of the era weren't putting out the best possible product that met the needs of the then consumer?
Jeff:
If you just extend the same logic to every generation, then it's clear that the marketplace is always delivering exactly what the consumer needs. And nobody is EVER just "mailing it in".
I don't know that there is any use in comparing different eras and trying to determine if one was better than another. I still think we should only judge architects one course at a time, because it's the course and not the architect that is the end product for people to enjoy. But clearly, some eras have produced more great courses than others, and while some of that may have to do with trends and what's fashionable at any given time, I think ascribing it all to that would be wrong.
-
Tom,
I guess my point was that we sometimes seem to make an assumption that we know exactly what our fathers enjoyed when they played golf in the 1950's. I would wager that the real estate course, and McGolfCourse (pioneered by Bob Dedman on the club side) both affordable AND in their back yards were vastly enjoyed by their members, and couldn't be if not housing courses and built for affordability.
I guess I am saying every generation of customers might have vastly different needs, perceptions, et al. Not to mention, we have to remember this board is a testament to mostly (despite the mission statement) talking about the best of the best. Not to mention sticking our big bazoos into other peoples golf business!
-
My overidiing interest in golf course architecture is what has happened, and is happening, to classic ODG courses. And I think to understand that, with all due respect to the architects, you have to try and get into the heads of the board members who ran those clubs from 1960-1990. These were the guys who created the demand for renovation work. They paid the bills. They had to have a strong motivation to bring in an architect and make changes to the course. So while the hired architect may have had a briefcase full of ideas for the course, he ultimately was doing the work desired by a handful of powerful club members. (Jon, since you are in college now, this is the time when your Dad was youngster, and perhaps your grandfather was one of the decision makers...)
I think understanding the historical perspective of this time period is critical. To answer an earlier question, the post WW 2 era most notably different than WW 1 because of the incredible advances in technology. Ian Andrew described it a making life easier. Modernization was everywhere in the lives of Americans (Sorry, I can only write from a US perspective.) Televisions, washers, driers, one or two cars in every driveway, going to the hairdresser, etc. etc. Americans wanted MODERN and with the rise in golf's popularity, there was an influx of new club members to pay for work to be done on country club golf courses.
So while playing their ODG courses, the powerful club members probably looked around at the "tired" old courses, with tired looking bunkers with hazards probably too close to the tee, and compared that to what they saw on TV and the new courses they played in their travels. So they got together in their board meetings and said "it is time to update our course!" And the vision of what they wanted almost certainly was heavily influnced by what they saw on TV and the big, bold courses being built by RTJ. I imagine that there was very little sympathy for the craftmanship of the work completed by the Old Dead Guys, these board memebers just saw OLD. So they jumped in their brand new cadillac, bought a new washer, dryer, and color TV, picked up their wives from the hairdresser, and determined that the look and feel of their golf courses had to be modernized. Their OLD courses simply had to be changed to look like new courses being built by RTJ, and that look dominated for 20 years or more.
Throw in Earth Day of 1970 and the tree lined fairways of Augusta, and millions of pine trees appeared to further obliterate the work done by the ODG's. My point is that the most significant changes to these courses were caused by club members, not the architects. And my home course has a man-made pond on 17 because the committee wanted a pond...
-
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.
Ian
While your last line is undoubtedly true, you still have to contend with the clients wishes, and if the clients views are haveily influenced by the moderns as JNC puts it, then surely your work is indeed constrained by previous standards that the client then expects ?
Niall
-
Bill,
Digging deeper, my opinon is that there were factors in the 50's and 60's (and 70's) that influenced those decisions to renovate, some hard to understand.
I do know first hand that in the 70's maintenance cost reduction was a paradigm shift and the highest part of the design triangle, whereas it might not have been when courses were originally designed.
I don't know earlier eras as much, but have told the story of the phone book ads in the 60's touting modern professional design and "elevated greens" as sales features. It appeared to me then that the "old look" had worn out to many people. And it may not be surprising that old courses were just "run down" to golfers of that era.
I surmise that clubs (and moreso munies) hadn't applied strict financial controls to the biz they were in as today. The classic courses may in some cases (certainly not the top end courses) just looked like crap after years of deferred and reduced maintenance and investment during and after the depression, WWII.
And, as I have hinted, just as perhaps the arts and crafts movement influenced 1920's design, I think Art Deco, streamlined trains, streamlined jets vs props, FLW and his Prairie Style, Mies and his spartan style, etc. all had their influence on golf design, too.
In other words, while at this momemt we think of the 1920's as the Golden Age, because of all we have seen, when you take into account what those in the 50's and 60's saw, and the sometimes moribund econonic environments (similar to now) its just possible that they viewed the same designs in a completely different light.
And, in both cases, lets not forget that on this forum, we tend to compare every golden age design with the top ten. In truth, not all were top 100 designs, and with reduced maintenance, they may not have looked like top 1000 designs.
-
You still have to contend with the clients wishes, and if the clients views are heavily influenced by the moderns as JNC puts it, then surely your work is indeed constrained by previous standards that the client then expects.
Niall,
The approvals process is a far bigger issue than client’s wishes. As for clients, they may have a strong opinion on length or maintenance but I’ve yet to meet a single client who expressed the desire to have a certain style.
I do spend a great deal of time explaining why I make the choices I do. I educate them on everything from style right through to hole design. I find by communicating all the ideas and by explaining why I made the choices I made I generally get a great deal of support.
-
Ian:
Of course I am the luckiest architect alive as far as finding good sites to work with, but there are not many projects we've worked on where permitting issues had a strong negative impact on the design. We had some fairly stringent restrictions at Stonewall, and at Lost Dunes; and Sebonack had a lot of them but it just pushed us down into a narrower envelope, we didn't have many issues at all in the area where the course is actually built, apart from the crazy greens drainage system. We've been working for years to get permission to do what we always wanted to do at The Renaissance Club, but that was more about politics and zoning than about environmental issues, really.
-
Sorry Tom, I disagree that the permit issues haven't had an strong negative issue.
Nor Cal.
Sorry to bring it up.
M
-
Tom,
I thought the final hole at High Pointe was altered due to enviornmental issues.
One of the projects I worked on took 22 routings and 12 years to obtain approval. The site wasn't that significant (river valley - warm water stream) - the head of an agency simply "hated golf on principle" (her exact word during a site walk to review the project) - and it went through the court system because the owner cared less about mthe oney and more about winning the fight with her. The routing was negatively affected by the process.
-
I was guided to the Linc Roden interview on this site from December of 2001 as being appropriate reading for this thread.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/lincoln-roden-december-2001/ (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/lincoln-roden-december-2001/)
Very interesting stuff!
Here is a cut and paste from that thread. It is worth a read.
When this course was built in 1927 and up until 1962 there was a rudimentary watering system. Outlets existed near each green and hoses were used to provide a bit of water. Jury rigs could be set up to water newly seeded areas. The whole course was hard and fast except after periods of heavy rain. Fairways and the rough turned light brown in the summer. Greens were very firm but not rock hard. The game was played with a lot of roll. To play at the highest levels it was necessary to work the ball, right to left, left to right, high shots and low shots, run shots and carry shots. On sloping fairways it was hard to keep the ball on the fairway. If the fairway sloped to the right, you would try to draw the ball into the hillside. A second shot from those hard, closely mown fairways could take a lot of spin if struck properly. If you were playing out of the rough you had to bounce and roll the ball onto the green because you could not spin the ball. Balls landing on the green would hold if well struck with the right trajectory and with spin, but otherwise would bounce over. Chips were extremely difficult on those hard and lightning-fast greens. With today’s overwatering on most courses, players don’t have to worry about the bounce and roll. Even on courses striving for the old standards, heavy rains can reduce the course to a soft bog with no bounce on the fairways or greens. The ultimate standards and the ultimate enjoyment of golf occur when the fairways and greens are really hard, and when only shots struck with the proper shape and maximum spin will stay in the fairways or stick on the greens!!! Those early greens had a lot of grain. No one verticut greens. Grain is very important to achieve these ideal conditions. I will address it in another question. May I remind you of a quote from Bob Jones in a letter he wrote to P.A. Ward-Thomas, Esq., dated October 31, 1961:
‘I cannot help being saddened by what you tell me of the changes in turf conditions at Lytham. I know I was shocked to observe the same changes at St. Andrews. If that sort of thing is happening to all British seaside golf, then, indeed, progress has been dearly bought.
‘When the Open was played at St. Anne’s a few years ago, it was obvious that something had happened to make it play much easier. I had thought at the time that this was no more than rain and an unaccustomed stillness. Apparently this was not so.
‘Although I did not feel this way in the beginning, I am happy now that I did not miss playing seaside golf when the greens were hard and unwatered and the fairways and putting surfaces like glass. Nothing resulting from man-made design can equal the testing qualities of such conditions.’ (Italics are Linc’s).
The modern pleasant over-watered fairways and greens result in an enjoyable experience for the mid and high handicappers, the majority of the memberships. But the better golfers can not experience the ultimate challenge unless the fairways and greens are hard and fast! One objective for the better golfers is to educate the other golfers on the joys of the greater challenge. With today’s equipment and soft course conditions, it is possible to score unbelievably well by hitting long, all-carry drives and all-carry short irons to the soft greens. That game is completely different from the one the architects knew in the 1920′s and earlier, and which the best golfers played.
-
Tom,
I thought the final hole at High Pointe was altered due to enviornmental issues.
One of the projects I worked on took 22 routings and 12 years to obtain approval. The site wasn't that significant (river valley - warm water stream) - the head of an agency simply "hated golf on principle" (her exact word during a site walk to review the project) - and it went through the court system because the owner cared less about mthe oney and more about winning the fight with her. The routing was negatively affected by the process.
Ian:
Indeed, the 18th at High Pointe (NLE) was adversely affected when the DNR field representative arbitrarily mandated a 25 foot "buffer" around the flagged wetland during his site visit after construction had started, turning an S-shaped hole into a Z. What I learned from that was to try and give environmental areas a wide berth in my routings so they wouldn't be compromised. That's a decision you can't make if your client is trying to jam as much housing onto the site as possible, but I haven't had too many clients like that.
I was not saying I was immune to dealing with environmental issues; but architects always talk about their worst stories as if every single project is compromised. On the contrary, at least half of the sites I've worked with had NO environmental areas which affected the routing, and only a couple of them have had major issues that limited the potential of the golf.
Merrill did try politely to point out that our project in Napa County was buggered completely by local zoning opposition, but that was really political, not environmental; the regulatory agencies seemed to be okay with everything we had proposed, at least up until the point the zoning case was decided.
-
but architects always talk about their worst stories as if every single project is compromised.
Point taken.
I do deal with the bugs and bunny people an awful lot up here.
-
Also, Brad Klein wrote a great article in the latest (March 11, 2011) Golfweek entitled "Breaking doen the design playbook" in which he touched on this very topic.
Some of the key points were the mindset of the modern player, which focuses on the aerial game. And the architects and Supers focuses on making the course interesting and alludes to requiring thinking before striking the ball. Brad touches on many of the ideas that Linc Roden seemed to be espousing, as well as Tom Paul in his IMO piece.
But how do we get the modern player to "buy in" to this concept?
EDIT...I found an online edition of this article (http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/mar/14/breaking-down-design-playbook/ (http://www.golfweek.com/news/2011/mar/14/breaking-down-design-playbook/))
-
Also, Brad Klein wrote a great article in the latest (March 11, 2011) Golfweek entitled "Breaking doen the design playbook" in which he touched on this very topic.
Some of the key points were the mindset of the modern player, which focuses on the aerial game. And the architects and Supers focuses on making the course interesting and alludes to requiring thinking before striking the ball. Brad touches on many of the ideas that Linc Roden seemed to be espousing, as well as Tom Paul in his IMO piece.
But how do we get the modern player to "buy in" to this concept?
The more people talk about the more traction it will get. I'm sure a lot of golfers don't even know there's a strategic school of course design, or the variety of strategic options employed by architects, beyond just "risk/rewaed" holes.
Getting the announcers on national broadcasts to better articulate hole strategy would help.
One other thought I had (and someone please post the forum link since it appears every topic has been covered since 2002) is to have an onlice GCA Scorecard for every course, kind of like a rating site, but with a hole by hole breakdown of the strategic merits of a course. The scorecard would rank each hole based on its merits. When people search the web, they'd find links to the GCA scorecard. They could then read a strategic breakdown of the course they are going to/have played. Over time, the GCA Scorecard database would grow. Golfers reading it would learn. And if they find value in it, they would start trying to get their courses rated higher.
Dave
-
A picture is worth a thousand words:
(http://i54.tinypic.com/2i8yt8o.jpg)
I think i read somewhere on here that there have been many versions of golf course architecture taxonomies developed over the years. One of the interviews with Linc Roden http://www.golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/lincoln-roden-december-2001/ (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/lincoln-roden-december-2001/) includes a mini-version of this with the William Flynn's ideal complete course challenge. I'm sure others must have come up with the list of features that make up the qualities of a course.
With that as a starting point I see this as a sort of online golf course rater that would allow knowledgeable raters to easily rate a course based on its features then use those ratings to derive an overall GCA Score.
The score is artificial, of course, as are the ratings to large extent. But, ranking of the courses that would come of out isn't really the objective. The real objective is to grow awareness of the value of the architectural/strategic qualities of courses. By rating courses by how they embody those values, and encouraging people to talk about the relative merits of those values especially on courses they know and play, I think you might be able to move the needle.
And by you I mean if the tools were there, you the people on this board could be the army that goes out there and tap-tap-taps away on their iPhones to build up this quality GCA Scorecard database that would be the heart of this type of solution.
Dave
-
Dave...
I think you've got a really good idea here. I wonder if we could start from a more macro standpoint (courses) and work our way down to the micro (holes).
We talk all the time about golf course architecture, but this IMO piece and the Linc Roden article seem to really embrace maintenance. And it seems blatantly obvious that poor or improper maintenance practices (and under-educated greens committees and future rennovations of a golf course) can ruin the original architectural intent.
Along these lines, what courses embody both these principals on the maintenance and architectural intent criteria?
I'll mention Seminole first. Fast and firm. Hard/firm greens. Brown is not taboo. Which is great and what it seems like we are after. But check this out. I've played it and talked to lots of non-architectural guru golfers who've played it...and the first thing they say is how ugly it is. This won't fly with modern US golfer. Thoughts?
-
Mac,
The image sizing cuts off my notes on the side. i'll see if I can fix that. But thebidea is exactly as you describe, start at the micro, the holes, then roll up to the macro, the courses.
As far as the modern golfer describing the course as ugly, well, that's the heart of the problem isn't it? What we're advocating here is a paradigm shift. It's going to take a lot to do that, and some people will never make the change.
Take me as an example of some of the people out there. I love golfing for the golf. I've played enough courses to know I like some more than others. However, I don't have enough knowledge about what makes one course different than another, or put another way, I don't have a language to talk about the differences to effectively articulate what I like and don't like. Until now....
This site, Shackleford's book, like resources have fostered that paradigm shift for me. I probably would have siad Seminole was ugly too. Now I know that fast and firm means golf at its most challenging. Big difference. Paradigm shift. And I figure if you can connect with me, there's got to be a lot more people out there who would grab onto this paradigm and run with it.
I'll try to put together a liilte prototype app so you can see how this GCA Scorecard might look.
Dave
-
As far as the modern golfer describing the course as ugly, well, that's the heart of the problem isn't it?
David, yes...I think that is one of the big problems with this idea. I am with you and your thoughts thus far. I look forward to seeing your next post on this.
-
David:
Your scorecard reminds me of an article I read in the paper in Myrtle Beach years ago, where a developer announced he was building his new course with the specific intention of qualifying for the GOLF DIGEST 100 Greatest Courses, and to be sure they would make it, his architect [name withheld] was carrying around the GOLF DIGEST criteria in his back pocket! I wondered when he decided he needed to add a bit more aesthetics or more memorability to the third hole, how he would go about that, but I didn't write in.
My point is, golf course architecture is NOT paint by numbers. It's a fine exercise to try and analyze what makes the great courses tick, but it's ridiculous to build a golf course by trying to tick all the boxes. So, enjoy your scorecard exercise, but at the end of the day, throwing away the scorecard and having fun out there is what it's really about.
-
Tom, of course you are right. But I am interested in hearing David's ideas in more detail. I suppose I am more interested in how we achieve this paradigm shift for the average golfer in regards to what is a better maintenance standard (and I suppose an architectural standard as well) for fun and exciting golf.
In a nutshell, how to we get the golfer to see that this...
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/seminole4-1.jpg)
is better than this...
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/IWCelebrity2.jpg)
Or maybe even better yet...can that even be done? And what if the average golfer prefers golfing at the second place better. Frankly, it is a distinct possibility. And if that is the case, aren't we just beating our heads against the wall?
-
In a nutshell, how to we get the golfer to see that this...
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/seminole4-1.jpg)
is better than this...
(http://i651.photobucket.com/albums/uu239/mplumart/IWCelebrity2.jpg)
Or maybe even better yet...can that even be done? And what if the average golfer prefers golfing at the second place better. Frankly, it is a distinct possibility. And if that is the case, aren't we just beating our heads against the wall?
Mac:
There are two parts to that answer.
The first part is that, all things being equal, most people would prefer to be out on the second course.
The second part is that all things are not equal. The maintenance costs for the second course are probably 50% higher than the first ... so the green fee should also be 50% higher. So, you need to ask if the golfers really want to pay 50% more. Free-market types insist that demand has resulted in more and more lavish conditions, but this is not really the case ... golfers have NOT been given the option of keeping green fees low and foregoing higher expenditures on maintenance, management makes these decisions for them and the golfers just haven't walked away.
Also, the environmental costs of the second course are probably more than 50% higher, which may someday be solved by regulation driven by non-golfers.
-
Mac:
How do those two golf courses compare in look on the same day of any given season?
-
How or why was the reaction after WWI any different than WWII?
The question was asked a number of times why post WWII was different from WWI.
I spent last night talking with my father about London post war. Dad said that prior to the Second World War Britain still held an enormous amount of assets throughout the world. For example they still owned the railroad system in South American and many assets accumulated throughout the British Empire. He described Britain as still being a very wealthy country after the first war and prior to the second war.
My father talked about how Britain had to sell every single asset it had to fight the war. He talked about the fact that England was already out of money by the time the Battle of Britain came around and still needed an enormous amount of resources to fight the war. They sold of every asset they had and then began to borrow at a very steady stream from the US. By the end of the war they had accumulated an enormous debt to the US.
Dad mentioned that Britain was essentially bankrupt at the end of the war. Rationing took place right up to 1952 because they had trouble getting food and coal. He talked about the coal strike in 1947 and the cold snap in 1946 (Thames ever froze over) as the worst two events he can remember. He said what destroyed the country was all the industry was smashed by the bombing and by the end of the war all the capacity had gone elsewhere. Shipbuilding was in Sweden, the steel mills were in the US. They quite literally lost everything.
The kicker for Britain was they now had this massive debt to repay and that held the country back for nearly two decades as they floundered under the debt and unions. The US had assumed much of Britain’s production and was also getting payments that helped spruce the economy. The Americans had the boom in the 1950’s.
-
David:
Your scorecard reminds me of an article I read in the paper in Myrtle Beach years ago, where a developer announced he was building his new course with the specific intention of qualifying for the GOLF DIGEST 100 Greatest Courses, and to be sure they would make it, his architect [name withheld] was carrying around the GOLF DIGEST criteria in his back pocket! I wondered when he decided he needed to add a bit more aesthetics or more memorability to the third hole, how he would go about that, but I didn't write in.
My point is, golf course architecture is NOT paint by numbers. It's a fine exercise to try and analyze what makes the great courses tick, but it's ridiculous to build a golf course by trying to tick all the boxes. So, enjoy your scorecard exercise, but at the end of the day, throwing away the scorecard and having fun out there is what it's really about.
Tom,
What I'm suggesting here isn't intended to be prescriptive. (though, if it were successful enough that architects carried the list in their pocket, wouldn't that be a victory?)
Instead, I'm suggesting that we attack the problem of GCA appreciation with an approach that is, descriptive, accessible, understandable, scalable, and relevant.
This site already meets many of these goals. The long form course reviews, IMO, and discussion group threads are very rich sources of material. But at the end of the day, detailed reviews of the best of the best are only relevant with a small portion of the golfing population. Granted, many of those are thought leaders, and given what happened at Pinehurst, the paradigm shift has happened for some of them. But for the average Joe, not only will they never play Pine Valley or NGLA, they've never heard of them, nor appreciate or care about their significance then or now.
What they do know is the course they play on Tuesday, the local public courses, a couple of private courses, and the public/resort courses in Myrtle Beach/Hilton Head. They also are familiar with the big tournament courses, but only from TV. I think I read on this site an interview with a gentleman who has a perfect record of playing every course on some top 100 list. The folks I'm suggesting we target, like me, also have a perfect record; we've played 0 of the top 100.
That doesn't mean they/we don't aspire to play or emulate the top courses. Quite the contrary. The best of the best set the standard.
What I'm proposing in a GCA Scorecard is a scalable, relevant tool to connect the dots from the abstract qualities embodied in the best courses to the reality of the courses average Joe's play every day. To be relevant, you need to drive down to courses average people play. You also need a format that relates the best to the rest in a consistent manner. To be scalable, which means to have a practical chance of capturing the data, you need something that is easy to create (from a data perspective).
Keep in mind that scorecard comparisons are the norm today. Unfortunately there are only four metrics: Par, Yardage, Rating, and Slope. I think everyone on this site wants to get beyond the perverse strategic incentives those metrics drive. But without an alternative, how? Is this that alternative? I'm proposing that yes, it could be, and not only that, but it is a doable alternative that the participants on this site could use to drive the actual change in paradigm down into the public.
For as persausive as the people on this site are, you are only going to get so many converts from people like me trying to find out who the hell Devereux Emmet is, and why should I care enough to join a club designed by him?
(and for the record, I have played Manele and soon will play Rustic Canyon . So much for perfection, top 100 public course list!)
-
David:
As you noted, golfers today do a different sort of scorecard comparison when trying to assess the quality of a course, and that's had an effect on the business of golf course design -- a bad one. It's the reason nearly every developer insists on a 7,000-yard course even though hardly anyone wants to play a course from 7,000 yards.
We don't need more false idols. The problem with golf course architecture is that the business is being driven by people who don't really appreciate the full spectrum of golf, handing out too many instructions to the guys who should. So, I will sit back and listen to your ideas, but don't be surprised if I come back later to tell you it's not working.
-
Classic architecture is based on rules, order and clarity. Straight lines and symmetry are favored over natural curves; strict proportions and defined volumes are favored over randomness. The Renaissance was a resurgence of the classical aesthetic. The golf architecture of the so-called Golden Age is the antithesis of classical architecture. Is the Renaissance movement in golf architecture an appropriate label?
-
Tom,
I gather you've never been known as sparing with your opinion. (and the fact that a world-renowned architect and a past president of the ASGCA, among others, have deigned to engage in coversation with a newbie you don't know from Adam speaks volumes to the class and character of this site and the values embodied in Golf. My jaws bruised from hitting the floor about that!)
As far as false idols: which would you rather have, a demand for 7,000 from the tips, or 8 on the strategy scale? (it's not clear what the answer is, btw). Neither, however, is not an option.
Dave
-
Tom,
As far as false idols: which would you rather have, a demand for 7,000 from the tips, or 8 on the strategy scale? (it's not clear what the answer is, btw). Neither, however, is not an option.
Dave
That's probably what Dr. Stimpson said ... what harm can it do to measure green speed?
-
Brings up a point from one of your other posts Tom. I wonder how much the outsize weight placed on distance in the slope/ratings calculation has affected the golf course manhood measurement syndrome.....Kind of puts an exponential weight on distance in the sense that it's implicitly double or triple counted....
-
Tom,
As far as false idols: which would you rather have, a demand for 7,000 from the tips, or 8 on the strategy scale? (it's not clear what the answer is, btw). Neither, however, is not an option.
Dave
That's probably what Dr. Stimpson said ... what harm can it do to measure green speed?
Exactly my point, sort of. Everyone understands that more is better, and then wants it. So if you want people to value strategy, measure it. Then people will demand more of it.
-
How or why was the reaction after WWI any different than WWII?
The question was asked a number of times why post WWII was different from WWI.
I spent last night talking with my father about London post war. Dad said that prior to the Second World War England still held an enormous amount of assets throughout the world. For example they still owned the railroad system in South American and many assets accumulated throughout the British Empire. He described England as still being a very wealthy country after the first war and prior to the second war.
My father talked about how England had to sell every single asset it had to fight the war. He talked about the fact that England was already out of money by the time the Battle of Britain came around and still needed an enormous amount of resources to fight the war. They sold of every asset they had and then began to borrow at a very steady stream from the US. By the end of the war they had accumulated an enormous debt to the US.
Dad mentioned that England was essentially bankrupt at the end of the war. Rationing took place right up to 1952 because they had trouble getting food and coal. He talked about the coal strike in 1947 and the cold snap in 1946 (Thames ever froze over) as the worst two events he can remember. He said what destroyed the country was all the industry was smashed by the bombing and by the end of the war all the capacity had gone elsewhere. Shipbuilding was in Sweden, the steel mills were in the US. They quite literally lost everything.
The kicker for England was they now had this massive debt to repay and that held the country back for nearly two decades as they floundered under the debt and unions. The US had assumed much of England’s production and was also getting payments that helped spruce the economy. The Americans had the boom in the 1950’s.
Ian,
Hopefully I won't seem churlish if I point out to you that it was Britain and not England who "owned" the British Empire and subsequently took on the debt with America, which by the way was only finally paid off either last year or the year before.
I'm no historian either so can't really comment on the post war years in the UK but I suspect that many other countries took a while to get back on their feet as well. The US would have been better placed than most as I imagine their investment in the war was probably a lot less in percentage terms of GDP compared to others. I could be wrong in that and somehow it also seems wrong to think of something as horrible as war in financial terms but there you go.
Niall
-
Niall,
Fixed with appologies.
-
Niall,
Fixed with appologies.
None needed. I'm now going to visit my mother to quiz her about what happened after the war. Lucky her !
Niall
-
Everyone understands that more is better, and then wants it. So if you want people to value strategy, measure it. Then people will demand more of it.
David,
It's not that simple.
For example a breather hole has an enormous positive impact when well placed in a routing.
Yet individually, it may be called the weak hole because people can't understand the bigger picture.
I don't know how to explain this but I'll try...
Strategy does not have to involve a defined test.
I find most people need "something" to define the strategy in order to declare it strategic.
Some of my favourite holes involve strategic play in advance of the real test and most call that an undefined shot.
-
Ian,
You make a good point. One way to handle the breather question is to include a hole quality called "breather" that bumps up the value of a hole with, as I like to think of it, lower density of features.
I'll always agree that a qualitative analysis of a golf course cannot be replaced. I'll also agree that it is madness to try to fully deconstruct what makes golf and a course great.
What am I suggesting to the folks here is that with tools and technology that are readily available, you could use the power of quantitative comparisons to further the paradigm shift, and move along a counter narrative.
And, of course it might be fun.
Dave