[Paul_Turner]

When you read one of these what are you primarily looking for in terms of subject matter and balance.  Should the architect's work be the most important aspect?  Or do you think a study on the architect's personality is just as important?    

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I think both. Did you read what Brad Klein said about that regarding the "unmined material" of MacDonald's personality and others he lived amongst and dealt with in Bahto's book?

It's important to understand WHAT they did in detail but it's just as important to understand WHY and HOW they did it too. And for the latter one should try to get into the way they thought back then and the way the were and very much the time they lived in obviously unaffected by what came later but only to the extent that they may NEVER have imagined what was to come! Many things the future held they did imagine, though, and sometimes with mindboggling prescience, and that too is interesting and worthy of reporting.

[Jeff Mingay]

I agree with Tom.

I love George's book, but one thing I was disappointed by, was the lack of information on Macdonald's life away from golf. How did he make his fortune, for example? I didn't find that in the book.

On the flip side, Jim Barclay's Toronto Terror bio. features too much on Stanley Thompson's background and personal life, and not enough info. about his golf architecture, and his best courses.

To strike a balance is ideal, which I think Brad did nicely with his Donald Ross tome.

[Paul_Turner]

Thanks chaps.

I think I would hedge towards the courses, personally.  For example I'd have liked to learn more about Reddish Vale, Halifax et al in Tom Doak's book.

Tom P,  with Flynn I imagine that you have so much material on his courses that some of this might have to be left out if you write much about the man.

How many courses can reasonably covered in a single book?

[RJ_Daley]

Yes, it would be good to have more biographies of these interesting people that designed our great courses.  I would even like to see the short bios that are found in the back of Cornish and Whitten's book updated to give some backround on newer architects and designers that have come into some noteriety since the book was written.  

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Flynn really didn't do that many courses so that's not a problem. But finding out things about the personal man is proving remarkably ellusive which seems strange for a guy who apparently had quite a dynamic personality.

Maybe his daughter sort of said it best--that he was a guy who was a wonderful father and family man and then there was his job and he really didn't mix or combine one with the other.

He sure didn't promote himself like many of his contemporaries did. There could be an interesting reason for that though!  And although he apparently had some very strong opinions about things and architecture he was quite reserved about expressing them forcefully.

He may have been about as different from C.B. MacDonald in his public persona as one could find.

He seemed to be very precise and detailed in his work and then he just went home, so to speak. Things like his daredevil penchant are interesting, though, but the most interesting of all to me is how he sort of merged into the world he worked in and the people he came in contact with there. The spectrum of people he came in contact with in architecture was about as wide as one could find in America and it appears he sort of treated them all the same!

His relationship with his client list seems pretty interesting though.

[BCrosby]

I agree with the above. All the recent archie biographies are good. I've bought and enjoyed all of them. I hope more are published. How about one on, say, Flynn?

I do have one reservation, however. I would like to see more detail about the creative process. It would be nice to read more about how a specific routing evolved. Or the design of a specific green complex. Perhaps that kind of historical data is not available. Maybe too many of the participants are now dead. Maybe notes were not kept. But I wish there were a way to get closer to the thought processes of these remarkable men.

Writing on golf architecture is frequently bi-polar. It seems to swing from the very wide focus - "[Archie name] designed courses that were strategic and fun for players of all levels" - to the very close focus -  "The bunker edges were planted in fescue."  

I wish there were more meat in the middle. I wish specific questions were raised like - What was Ross thinking with the bunkers short of the green on #4 at Seminole? Where else might one find similar approach bunkers? What do other variations on the theme say about what Ross's design objectives? How are they related (or not) to his foreshortening bunkers? How does this set him apart from his contemporaries? Who copied these features? Where might he have gotten the idea? Etc.

The golden agers had distinct styles. Their courses are recognizable. It follows, I think, that they also had different ideas about strategy and shot options. Each thought about design differently.

One way of getting at their thought processes would be to develop a clearer sense of the distinctiveneess of these designers. A truly great biography will give a rounded view of an archie's indivdual slant on strategy by showing how it played out on the ground across his different courses and how it is different from other great archies before and after.

I hope authors will resist using bromides like "[Name] is a strategic designer." Instead, have a non-trivial thesis (for example -"[Name]'s genius was to use features such as _______, and his use of these features set him apart from his contemporaries for the following reasons.") and argue for the thesis with examples from his work. My guess is that this approach would change the structure of how you do a biography. Rather than discuss his work course by course, you might want to discuss it by using exemplary holes. (I think George's book does a good job of this, but then MacD is more amendable to this apporach than, say, a Ross.) Use more photos or drawings by other archies (predecessors, contemporaries and proteges) for contrast and comparison. Open up the disussion to other designers outside the subject of the bio.

I fully appreciate how hard it is to write these bios. They are important books to have on the shelf. They are also indispensable resouces. Just some thoughts about where serious writing on gca might go from here.

Bob  

[Fred_C.]

Paul,

It was great meeting you at the USGA library last week!

Bob took the words right out of my mouth.  A good bio is a blend of the person's work and life.  I would say to err a bit on the side of the person's work (60%).  I also like the idea of graphics:  photos, drawings, images of what influenced the person, and how the person influenced others.

Yours,

Fred C.

[Tim Weiman]

BCrosby:

I agree with your point about the "creative process". It is a big gap in the literature.

The best example I know where attention was devoted to his aspect was the Fazio/Wynn book about Shadow Creek. I understand Tom Doak has also addressed the creative process in his manuscript about Pacific Dunes. Let's hope it is not too long before something gets published.

As for the evolution of a golf club - not the course - I really enjoy Jim Finnegan's latest Pine Valley history. David Goddard's book about Maidstone, though a little dry, does a nice job detailing how both the golf course and the club evolved.

[TEPaul]

Bob Crosby:

Man, was that a good post of yours. If someone is thinking of doing a book on an architect your post may be about the most printoutable I've seen on Golfclubatlas since I got here the first day the site came on the Internet. Unfortunately, a lot of the things you'd like to know (and me too) about some of the thinking on the specifics of individual holes and courses from some of the old guys is almost impossible to find, so you really do need the research and also some very well reasoned deductions.

[Tom Doak]

Bob Crosby:

Unfortunately neither Ross or MacKenzie (or any other architect I know of) ever wrote down "what they were thinking" when they placed bunkers and contoured greens ... if indeed they were on site to make those decisions!

A biography is supposed to be an historical work and shouldn't contain speculation by the author, in my opinion.  I certainly have some ideas about what MacKenzie might have been doing, and I'm sure that Brad Klein is better armed than anyone to speculate about Ross, but a biography is not the place for that.

Likewise, Paul T., I did not think it was appropriate to make too much of some of MacKenzie's smaller, early works for two reasons:

a)  it would put too much emphasis on those MacKenzie courses I happened to have seen, and somehow dismiss the rest as "less important," and

b)  there is much less historical information available about how involved MacKenzie was in those courses, so I might be making light of features which weren't really his!  (Some in Australia have taken me to task on this for including Yarra Yarra in my book, which apparently wasn't even considered as a project by Alex Russell until after MacKenzie's departure.)

[Paul_Turner]

Tom D

I recently found a few, fine vintage pics of North England courses by Mac.  One is of a truly wild green at Morecambe and another of Rhoundhay (Leeds) showing a classic Mackenzie greenside bunker and perhaps the man himself on the green.  I'll try and copy sometime and post here.  Templenewsham in the 50s looked pretty good too.

I like the look of Halifax (heard good reviews too): unusual with some interesting strategy around moorland streams.  How much of this course is Mac's though?  I thought it was  his, but I noticed in your book you have it under redesign and only two holes at that.

[ian]

Be careful what you wish for. The more I found out about Walter Travis the person, the more difficult it was to be a fan of his architecture. Simply put, he was not a nice man; but this also may have been vital to the fact that he was a great match play player. Was his personality responsible for the bold architecture, probably since he was convinced he knew more than anyone else on the subject.

[Steve Wilson]

Ian Andrew:

In regard to Travis being an unattractive personality.  Are you familiar with an often anthologized short story "Dormie One" by Holworthy Hall.  The depiction of its protagonist, Hargrave, immediately brought Travis to mind when I reread it.  

  As your knowledge of Travis is obviously greater than mine, I would be interested in your impression of Hargrave as a stand in for Travis.  If you don't know the story, it can be found in a paperback "Classic Golf Stories" editied by Jeff Silverman.

[BCrosby]

Tom Doak -

I disagree that you should avoid speculation in a biography. With your experience as an architect, your knowledge of MacK and your natural eloquence, I can think of no one better positioned to speculate about MacK. I implore you to do so. I think that is what I missed in your very fine bio. I never thought I would say this to you of all people, but don't be so #@*#@ humble.

A biography of Jane Austen was published a couple of years ago. Austen left very little biographical information. Her brothers and sisters burned her letters. She never married and died very young. We know her birth and death dates, her novels and 5 surviving letters.

Claire Tomalin's bio was a tour de force. Won every literary prize around. Virtually the entire biogrpahy consisted of informed, reasoned speculation about Austen's life. Even if her papers are magically discovered someday and Tomalin's speculations turn out to be flat wrong, anyone who read the book learned lots about Austen's world and how it was incorporated into her novels. Get the book. Even if you have no interest in Austen (and you should) it is an object lesson in how informed, responsible speculation can deepen our understanding of a subject and make for a damn good biography.

TEP -

I had you and Wayne in mind when I referred to an archie's notes and drawings. No one left a better written record than Flynn. I'm sure there are gaps, but Flynn left much more than most. Use the hell out of them and when the historical record runs out, indulge in the same "informed, responsible speculation" I urged on Tom Doak above.

As Tom D is an expert on MacK, no one will know more about  Flynn than you and Wayne. You are our best guides to his creative process. Don't keep your speculations under a bushel basket.

If you do the hard, honest work of historical research, you earn the right to speculate (to the extent consistent with the known facts, of course).

More generally, I think the archie bios to date have seen their main task to be the collection of info on their subject's lives and works. No one had done this important work before. TD, Brad, George and others have done a wonderful job organizing and preserving all that information. God bless 'em. And I love their books.

But there is a second act to these things. And part of the next act will be to develop deeper insight into the work of these archies, figure out who influenced whom, identify strong points, weak points, etc. In short, the next stage should reflect the same kind of scholarship that surrounds any art form. That's the direction I hope archie bios take in the future.

Again, just some thoughts.

Bob

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I agree with Bob, most historical accounts involve a certain amount of speculation and who better to speculate than someone who is emmersed in the research and the subject matter. I don't care how talented a researcher you might be, there are going to be gaps that cry out for an attempt to connect the dots in an honest and thoughtful way.

As far as uncovering the darker side of these men, I personally think that is important. How can you understand their architecture and their influences and their mind set, if you ingnore their idiosyncrasies. I want to know if Travis was a bastard. I want to know that RTJ broke off from Thompson because he was concerned there wouldn't be enough funds to get him back from Brazil. I want to know if Tillinghast had a drinking problem. I want to know if Willie Park went mad or if Crump took his own life. I want to know that MacKenzie and Alison were only in Australia and Japan for a very short time.

When I first started seriously looking into the history of the Ohio State GC I learned a valuable lesson. I went in wanting to believe a certain preconcieved story involving MacKenzie, but as dug I found that the truth was a much more interesting than my original ideas.

As far biographies are concerned I think you have to come up with a ballance between the personality and the work. That ballance might vary from architect to architect depending on what is available, obviously the bottom line is making the story interesting and entertaining.

[George Bahto]

I have a lot of information I promised I would not write about

[TEPaul]

George:

Well then that's different and that's understandable. Again, the book is terrific.

Bob Crosby:

I couldn't agree with you more that an author should have some latitude to speculate. Not really liking that word much I would say the authors have a good right and reason to make "assumptions" when they're light on absolute documentary evidence.

I think Wayne and I are very interested in this aspect--very interested, and hope to be very definite about it for two reasons. We certainly have been talking a lot about this aspect recently.

First, we think too many architecural analysts pass off their "speculation" and their "assumptions" (when documentation is lacking) as real conclusion. We think that's wrong and ultimately will become maddeningly misleading in the future (as it has in the past and the present).

Second, we think there's much of interest in all this which should be mentioned. We plan to make the best case we can on various issues and ideas and where we don't have solid documentation or proof we plan to say; "This is our supposition, this is our assumption", and then the reader can decide for himself what he thinks about that.

I don't think there's a thing wrong with that method, it's a more honest presentation for the reader and it let's us say some of the things we'd like to say--some of the things we might think but probably can never prove.

[Michael Dugger]

I would like to know what was wrong with Walter Travis.  Was he a racist??  Could he have been more of a loudmouth than Charles Blair Macdonald?  

[Brian Phillips]

I have to agree with Tom Doak here.  I don't think any biographer should ever speculate if he or she is wanting to write an honest account about the person.  If you can't find the facts then you should never assume what has happened.

A writer can give an opinion how he or she has understood a situation but that must be followed up by sound reasoning.  I really like what George has done with his book as well as Tom with the MacKenzie book.  

Paul,

If you do eventually get around to writing the book we have talked about I would be very careful about speculation.  Books are forever and it is very important that what is written is factual.  We saw last year how speculation caused arguements about the designer of a certain course which is still not resolved (in my eyes).

Cheers

Brian.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Brian
There are many historical facts that remain mysteries. Was Shakespeare the actual writer of 'his' works? Did Jefferson have a slave mistress? How were the pyramids constructed?What happened at Bethpage?

I don't think there was anything wrong with the specualtion of last summer. In the intitial speculation many new facts were presented; we all gained from that. It also stimulated further research, which resulted in more facts being exposed. And I'm sure more information will be unearthed in the future. We may not know the answer today, but we sure know a lot more today than we did a year ago. And the research continues, I'll speculate that we will know the truth by the time the next Open comes to Bethpage.

In my mind the key is presenting as much information as possible and trying to provide ballance. That way the reader can form his own educated opinion based on the information. Clearly pointing out the gaps allows others to focus their research and hopefully those gaps will close.

There are quite a few mysteries surrounding the history of golf architecture. Did MacKenzie use Raynor's routing at CPC? Why did Colt and MacKenzie sever ties? Who did what at PV? How did Crump die? What was Bobby Jones role at ANGC? Are #2's crowned greens the result of years of top dressing? Well reasoned and well researched speculation on these mysteries is healthy, it leads to further well reasoned and well researched specualtion, and eventually the facts. As long as the author does so in a ballanced, clear and responsible way, and I don't think there is anything wrong with a little specualtion. Isn't that an important part of documenting history?

[ForkaB]

I fully agree with Bob and Tom MacW.  The more "connecting the dots" and speculation the better (as long as it is all properly acknowledged for what it is).  If they did so, the authors even might just expand their paying audience to include people like me........

[TEPaul]

Rich said:

"The more "connecting the dots" and speculation the better (as long as it is all properly acknowledged for what it is)."

That's the key to me. Speculation is OK as long as it's clear to any reader of the book that that's what it is--speculation!

Also, that the so-called "connecting the dots" is done really diligently. It's just amazing to me in some research I've seen here and there on a few courses that the researcher/writer may be looking at the "dots" but often misses them for what they are and what they mean and consequently proper "connecting of the dots" kind of goes down the tubes and he at times might proceed off on a wild goose chase of speculation, assumption and even conclusion. And then the worst happens--people reading his book tend to take what he says as documented fact and the inaccuracy remains until someone else comes along someday and disproves it properly.

There are some great (unfortunate) examples of that but it would be too touchy to mention them on here (although none have a thing to do with anyone on this website).

[JC_MERTZ]

Just a quick thought on this one...my friend,  the late great Desmond Muirhead, offered the best in philosophical inspiration for his designs. This is best studied in his renowned writings for "Executive Golfer". (See web site.) Perhaps the vast knowledge he possessed is equally attributed to study of pyschology, philosophy and art as it relates to golf course design. Manifestation of a great golf course is, at the very least, an intellectual pursuit at its conception. Therefore, the results must equal the mentality of the process...Namaste.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()