[Ronan_Branigan]

George C. Thomas and Dr. Alister MacKenzie predicted that the future would yield greater advancement in design. They felt that greater improvement in construction techniques and a better educated golfing fraternity would allow for unprecedented developments in the design of golf courses. They believed that golfers would embrace the rugged beauty of nature in the future designs. They predicted greater subtlety and naturalness. Have recent courses such as Sand Hills reversed the table in architecture back to basics. Does golf architecture require a revolution?

[TEPaul]

Ronan Branigan (Nice Irish name you have!);

In my opinion there will never be a revolution in all golf architecture to that. But I think a renaissance has been happening for almost ten years and it's building. But at the most optimistic it will only ever capture a slice of architecture, I think.

I do believe the ones who are doing it now, are in a way going back to the philosophies of Thomas and MacKenzie (as you said) and trying to pick up in some ways where they left off and may be even trying to experiment with what those guys hoped and dreamed about when architecture progressed in the future.

The oddity was the hiatus though--maybe almost sixty years. But I think the hiatus is over now but only for a slice of golf architecture, at most.

"Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there's room in it for everyone."

[A_Clay_Man]

Just by asking the question, it in someway is a given. Kind of like the newest regional slang I've heard: "If you have to ask, you are". In response to that age old slow play causing question, "Who's away?".

I wish our resident litigator could expouse on the facts of whether or not there is a change in trend taking place by using GW's "top 100" list as evidence. It is apparent to me, anyway, that a close examination of said modern list will show a surge in the courses that are at least returning to the characteristic of the "classics". Places like the aforementioned Sand Hills and it's south eastern sister, Wild Horse, along with Pacific dunes and friars head and rustic canyon etc etc etc. Will and have shown this trend change to be self evident.

Now, what are you going to do if you happen to be one of the venues built in the last sixty years or as I will call it the period of unenlightenment? IMO, There's only one thing that will save you from being on the wrong side of the mountain and that is a complete and total embraceing of the "MAINTENANCE MELD(tm)"

[brad_miller]

I agree with TP, hopefully a small but growing slice. Don't think the people that rate for Golf Digest feel that way though , just look at their best of 2002 lists. Maybe when the Golf Week modern list contains more of the works such as Pac Dunes, Sand Hills, Friar's Head, Rustic Canyon and on and on more will take notice. Also since people like Tom Doak are doing much of their work overseas it's time for a best Modern non US list, must think that this can't but help the cause.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

I agree with Brad and tom Paul too and feel this is real progress. Notwithstanding even as we pass a so called 10 year mark, the average golfer has yet to be able to quantify or in most cases even acknowledge what we are talking about. I do hope as more and more courses that are part of the slice are built where comparison and choices may be made that the slice will grow and grow to maybe the point of revolution but probably not.

[redanman]

No.

Golf architecture is at a point of divergence.  There are two distinctly different almost diametrically opposed branches of "What constitutes Good".

This is not a good thing.

I always go back to my nouveau-riche Colorado friend who is a member of THE Estancia as well as THE Preserve at Carmel (And CPGC no "THE").   After spending 3 days at Sand Hills he proclaimed it the most boring course he had ever played as all the holes looked the same.  The same guy loves the $1M (Now $2M) flower budget at THE Vintage Club.

For every Kenny Bakst, there are these guys, too.

Which faction will win out?  

[TEPaul]

redanman:

I was buying your last post in toto until you included Pat Mucci in it on the wrong side--or should I say the right side? Maybe it should be rightly on the wrong side or wrongly on the right side.

Oh well, I'm sure you get the picture--you've got your FACTS wrong!

The man is a modern age sympathizer in our midst, a spy and a undercover terrorist against all that's pure in classic architecture--he's recommended redesigning even NGLA--he defends the most egregious of modern age architects from our merciless bashing of them. He believes in "fairness" in architecture (even if that only appears to mean towards architects), he believes in "formulaics" in design, he argues with Tom Doak all the time and occasionally says mean things about Coore and Crenshaw!

Get your facts straight redanman or you'll be hung from the Treehouse by your toes!

[redanman]

redanman:

blah, blah, blah, etc

Noted and so modified.  I am too big to survive longitudinal traction via the toes!

[Doug Wright]

BillV/Redanman,

Just who is this "nouveau-riche Colorado friend"?  Lemme know, and me and my cousins Vinny and Guido'll go over and teach him a thing r two aboud reality and golf club architecture!  

All The Best,

[redanman]

Douggie:

As for the I.D., no can do.

I have tried to educate him, though.  That's all friends can do!

[Doug Wright]

Just kiddin BillyV. Hence the  

All The Best,

[Brian Phillips]

Watch this name in the next ten years.  Ronan is studying with me in Scotland doing the M.Sc. in GCA.  He is a gifted writer, a damn good golfer and his father is an architect in Ireland.  he loves architecture and I think he could go onto be one of the best...if he dares leave his beloved Ireland to work!!

Good post, mate.

No, I don't think it needs a revolution.  Possibly, the only problem with courses like Sand Hill, Pacific Dunes and the like are that they are so bloody far away from the major public.  If the courses had been built in say Florida then everybody who plays golf not just us archie mad people would be talking about them.  How many normal golfers have heard of Sand Hills or Pacific Dunes?

Is the reason Kingsbarns has done so well in the rankings so quickly because it is a well designed course (which it is in it's own special way) or has good marketing and being in the golfing mecca helped it's public status.

Cheers

Brian.

[Tim Weiman]

Brian Phillips:

Interesting point. Most people haven't heard of Sand Hills or even Pacific Dunes.

But, I don't mind a journey to get to a treasure. All the better!


Ronan Branigan:

Not sure golf architecture needs a revolution. Not even sure what that is. But, here in the States we do need more fun courses that don't require an arm and leg to play. That's why you see people praise Rustic Canyon so much. By contrast, if you look at something like The Old Head (and leave the disappointing architecture aside), how many locals can afford to play it?

[RJ_Daley]

Ronan, perhaps what was meant by the old master's notions of technical advancement in construction techniques and capabilities to produce better designs that embraced rugged beauty of nature through greater subtlety to interface with naturalness - was not what had eventually developed in the over use of the advananced contruction capabilities.  In that I mean, once new architects were able to avail themselves to the high capacity equipment, they took it in the wrong direction.  They started moving massive amounts of earth and constructing waterfalls and unnatural features that didn't harmonize with the natrural surrounds, just because they could and they could be marketed to folks that were led to believe more is better, most is best.  They used these advances to create isolated versions of their ideas of Shang-ri-la in home and garden countrified golf, rather than how Mac and Thomas and others thought the advantages of such equipment would be to build effeicintly and in harmony with nature.

I think the old masters came to marvelous properties that gave them the ability to route a number of good holes, but hit the wall in ability to cope with too severe of natural features in parts of the properties, thus not having enough room to design a complete course.  Perhaps they thought of the new massive capacity equipment to deal with the isolated features that required heavy duty yet efficient exacavation to augment the other rugged beauty they found on certain sites that without better equipment couldn't be used.  They probably walked away from plenty of good potential sites because they could only find room for 10-15 holes and needed the big guns to pound throught the rest, and had confidence they could use the big stuff to interface and blend in with rugged yet good golf features they were able to deal with.

So I think golf design will continue to stay a divergent proposition.  There will be those that use modern equipment efficiently, yet minimally to do great things like Rustic Canyon, and perhaps Barona Creek, sticking to the core design principles of design for firm and fast maintenance giving rise to optional ground involvelment, and thereby efficiently creating affordable golf;  and there will be the mass excavated, totally artificial high capacity designs that are trophy showcases for mansion districts and will continue to cost plenty and are done just because they can be done, not because they made any economic or aesthetic sense.  

Just guessing however...

PS:  If you two (Phillips and Branigan) are on the ground there at ST Andrews, why aren't you fellows giving us the straight skinny on what is happening with the RHB?

[JakaB]

My wife asked my why and when did French men quit wearing elaborate costumes like seen in period movies...I was able to craft a satisfactory answer before she burnt my grilled cheese samdwich...but after almost reading some of this thread I would be interested in how high fashion of 18th century French fashion came to fall and if those reasons have any similarities to what may be the current fall away from high architecture.

[-2.5 ver.5.0]

Ah oui, Monsieur JakaB!

As per usual you make tres sense yet again.  By asking about the fall of 18th century haute couture in France you make a perfect parallel to the over-use of machinery used to make golf courses.

First, you must know this: Je pense; donc je suis francais (I think; therefore I am French).  As such, the malapropism associated with the overuse of extreme garb such as that propagated by Louis III, Louis IV, etc. is a direct result of such thinking.  It took a long and patient uprising by the bourgeoisie to take all the fabric back.

You see, the long years of the commoners seeing the brightly colored and flowing dress was the cause of their attitudes toward the ruling classes.  A typical Bordelaise, for instance, thought of the kings apparel: Vous me rendez malade! (You make me sick!) and: Je t'emmerde espece de porc a la manque! (Kiss my ass, you type of worthless pig!).

Following through to the 1950's and beyond in golf construction, it has taken a like amount of time for the bourgeoisie to determine that it is now time to take all of the diesel back.  No more D-8's, no more Cat scrapers runnin amok like so many bellowing little green Citroen's.  You see, when one is exposed to more than one needs, it sometimes takes time to realize that.

C'est vrai. (It's true).

[Neal_Meagher]

-2.5:

Don't you mean Louis XIII, XIV et. al.?

Not to be insensitive, but did you miss the day Roman numerals were taught?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Ronan
I don't recall MacKenzie and Thomas exactly saying that, but if there was a modern revolution it was no doubt the designs of RTJ and company. That lasted a couple of decades and resulted in the divergance that redanman mentioned and which still in effect today.

I think the designs of Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes and others are throw backs to the old philosophy of letting nature dominate the design. The problem is that those courses are built on extraordinary sites. It is easier to understand why an architect should embrace natural features when they are abundant. It is more difficult for the modern designer to accept nature on a less than extraordinary site (or even a good site), he would rather try to create something great. The result are these over crafted designs with their typical modern grading. They might test the long hitter, but they are boring, lacking interest, unless one is looking to land a small aircraft.


Ballyowen - a delicious tarmac

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

It appears Ronan Branigan is recognizing the "revolution" of the Modern Age (RTJ et al) away from the direction of the likes of MacKenzie who strongly believed in greater naturalism in more of the aspects of architecture. His question seems to be does architecture need another revolution that might take architecture back closer to some of MacKenzie/Thomas's hopes for more and greater naturalism in architecture. That certainly seems to be happening gradually but not sure if it would be termed a revolution.

The question probably gets down to what would the likes of MacKenzie/Thomas et al have done with the facility of greater and more effecient machinery (that they could certainly see coming)? They probably would have used it (Doak surmises in his book that MacKenzie would have) but the more interesting issue is, would they have used it differently somehow to create more and greater naturalism in architecture than the Modern Age architects did and still do?

To me the "somehow" is the key question. It's quite clear to me that MacKenzie was extremely interested, probably more than anyone before him, in blending whatever it was he made into the look and feel, almost the "lines", if you will, of the overall natural sites he worked with.  

A good hole on that particular theme, used by example by Doak in his book, might be Royal Adelaide's #14 right side where Alister moved an unusual amount of earth to create hollows (into which to place bunkering into a portion of them). But the key is very few could ever recognize that MacKenzie created those hollows as they look so natural in relation to the remainder of the course and site that was natural.

[TEPaul]

Personally, I'm beginning to feel the way the older architects seemed to create architecture that appeared more natural and naturally melding with their sites was very much a two step process.

The actual construction of man-mde architecture, and attempting to create site natural "lines" in their architectural construction was the first step but the clever and studied use of grasses and such to create a more natural and rugged look (particularly off the immediate playing surfaces) was the very necessary second and final step to them.

Often, in the Modern Age of architecture, the second step of natural and rugged grassing (particularly off the immediate playing areas) doesn't exist at all, or extremely minimally. And this too often gives entire sites (and courses) and overly immaculate (and man manicured) look and feel that's anything but natural looking or melding into a natural site which is generally random and slightly unkempt looking!

Doak, in his book on MacKenzie, gives one of the more interesting sideline analogies into this particular area I've ever seen in a golf architectural book.

It's clear that MacKenzie's thoughts and experimentations with natural camouflage was unique and potentially extremely effective, if used properly, in the era of military warfare in which he lived and participated.

MacKenzie's ideas on how to create camouflage in warfare not only required a certain process of construction (trenches and such) but also that the soldiers themselves build and create it and often necessarily very quickly!

It never ceased to annoy MacKenzie, apparently, that military leaders, on his side, could never seem to desist from forcing their soldiers to act and think extremely neat and look neat in almost everything they did, which very unfortunately for them included constructing trenches and such that exhibited man manufactured looking straight and squarish lines that was definitely recognizable as anything but blending and melding into the natural terrain! And as such it was completely recognizable by the enemy! This is the exact opposite of the methods and mentality that the Boers exhibited and so successfully in trenching and warfare!

To Mackenzie, it was absolutely necessary that the soldier, in both look and also in his trench constructing mentality, when creating camouflage, should think and act anything but NEAT! He should think, act and look just the opposite in fact--random and unkempt, just as nature was!!

It was never lost on MacKenzie, apparently, that no military leadership, on his side, he was aware of, could seem to make that all important connection as it related to effective camouflage!

He'd probably feel the same about some of the so-called "Modern Age" golf architecture today if he could see it. The specific "first step" construction of the architecture, in some cases today, may be passable to him but he'd also probably ask, (petulantly as usual), why the need for all this man-manicured immaculatness everywhere if you're trying to make a golf course look natural and blend and meld into the basic look of all that nature is?

[TEPaul]

And isn't it interesting that today in golf architecture those companies that appear to be spending so much more time on that "second step" of architecture, that final step of random handworking and natural and rugged (unkempt) grassing, with their "chunking" methods and such of bunker contruction, and their use of rugged fescues and such in those areas that are not immediately in play are the ones whose architecture seems to be most respected on here as a return to some of the ideas of the best of the past "Golden Age" thinking?

Certainly, again, the likes of Doak, Hanse/Kittleman, Coore & Crenshaw, DeVries, Echenrode and a few others seem to be the ones who are far ahead of the curve of "Modern" architecture in when, where and how, and how close to blend that rugged natural look into all their architecture is!

They're the ones who are the "renaissance" in my opinion, and I think a guy like MacKenzie, if he could come back and see it, would certainly approve!

[ForkaB]

Mr. Branigan et alia

At about the time that Thomas and Mackenzie were in their formative years  (i.e. the turn of the previous centtury) the head of the US Patent Office famously said something to the effect of:  "We should close ourselves down.  There is nothing to invent anymore."  He was wrong.

The original "Renaissance" was essentially a movement which tried to get European art back onto the track from which it had fallen off 10-15 centuries or so previously.  Michaelangleo didn't really progress the art form from what it had been in Praxiteles' day, he just brought it back to that level.

Likewise, the "Renaissance" that we talk about in GCA is really doing nothing much more than bringing us back kicking and screaming to those days 100 years or so ago when people like MacKenzie and Thomas could practice their "art" in affluent peace.

While Pacific Dunes and Applebrook and Kingsbarns and Friars Head and Stevinson Ranch (and others I have not yet seen) are very fine golfing venues, there is really nothing particularly revolutionary about any of them.  In fact, they are counter-revolutionary, if anything, trying to bring the "art" back away from the "Fazists" to where it was 100 years ago.

If there were to be a real GCA revolution in the future it might have some of the following characteristics:

1.  Diversity.  30 yard and 900 yard "holes."  3 and 8 and 11 and 14 and 23 and 30 hole "courses."  A variety of balls and implements--a very strictly defined set for those who play competitively and a "let a thousand flowers bloom" set for those who are just out there to whack the ball around and have some fun.

2.  Creativity.  More Muirhead than Muirfield.  Angles and artificiality as well as curves and naturalness.

3.  Accessibility.  More Wild Horse than Sand Hills.  More Omaha than Mullen or Gothenburg.

4.  Maintainability.  Courses that can largely maintain themselves, because of their design.

5.  Mutability.  Courses that are designed with the expressed intent and understanding of their changing over time.

6.  Affordability.

And, Santa, I have been a very good little boy over 2002, so please leave at least one of these in my Christmas Stocking.

Yours Truly

ForkaB

[Ronan_Branigan]

Dear ForkaB

Maybe you are the man to carry the torch forward!

[TEPaul]

ForkaB:

The reasons you seem to say that what could be considered the architecture of Sand Hills, Pac Dunes, Stevinson Ranch, Rustic Canyon et al as not 'revolutionary' are the same reasons I do, it seems.

For those reasons, particularly since what we seem to be seeing from that architecture as a return to a former time (I would definitely say, though, that it began after WW1 and not so much at the turn of the 20th century), I think could more accurately be termed a "renaissance' (rebirth, revival etc) of naturalism in golf architecture.

But when we look at this entire evolution of golf architecture in the 20th century we should probably not forget the effect of the "hiatus" (the depression and WW2) and the extent of that effect on the continuity of both thought and practice in golf architecture, particularly in the specific area of naturalism.

The "hiatus" alone, in my opinion, could be one of the most important aspects of all of this even into and almost creating the so-called "revolution" in architecture that the "Modern Age" might be considered to be.

Basically, the "hiatus" created a situation where "the twain failed to meet", I believe. And the reasons why are interesting when one considers the architects of that transitional time.

I also feel that much of what preceded the post WW1 era in architecture (with certain notable exceptions) was as different from the best of the 1920s era regarding naturalism as the 1920s era was to the "Modern Age" (post WW2) regarding naturalism. And the reasons why are doubly fascinating, particularly when only considering the very specific area of "naturalism" in architecture!

[A_Clay_Man]

TePaul- I like to think I try to think about things in a 360 degree style seeing more than just a couple of perspectives. Above you ask "why" did the manicured look come into favor the way frilly dress did in 18th century france. I have recently considered  that the maintenance practices are the prime suspect. Now I'm not bashing I am looking at justifications for cause and effect. So, is the ease with which one can whip by with a mower, ridden by some hired manuel labor, the bottomline justification for the sterile esthetics? Juxtaposed to the high personal maintenance of the frillies in france,oui oui, no no?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()