[JReese]

On page 38 of Grounds for Golf, Shackelford writes that CBM and Ross “shifted the American game to the strategic approach during post WWI years.” And that they inspired among others Langford and Raynor.

“…as golfers saw the genuine beauty that stemmed from golf courses constructed with an emphasis on naturalness versus the crude geometric style, the strategic school thrived until the Great Depression…”

And on page 133 “At the time Macdonald built the National, early American golfers had only been exposed to geometric courses with “coffin” shaped bunkers…”

These above statements are causing a bit of confusion…..I had always been under the assumption that both Langford and Raynor were very much of the geometric style, although their designs often take into account the landscape’s natural features.  Am I overthinking this or is there something I am missing

[Sven Nilsen]

James:

The simple answer is that you are missing something.

There's a big difference between the "geometric" school of architecture and what Raynor, Langford and others were doing later.

Here's a good starting point:  http://library.la84.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1920/ag2333f.pdf

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

A bit more info in this thread:  http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59501.msg1401790.html#msg1401790

[Ally Mcintosh]

James,

A valid question because "Geometric" as used in Geoff's writing above causes confusion I think. Most teachings refer to the "penal" school of architecture, superseded by the "strategic" school. Those penal early designs tended to be geometric in plan form, looking from above. But the "Geometric" designs I think of refer more to the detail and shaping, not to the plan. Hence I think of the MacDonald and Raynor designs as both geometric in style and strategic in philosophy.

Ally

[Adam Lawrence]

It's an interesting question. The obvious answer is that geometric vs 'naturalistic' is an aesthetic issue, whereas strategic vs penal relates to how the golf holes play, evidenced by the fact that the Macraynor courses can be geometric but are extremely strategic. Clearly, though, there are crossovers, because strategic golf design began to evolve at around the same time as the desire to build courses that looked natural, but not necessarily at the same speed.

Willie Park is perhaps the best example of this. You look at some of his early 20th century courses, and you realise that he had begun to grasp the strategic/penal issue, but he hadn't yet figured out how to build artificial features that looked natural. Huntercombe is today perhaps the best example of this, but there are still features on the Old course at Sunningdale that are pretty stark and obviously artificial. Colt removed and softened many of them, but a number are still there. Fowler too built some strategic courses with not desperately natural-looking features, his fondness for big crossbunkers being an obvious example. It was Colt, essentially, who was the first to figure out how to blend artificial construction into the natural environment; then the likes of MacKenzie and Simpson took it on. And it's in the writings of those three that we really see the desire to meld strategic golf with a natural look.

[JReese]

Gents - thanks for the articles and points of clarification.  It is definitely helpful to see what the "crude geometric style" actually consisted of.  I think the confusion came as I was trying to compare the design style and architectural philosophy. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()