[TEPaul]

I think it's an important question in the history of golf architecture because it appears the term "to route" was never used in the beginning of the 20th century in golf course architecture.

Depending on who the speaker or writer was, a century or so ago it seems the terms "lay out" or "construct" were used somewhat synonymously and interchangeably. consequently those terms are just not particularly definitive for us today as to what they meant back then.

Today we use terms like "to route" or "to design" for descriptions and definitions of golf architecture planning that precedes the act, fact and phase of actually constructing or building a golf course.

Again, I think it's an important question historically because it seems to confuse some of us today in how to assign or attribute various phases and stages of golf architecture, and of course to whom.

What do you think "to lay out" or "laid out" meant to most around a century ago at the beginning of the 20th century?


BONUS QUESTION:

Why did C.B. Macdonald state in his 1928 golf autobiography (Scotland's Gift Golf) that NGLA was the 'first example of golfing architecture' he was aware of?

[Joe Bausch]

Dear Tom,

I have no idea.

Sincerely,
David M.

[TEPaul]

Joe Bausch:

You are good but try not to speak for others as too many seem to try to do that on this website.

I love humor, Joe, but it seems on this website it is even less understood today than what "to lay out" meant in golf course architecture a century and more ago.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't know that the term had a singular definition or usage.

It may have been used, by different individuals, with different meanings.

I don't know that you'll ever know the precise context in which every individual used the term.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Bonus Question:


http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=42365.10;wap2

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I agree and I don't either. But I do know it was a term commonly used back then a century or so ago and it is a term that has virtually never been used in modern times----and so I think it is a term that needs to be discussed and even debated as to its meaning and definition to those who clearly used it commonly a century or so ago.

[Joe Bausch]

TEPaul,

I don't know that the term had a singular definition or usage.

It may have been used, by different individuals, with different meanings.

I don't know that you'll ever know the precise context in which every individual used the term.

+1

[Patrick_Mucci]

TE,

I think it's a subject worthy of discussion, I just think you'll find nuanced differences rather than a singular definition/usage.

[TEPaul]

Steve Shaeffer:

You hyperlinked something on this website from the past. WOW indeed, that response to basically the same question as this one was pretty extreme and pretty angry. I really can't figure out who posted that response calling me a coward for some reason for posing this essentially similar question to the BONUS QUESTION on this particular thread.

Can you remember or tell who it was and why?

[TEPaul]

"TE,
I think it's a subject worthy of discussion, I just think you'll find nuanced differences rather than a singular definition/usage."



Pat:

That's OK.

But again, it is an important question. Who can find the first example of the term "routing" (or "designing") for golf course architecture planning that meant before actual construction? That is certainly important and if that particular term(s) did not FIRST derive or appear until say the 1920s or 1930s what term was used for it previously? My thought is it was "laying out" (which could also mean back then to some or many actual construction of the building of golf holes and courses).

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
I think you asked and answered your own question, which is a little odd. I'm too too tired to look it up, but I believe CBM was referring to the first use of the term 'golf architecture,' not the first example of golf architecture per say. From the looks of your posts today it would seem you are hankering for a fight with David Moriarity, and apparently Joe B's butt itches too.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Here's the beginning of the prior thread:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42365.0/wap2.html

[TEPaul]

"From the looks of your posts today it would seem you are hankering for a fight with David Moriarity, and apparently Joe B's butt itches too."


Tom MacWood:

Not at all---not in the slightest, even though it does not surprise me that would be one of your first responses and reactions.

I happen to feel, and always have, that this is a seminal question in the history of golf course architecture and golf architectural attribution. That someone like David Moriarty used this subject in the past to make some points, premises and apparently conclusions such as in his IMO piece "The Missing Faces of Merion" and in an incalcuable number of his follow up posts on numerous Merion related threads since 2008, is simply a by-product of this seminal and hugely important historical golf architectural question, in my opinion.

[Tom MacWood]

A seminal question in the history of golf architecture? That seems a bit melodramatic IMO. I think anyone who has done any reading about early golf architecture concludes the term was used interchangeably....end of story. Are you still confused?

[TEPaul]

No, I do not think I'm confused about the term "laying out" or "laid out" and what it meant to most a century or more ago. I, like you, think it was indecisive (at least for some of us today) and often used interchangeably with routing and designing a golf coures on the one hand and constructing or building a golf course or the holes of a golf course, on the other hand.

What I am interested in is how some today try to imply or suggest that a century ago it did not or could not have meant the routing and designing of golf holes or a golf course BEFORE construction.

That was essentially one of David Moriarty's premises in his 2008 "In My Opinion" piece entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion" and in many of his follow up posts on threads that dealt with his IMO piece. Don't take my word for what Moriarty said in his IMO piece entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion" and in his follow-up posts on multiple threads on the subject----just read them and it's clear. I've most certainly read them all and it is crystal clear.

He even suggested that it was virtually a given that a novice like Hugh Wilson could not have routed and designed a golf course like Merion East because being a novice he had to have been incapable of doing such a thing (that was probably some "one-off" early interpretation of Moriarty's after he figured he discovered Wilson went abroad in 1912 and not in 1910). His assumption, premise and conclusion was that Wilosn and his committee merely constructed (or built) the course to someone else's routing and design plan.

He said it was Macdonald/Whigam's routing and design plan and you said you felt it was HH Barker's.

[Tom MacWood]

I don't know. IMO David's essay on Merion is the most enlightening piece written on the subject. We can argue about who did what, because its still in the air, but I don't see the harm in introducing Barker's name. To my knowledge David was first to do so. Was that a bad thing?

If you were already clear about the term why did you start this thread?

[TEPaul]

"If you were already clear about the term why did you start this thread?"





Because I am genuinely curious about the meaning of the term to most a century or more ago and I genuinely care what some on this website think about answers to the question of this thread.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul apparently returned to the website to reargue all the same old arguments.  No thanks.   Something tells me he hasn't yet scoured the  relevant sources to better understand the meaning and usage, so I cannot see how he is in any better position to opine about the matter than last time it came up.  

Besides, in the case of Merion the usage was clear.   According to Merion's Board minutes, Merion decided to "lay out" the golf course according to a plan as determined by CBM and HJW.  

[Dan Herrmann]

Even if true, that doesn't mean that CBM/ HJW designed the course. 

To me, routing is only one part of the picture.  Like an artist washing his canvas and putting his oils on a palette.  It's what follows that's where much of the art comes into play.

[Niall C]

Not really interested in getting in involved in any old arguments but for what its worth, I get the impression that laid out was a general term that could encompass everything from what we now call routing the course to forming the greens and tees. By forming I mean anything from rolling and cutting the existing grass to laying new turf. The term laying out is quite apt because I think thats what they did, lay a course out on top of the existing landform.

What I think might be an interesting suplimentary question was when did they start referring to building and constructing courses and did that correspond with more dirt being shifted in the course of forming the course ?

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dan,

If you have the routing, the individual hole design tends to fall in place based upon the terrain.

THE routing is THE major component, the bones or skeleton upon which the holes are draped.

[Dan Herrmann]

Patrick - OK, then who gets design credit for Stonewall?  Fazio or Doak/Hanse?

[Brad Isaacs]

Even if true, that doesn't mean that CBM/ HJW designed the course. 

To me, routing is only one part of the picture.  Like an artist washing his canvas and putting his oils on a palette.  It's what follows that's where much of the art comes into play.

Dan,

I would agree conceptually. In practice, I find it hard to separate routing from the final artistry especially in the days of the classics where they did have the ability to move a lot of earth. That obviously changes today, where even minimalism can move earth as long as it doesn't look like it did not move earth, in the final picture.

[Brad Isaacs]

Dan,

If you have the routing, the individual hole design tends to fall in place based upon the terrain.

THE routing is THE major component, the bones or skeleton upon which the holes are draped.

Pat

The best argument against this view, and it is a relatively weak argument is Sebonack.  The routing is very very good. The final execution of the routing just misses. (the water holes)
( am I arguing for or against your point?)
NGLA next door gets it all the way right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad,

Permitting and concessions may be the culprit if you're talking about the bay.

If you're talking about # 8 & # 13, that's another issue.

Which is it ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()