GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture

An architect's porfolio - The Differences

<< < (11/11)

Peter Pallotta:
Thanks, Jeff - I always appreciate that you deign to use "IMHO" when talking to the rest of us. And, I stand corrected. I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote that (I never am!) -- but it seemed to make sense to me at the time.
Best
P

Jeff_Brauer:

Peter,


As long as I am in your good graces, I will say I was also intrigued by your concept of analyzing the old guys from the here and now, and that perhaps leading us to wrong conclusions about their work.  I just have to wonder if there is any possible way we really could transport our mindsets back in time? :)


I will say, it is probably a mistake to bring all of their concepts forward, i.e., the Biarritz and for a long time, the Redan both coming to mind.  Old CB's double and triple plateau greens seemed to have made the cut and moved forward to the modern era.  It seems to me, most gca's preferred gently rolling greens for the most part, which also translated, albeit flatter, to the modern age.  The frontal opening green, at slight angles and partially covered, survived, mostly because it still works best for average players.


And so on.  I will say, whenever I read those old guys books (I do re-read them frequently, more in hockey season while watching games on TV) I think to myself "they are facing the same problems we do now!"  Also, wonder why they shoot and score so much, but I may be mixing TV and reading...…[/size][/color]Not sure if there is a basic paradigm shift as much as changing the details.  For instance, they talked about drainage, drainage, drainage, but couldn't conceive that plastic pipe and bigger track hoes would make it so inexpensive that we could add so much more than them.  Or, the emphasis on opening day, vs. keeping costs the absolute lowest, etc.


Look at the things that are basically the same:


Lay out courses using tee, green and dogleg centerlines (gradually moving the dogleg point out....)


Greens 6-10,000 SF, gently rolling, many with small mounds behind to similar natural "moulding" as they called it (but getting larger, and now getting smaller again.....)


FW and Corridor width (i.e. 60 yards, probably set by single row sprinklers of the day, now set by how far 2, 3 or 4 row systems can throw water.....but I recall Dick Nugent telling me clearing was narrow at 200 feet, normal at 225 feet, and wide enough to contain play at 250 feet, which was true then, and now.


Anyway, I know you can counter with other design trends, like defined fw and rough vs the scattered edge, etc., but in general, architects recognized that the Golden Age hit most of the basics pretty well, which is why we generally copy their style more than, say steeple chase geometrics, or even the 1950's muscle style of RTJ and Dick Wilson.


Again, off the top of my head while I wait for files to load, and as always, just MHO. ;)   I am  a golf course designer AND a golf course deigner, too!

Peter Pallotta:
Thanks, Jeff, that was excellent. What can I say except: you're likely right and I'm probably wrong!
But, I do think we can look back and extrapolate something of the golden age 'mind set' from the differences in the game (and in the expectations of those who played it) then and now.
Those architects were -- just as today's architects are -- trying to serve both the golfers and the game. But the game *then* was played with hickories/early steel clubs, with balls that didn't soar high and land soft, along un-irrigated fairways and slower, furry greens, when a 6000 yard course was/is equivalent to something approaching 8500 yards today, and where playing the angles to get around/past hazards and to gain ideal lines in was very important, and all for 'average golfers' who rarely broke 100 and didn't expect (or demand the 'right') to.
Is it crazy then to suggest, given that none of that applies to the game or golfers or courses nowadays, that *today's* architects have different goals and intentions and value systems than *yesterday's* did?
How can it be that today's courses actually *play* for us in anything like the same way that yesterday's courses played for them?
Best
P

Jeff_Brauer:

Peter,


Some of what you refer to as being different, i.e., paradigm changes, to me are details, but I can see the argument.


It occurs that the removal of fw carry bunkers didn't really occur with RTJ, but Tillie on his course tour and removal of "duffer's headaches" and Mac's newfound austerity, applied even to upper end designs like ANGC, with what, 26 bunkers originally?


I mentioned my take always from the golden age books and what I see is a gradual transition of views over time.  For instance, gca's wrote of avoiding blind shots, but some accepted them on the tee shot, not on approaches, because it was deemed impossible to avoid on some sites, due to limited earthmoving.  So the design thought didn't change from 1910 until now, but the technology "solidified" it if you will into a design standard because, well, it became doable.
[/size][/color]It is hard, IMHO, to really define gradual transitions, whether of design paradigms, or even, an architects portfolio over time.  But, always fun to try, and it has sure kept this web site going for a few decades......

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page