Was Ron Prichard correct ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

At Baltusrol, Ron indicated that most individual's personal experiences and frames of reference, when it comes to golf course architecture are limited to the post 1950 era.

In addition, Ron indicated that architecture buffs are a small but passionate group.

Could this by why so many classic courses were disfigured during the last 54 years, why new courses don't reflect many of the classic qualities ?

[Bill_McBride]

But it follows logically that the impassioned architecture buffs really relate to the modern versions of classically minimalist design: Crenshaw & Coore's Talking Stick, Cuscowilla, Sand Hills, etc.  Bandon Dunes' two courses.  Tom Doak's designs. Rustic Canyon.  And this certainly seems to be an ongoing theme of GCA discussions.

[TEPaul]

"Could this by why so many classic courses were disfigured during the last 54 years, why new courses don't reflect many of the classic qualities?"

Pat:

As to why classic courses were disfigured, as you say, has been discussed on here voluminously and in some real detail---thank God. This website may be one of the few places in the world where this very subject is discussed so comprehensively and aired in such detail! Frankly, I believe this fact alone is a lot of the value and potential value of this website--GOLFCLUBATLAS.com!

In my opinion, the entire history and evolution of golf architecture in America has been discussed voluminously, fairly accurately and intelligently on this website. And it's a most interesting history and evolution that occured in the entire last century---a history and evolution, I, for one, believe very few golfers are aware of today. But because most golfers may not be aware of the timing and the details of that history and evolution probably does not indicate that many today would not be interested in it---perhaps extremely interested. I think part of that is the very reason we've seen relatively recently such an interest and push in both restoration and also what may be termed "renaissance" architecture (in some new construction).

When you (and Ron Prichard) say these old Golden Age classic courses have been disfigured in the last 54 years, that's no doubt true, but no one should forget or miss the fact that they were also disfigured and sometimes massively much earlier on for a number of interesting reasons, primarily the course of world events of the 1929 stock market crash, the ensuing years of economic depression, followed by WW2 as well as evolving technologies and equipment (construction and golf) improvements as well as a few other strong and consistent perceptive changes.

The thing that interests me so much is not only were almost all the old classic courses disfigured in one way or another but so many of them were disfigured in the exact same ways and mostly during the same times and for the same reasons. That alone can truly tell us a lot today---and can truly help to explain the good reasons for remediation and restoration!

This is not to say that what happened to so many classic courses in the so-called Modern Age of architecture is not interesting, because it certainly is, but what happened to these same courses, and in so many of the same ways from app. 1930 until 1950 is equally as fascinating.

But again, this subject has been discussed and I believe fairly well documented on here many times before.

I hadn't really thought of it until now but someone, at this point, should probably write a book specifically dedicated to the subject of exactly what happened to most all these old golf courses and why. The evidence is very interesting but I also believe it's very exact and similar from course to course which makes it all even more interesting and something that should probably be better explained to today's golfers!

Certainly not all of them will be interested but my sense is many more of them will be interested than some of us on here suspect! One of the reasons I say this is from my own golf club. They may not be totally representative of today's golfers but I think they are to a large degree representative nonetheless.

The trick, as we discussed on here so many times before, isn't just presenting them with this interesting history and evolution but how you present it to them!!!

[T_MacWood]

Weren't most of those courses altered by architects whose frame of reference went back to the 'classic' period?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Pat,

I think saying most is an over statement.  There is no way most architect's frame of reference is post 1950 in this age of media, and travel.  Some that claim to be a small, passionate group came to that group later in life and therefore fully particiapated in disfiguring classic courses, and fully participated in creating less than inspiring modern designs.  Claiming to be a part of a small passionate group distinct from other architects is a little arrogant, but it plays well to a certain group that is desperate to hang on every word from those that have been annointed as protectors of the classics.  

And Pat, some architects do study and absorb the classics but allow that to influence their modern work in ways that do not exactly replicate the classic holes.  Some of the anointed couldn't come up with an original hole that thoroughly represented there own heart and personality because they would have to take the classic crutch out from under their arm, and fall on their face.

[A_Clay_Man]

I'd agree with Ron Prichard in most areas of the country, save for major metropoloitan cities. And the rest of the world.

Even Jackson Park Muni, which was probably had as bad a basterdization as any course could suffer, had a few holes that were significantly different than the majority of the mundane. This quirk, is no doubt original work from 1897.

[Bruce Katona]

The classic designs and designers of the golden age had the pick of the land the club chose to develop for a course. The environmental constraints involved in permitting and constructing a course in the 1920's were nothing like what was/is faced from the 1950's forward.  Does anyone on the site believe that a place like Pebble Beach could be proposed and built in California today without 10 years of litigation with the California Coastal Commission and several different environmental groups?

The flip side to this is the advent of modern earthmoving equipment to build on more marginal sites where landform and spatial mass must be created, not discovered as many of the golden age designs.  Given a marginal or vanilla site, it is diificult at best to discover 18 natural tee and green locations, but by finding a few or several, these become the key characteristics on the skeleton of that course.

[TEPaul]

"Weren't most of those courses altered by architects whose frame of reference went back to the 'classic' period?"

Tom MacW:

I definitely don't think you can generalize about something like that--and come to a reasonable conclusion about it! I think you simply have to look specifically at what any architect from any time did on any particular course who was asked to come in and do a redesign project.

Certainly RTJ had a real frame of reference to the "classic" period (he started in the late 1920s, worked for, partnered with and was influenced by S. Thompson) but it surely doesn't seem he was ever that interested in using that frame of reference particularly specifically in what he did in either new construction or redesign. By specific frame of reference I do sort of mean staying in tune with the look and character of an original architect!

But if any of us are going to be intelligent and honest about all this we just have to look at what was done and come up with an intelligent evaluation as to its worth and surely that can always be tricky business, subjective and even adverserial to analyze!

I really do think my own course could be one of the best examples anywhere of what exactly could happen to a classic golf course in redesign projects and what to do about it all now that a restoration was planned and carried out.

It's absolutely no secret to me whatsoever that architects asked to come in and do redesign projects from the beginning of the last century up to about 15-20 years ago, no matter WHO they were, almost NEVER tried to stick to the look and design intent of the original architect!!

I just don't think something like that was even thought of much less popular back in those days. Again, this real restoration interest and push didn't even begin to occur, in my opinion, until perhaps 20 years ago, if even that long ago!

So, what courses generally got that were into redesign was basically a hodge-podge of looks and design styles and intents that over time sort of evolved into a somewhat similar look but only due to maintenance practices.

Again, my course is a great example. We've had about 7-8 architects do one thing or another to the course since the 1920s but only a few of them really changed things look and style-wise, but again, maintenance practices have moderated to some extent even those differences.

RTJ built a few greens and reoriented a few holes that don't look all that much like Ross and Maxwell built some greens and bunkers and reoriented some holes that don't either.

But as to what to do now during a restoration regarding what RTJ, and others, and Maxwell did, my prescription is to go with what I call the "blind taste test".

That (the blind taste test) is how those holes and features  have been accepted and respected (or not) over time without virtually anyone knowing or remembering who the architect was who did them.

It's interesting that during decades of that "blind taste test" Maxwell and his distinctive redesign style and look came out smelling like a rose with practically everyone and RTJ and the others really didn't.

So where does that leave us and Gil Hanse--our restoration architect? It obviously leaves us all with the inclination to restore all we have of Ross and all we have of Maxwell and to try as best we can to restore to Ross what the others did to his original holes. For a number of reasons that will no longer be completely possible, unfortunately.

It would be complete madness in my opinion, and almost everyone else's to remove Maxwell's redesigns on our Ross course because frankly the old decades long "blind taste test" seems to clearly indicate that what he did was as good or better than anything even Donald Ross did on the course!

Jim Finegan once referred to GMGC as a very good course, or member's course but a 'mongrel' because of all the architects he saw attributed to us. But after the restoration of both Ross and Maxwell, and the gradual effort to remove vestiges of the rest we're proud to be a mongrel!!

If we'd ever removed Maxwell in an effort to merely restore everything to Ross, which may have been entirely possible sans some good research and logic, that, in my opinion, would've been a real tragedy!

[Craig Disher]

TEPaul,
I have a different perspective. After looking at hundreds of aerial photos taken in the late 30s-late 40s, I have been surprised at how many of the courses appear virtually unchanged from the original designs. I'm not saying that the courses haven't been altered but if they were, the changes appear to be in character and very subtle.

There were two large aerial efforts in the US - one in the late 30s and another in the early 50s. I've tried to take a look at photos from both eras and if it weren't for the difference in photo quality and the occasional new building, the photos would be almost identical. In most instances where I have seen original plans or photos from the 20s, it's hard to see changes.

Contemporary aerials give a completely different story. The changes made since the 50s are so extreme that sometimes it's difficult to identify the courses as being the same.

We're both speaking in general terms here but I'd suggest that the degree of alteration to courses built through the 1920s was significantly greater since the 1950s than the degree of change pre WWII. This is a fascinating subject and I'd like to understand why this happened. Every club made its own decision but there must have been common influences.

[mike_malone]

 As i see the resistance to tree removal fall away i think much of the reason is "it is being done at other respected clubs".So i think much of the things that happened ,particularly in the 70's with tree planting was because it was being done at respected places.
     Ron Prichard's comment about the last 50 years struck me as an observation on the age of most golfers.We have seen courses with trees added and options denied and the majority has accepted it.
 Somehow somebody starts these trends and they have a life of their own.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
There were 4,800 golf courses in the US in 1946. By 1958 the number grew to a bit over 5,700, a little over half of these being private courses. Today there are 7 times the number of people playing 7 times the number of rounds than there were in 1958. Around 10,000 of the nearly 15,900 courses in existence today were built after 1958.

I think RP was pretty safe in saying that "..most individual's personal experiences and frames of reference, when it comes to golf course architecture are limited to the post 1950 era."

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

You've forgotten...

I am writing a book on the very subject you discussed above and suggested someone should write a book on!

Tentatively titled "Preserving the World's Great Golf Courses", it's to be published by John Wiley & Sons... soon...

[Rick Shefchik]

It's not a total coincidence that the "post 1950" era we're talking about is also the era of television. There are only three ways to see a golf course: visit it in person, see photos of it, or watch it on TV. Since 1950, most of us have seen far more courses on TV than we'll ever see in person.

And which courses have we seen? Not Pine Valley. Not NGLA. Not Merion. Not Seminole. Not Crystal Downs. Very rarely have we seen Shinnecock, Cypress, Pinehurst #2 or Oakmont.

What we have seen is annual visits to Pebble Beach and Augusta National -- neither of which can be duplicated, and both of which are influencial mostly for the wrong reasons: beauty and green speeds.

The rest of the year we get a lot of bland, functional tour stop courses. Yes, Riviera and a few others stand out, but most courses on TV, week in and week out, are not inspired architecturally, and are praised by the announcers for elements that have little if anything to do with what we consider classic era design features.

If, over the past 54 years, we had held the true classics up to continual, widespread exposure and praise, they would have inspired far more golfers and architects. As it is, TV filled the void with pablum or unapproachable fantasy, as it so often does.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Craig,

Your aerial research sounds very interesting.

In short, I don't think there's any doubt that RTJ's widely publicized, early 1950s redesign work at Oakland Hills, and subsequently Baltusrol and elsewhere, suggested to the golfing world that changing "old" courses to suit the "modern game" was a good idea.

His work, particularly at Oakland Hills I think, instigated a redesign trend, and indirectly gave his comtemporaries a license to redesign with very little, if any regard for the work of their predecessors.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill McBride,

Citing about 12 courses out of 10,000 or more built since
the fifties isn't exactly a ringing endorsement, especially when a good number of them were built in the last few years.

TEPaul,

Your suggestion on a book would seem to be a daunting task.
Why not divide and conquer.
In the research that you and Wayne are doing on Flynn courses, why not look into why some of them were altered.

Then perhaps others could focus on CBM, SR and CB and so on and so on.

Tom MacWood,

We continue to view this differently.
I see memberships as the catalysts for change and the architects merely the instrument of change.

Kelly Blake Moran,

I didn't reference or single out architects, I referenced the general golfing population.  You may want to review your reply in that broader context of golf club memberships, not architects.

Rich Shefchik,

It's a good point.
TV has to have played a role in alterations, directly or indirectly.

But, Merion had it's share of air time and Cypress had some exposure vis a vis the Crosby.  Pebble Beach, Winged Foot,
Olympic, Riviera and others also had their share of the spotlight.

Craig Disher,

That's interesting.

Do you feel that most of the changes between the 20's and 50's were of the "fill in the bunker" type, whereas changes after the 50's were to accomodate expanded clubhouses, tennis courts, retention ponds for irrigation systems, the sellling off of land as well as the construction of other facilities ?

Et. Al.,

Did the migratory exposure of northern golfers to golf courses in sunnier climates also have an impact ?

[T_MacWood]

TE
Perhaps some of these architects did ignore what they learned, but I believe Pat’s hypothesis (by way of Prichard) claimed their fame of reference did not go back to before 1950. Having a frame of reference from the so called classic period, and choosing to ignore that frame of reference are two separate issues.

I’ve always thought it ironic that some of the worst culprits in altering classic courses were in fact protégés of classic golf architects: RTJ, Wilson, Gordon, Cornish, R. Robinson, H.Watson, Maxwell, Tull, Billy Bell, the Chicago gang etc.

Pat
The modernization movement in the 50’s and 60’s was driven by golf architects—namely RTJ. His PR machine was second to none in the history of golf design, he developed the virus and the membership caught it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

We'll have to continue to disagree on this.

Architects and interior designers don't just walk into your house or clubhouse, they're invited in by a membership that has already decided that it wants to make changes to their golf course.

[T_MacWood]

When architectural scholars dissect the modern movement in architecture, they attribute it to men like FL Wright and Le Corbusier.
   
When musical students look at what or who drove changes in music they point to Elvis Presley and The Beatles.

But you’d have us believe the driving force for the modernization movement in golf architecture was the ‘membership’.

I think you’ve got the cart in front of the horse.

Most people who engage an interior designer do so because they were inspired by either something they saw in a magazine or something they saw a friend or neighbor do….it was no different for golf clubs in the 50’s and 60’s.

[john_stiles]

Pat,

I would think that from 1929 to 1947 .... it was pure survival for many (most?) courses and architects.  Bunkers went to grass or were plowed and seeded. Greens shrunk. Many courses folded.  Not very many changes by members or architects.

Then post WW2, late 40s and early 50s, it was probably as some mentioned....tennis courts, pools, etc.    A part of that in the early 50s to 1960s, perhaps led by Oakland Hills in 1949/1950 for '51 Open (I brought this monster to its knees or such) brought many architectural changes to classic courses.

From C&W,  for RTJ alone, RTJ alone,  a quick partial listing indicates the following remodeling.  This doesn't indicate what was remodeled but that many courses were being 'improved'.

CC of Birmingham, 1959
Olympic, 1954
Broadmoor, 1954
Ponte Vedra, 1954
ANGC, 1950
Burning Tree, 1963
Chevy Chase 1948
Congressional, 1962
Detroit GC, 1953
Oakland Hills South, 1950, 72, 84
St. Louis CC, 1952
Century, 1959
NGLA, 1959 (?)
CC of Buffalo, 1954
Oak Hill East, 1956
Siwanoy, 1953
Winged Foot West, 1958
Charlotte CC, 1962
Firestone South, 1959
Cascades, 1961
Belle Meade, 1957
Colonial, 1960
Mid Ocean, 1953
Southern Hills, 1957

This is just a short list for RTJ. There were other architects out and about.   I would imagine many had no frame of reference to the classic period owing that to the depression. Golf architecture was probably not a viable venture for most since there was no growth and probably a shrinkage in the number of courses.

Those few architects, who made it through to the other side of depression and WW2 and had a reference,  were apparently bent on modernization to their ideas.

The club leadership was probably also ripe for changes,  given the membership approves of all architectural changes !   Lets say you were 45  in 1928,  an important founding club member who selected the architect, and by the time the war was over and economy picked up,   you would be 65 or so and out of the club loop by the time all the young veterans returned.  It was the 1950s, TV, cars, and more cars, planes, and everything  could be made better.  Club leadership probably had no reference to the classics.

I think Ron Pritchard made a good point.  There was a lack of reference and the very few (or a few key archies) who did have a reference chose a new modern approach as some pointed out earlier.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Yes,

An architect can't gain access to a golf course until he's been invited in by a membership, a membership that has already made the decision to alter and/or modernize their golf course.

Why else would they grant them access ?

Why extend the invitation in the first place ?

Because the membership or leadership had already made the decision that change was necessary.

Architects who invite themselves in without the blessing of the membership or board are called........ trespassers.

You're the one with the cart before the horse.

[SPDB]

Pat -
I think the memberships that were inviting RTJ or DW or others had a frame of reference as it relates to architecture, that was very limited, in some cases, to their own course.

A membership that invites an architect doesn't necessarily want a wholesale change to their course, just as you might not have in mind an addition to your house when you invite an architect in to your house to consult on kitchen remodeling.

It is just as possible that the tail was wagging the dog. You would have it that RTJ was merely carrying out a membership's wishes. However, the one common theme that runs through all of the courses mentioned by John is RTJ. It seems unlikely, IMO, that each of these clubs shared a common vision for their golf course, and that RTJ was racing across the country merely doing their bidding. A far more reasonable inference, given the commonality of RTJ to all these courses is that they came around to his vision of their golf courses, not vice versa.

[TEPaul]

I would really caution anyone on here about simply lambasting memberships or even architects who redesigned classic golf courses beginning in whatever era--the teens, 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s or even 80s.

The fact of the matter is that was just the way golf architecture and the clubs were in those days. I'd dare say not 5%, and probably a lot less, of the courses out there, even the classics, thought about restoration or even perservation.

All that has pretty much changed now though. In my opinion, it's just the way things go in our lives and times---the way things evolve. I do hope, though, with the notable increase in awareness now of what those great old classic courses were that this cycle will never be repeated again.

Pat, you know as well as I do that your father and mine were probably part of all those who got into bringing in various architects to redesign the courses they belonged to! They probably just called it improvement. Basically everyone did it---I doubt there was one dissenter in 1,000 and if there was it was probably only because they didn't want to spend money on anything. But I'll just about bet my bottom dollar if your dad or mine was around today they'd feel very different about this subject than they did back then! It was just the way it was back then--and we, at least, on here ought to understand that as much for historical accuracy as anything else!

Probably before about 15-20 years ago such a thing called restoration was not even known. Frankly, I'm not aware of a single architect until about 20 years ago who ever thought to stay sympathetic to the original architect of any course he was called in to improve! They all did their own thing and we should understand that was what all the memberships asked them to do, wanted them to do and paid them to do.

It was a different time back then and we on here should understand that and the reasons why! If we don't the whole cycle may be repeated again someday!

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Clubs don't hire architects in a vacuum. There was a pressure to modernize in the 50's and 60's - and RTJ was largely responsible for that pressure. No need to trespass when your phone is ringing off the hook.

May I suggest you study other artistic trends, and how they started and were sustained. It might give you a better perspective.

Claiming the members were responsible for the modernization trend is like saying the church-members who let Elvis sing in choir revolutionized music. Or saying Kauffman is responsible for the modern movement in architecture because he hired FL Wright to build his summer home (Fallingwater). Or like crediting the fellow who stretched canvasses in France for Cubism. Or the merchant who sold Picasso paint. Or the woman who rented him space to live and paint.

Could Picasso have created his work without a canvas, paint and a loft?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

It sort of looks like we're on the same page here as to what happened in the Modern Age of architecture to many of these old classic course but perhaps not.

I hope this thread doesn't get into an endless argument of cart and horse or chicken or egg! We on here probably have as much ability and resource to track events of various times and cycles in architecture and the ability to get pretty close to the real reasons why things happened as they did. Looking back of course is always easier than looking forward or at least it logically should be!

What if Hanse, Doak, Coore and Crenshaw, Prichard and some of the others today who believe strongly in classic architectural principles happened to come up in the late 1940s and 50s and 60s etc as did RTJ and D Wilson et al? Do you think that would've been possible? And if so how different would the plight of those old classic courses have been today?

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

I think the memberships that were inviting RTJ or DW or others had a frame of reference as it relates to architecture, that was very limited, in some cases, to their own course.

I don't think it was much different then today

A membership that invites an architect doesn't necessarily want a wholesale change to their course,

You'd have to define wholesale change.
I'd view wholesale change as rerouting, of which very little was done

just as you might not have in mind an addition to your house when you invite an architect in to your house to consult on kitchen remodeling.

that's a disconnected analogy because the kitchen has nothing to do with the Master bedroom, but there is a continuity between golf holes

It is just as possible that the tail was wagging the dog. You would have it that RTJ was merely carrying out a membership's wishes.

Absolutely.  he was invited in for a pre-approved purpose and merely executed the will of the membership

However, the one common theme that runs through all of the courses mentioned by John is RTJ. It seems unlikely, IMO, that each of these clubs shared a common vision for their golf course, and that RTJ was racing across the country merely doing their bidding.

There's no need to share a common vision with regard to particular features, just the notion that their course needed to be modernized.  TV exposure didn't help the situation either

A far more reasonable inference, given the commonality of RTJ to all these courses is that they came around to his vision of their golf courses, not vice versa.

Again, he couldn't get in the front door unless the membership had already decided to make changes.

He didn't send blueprints and plans to clubs at random.
They called him and others to do the club's bidding