Gib Papazian's Preservation of Architecture as Art...

[Ran Morrissett]

...is posted under In My Opinion and Architecture Timeline.

In it, Gib much more eloquently says what John and I attempted to convey on the home page of this web site: that (good) golf course architecture is more than X's and O's and that it is an art form and must be treated as such. He traces the rise and fall and rise again of golf course architecture, driven in large part by how mindful architects were/are of the attributes of each unique canvas upon which they are given to work.

Maybe I should cut and paste it and use it as this site's home page anyway!

Cheers,

[ed_getka]

Ran,
  Thanks for informing us of Gib's piece.

[T_MacWood]

Gib
Excellent article...there is a lot in there to chew on. What I've never understood is why a super talent like RTJ went south.

[TEPaul]

GibP is surely a wonderful writer--and his writing surely is the type that's inspiring. I think he gave an inspiring and pretty accurate description of the evolution of golf architecture, particularly in America, in the last 75 or so years. From that fairly accurate description of golf and architecture's evolution of the last 75 or so years there should be some things to learn from it going into the future.

And Gib gives us this to consider;

"History clearly illustrates that the surest prescription for failure lies not in change itself, but in ill-considered and rudderless tinkering over a course of years. If each succeeding Green Committee brings a new philosophy based on the latest fad, the result is surely doomed to be no more than a collection of holes. There must be a common thread in the tapestry if it is to be considered a finely woven cloth."

With that paragraph Gib gives us a fairly accurate illustration from that evolution of what the surest prescription for failure will be going into the future--essentially to continue to do or do again the very same things we've done before ---eg continue to evolve our courses without 'a common thread in the(ir) tapestry'.

But what Gib does not give us is what will "a common thread in their tapestry" be that will prevent that prescription for failure of constant tinkering with the newest fad or whatever?

We need to know what "a common thread in the(ir) (unique and individual) tapestry" is because we surely do know that green committees will continue to be the overseers of our golf courses. Why or how would they be expected to change the way they've done things before?

I'd say the best illustration of what that "common thread in their tapestry" may be is the recent phenomenon of the "Master Plan".

If we look closely at the evolution of golf architecture Gib described in the preceding decades we will also notice in almost no case in the past was there such a thing as a master plan in use in either the name of logical evolution or preservation of architecture at any course. I don't even think the concept of the master plan in golf architecture had been considered until perhaps the last 15 or so years. And that fact both historically and actually is a most important thing to recognize!

But now we have the master plan concept and it seems to be getting exponentially more popular. So now we appear to have the structure in place to consider "the common thread in the tapestry" of our individually unique courses and their individually unique architecture. But what will any club and course put in that structure of their own Master Plan?

Before they even start to put something in that structure of their own unique Master Plan the first thing they should understand is that a "one size fits all" mentality in both architecture of any course and it's uniqueness needs to have maintenance practices used on it that just may be anything but "one size fits all".

Gib outlines the presciption for continued failure but I think the Master Plan offers the structure for success! What exactly goes into any course's Master Plan (always focusing on what-all the individual uniqueness of any course's architecture can potentially be) is just the details of how successful the Master Plan (which is generally both restorative and preservationist) and the golf course can ultimately be.

A website like this can help by discussing and outlining what any course's "common thread in their tapestry" was and can be again.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Gib
Excellent article...there is a lot in there to chew on. What I've never understood is why a super talent like RTJ went south.

Tom,

I think it is unfair to say his work went south. His Golf Digest recognized courses range from 1949-1970, however they range from #43 - #94. Thus here at GCA where we tend to focus on the Top 50 of our own personal list, RTJ does not make the cut. I recognize that Golf Digest and RTJ will never be recognized as great here at GCA, but the guy was incredibly consistent for a number of years, just not great in GCA terms. He also brought a professionalism to the industry that today's modern architects should appreciate IMHO.

43. SPYGLASS HILL G. CSE. 6,862 72 60.44

 Pebble Beach, Calif. -- Robert Trent Jones (1966)
 
 51. PEACHTREE G.C. 7,043 72 59.67

 Atlanta -- Robert Trent Jones & Bobby Jones (1947)
 
 
53. HAZELTINE NATIONAL G.C. 7,360 72 59.50

 Chaska, Minn.-- Robert Trent Jones (1962)
 
 61. BELLERIVE C.C. 7,503 72 58.97

 St. Louis-- Robert Trent Jones (1960)
 
 
 
63. CONGRESSIONAL C.C. (Blue) 7,250 72 58.75

 Bethesda, Md.-- Robert Trent Jones (1962)
 
 
 
 
76. POINT O'WOODS G. & C.C. 7,014 72 57.67

 Benton Harbor, Mich.-- Robert Trent Jones (1958)
 
 
 
78. THE DUNES G. & BEACH C. 7,165 72 57.57

 Myrtle Beach, S.C.-- Robert Trent Jones (1949)
 
 
83. EUGENE C.C. 6,854 72 57.27

 Eugene, Ore.-- Robert Trent Jones (1967)
 
 
 
84. MAUNA KEA G. CSE. 7,165 72 57.26

 Kohala Coast, Hawaii-- Robert Trent Jones (1965)
 
 
90. OLD WARSON C.C. 7,122 71 56.96

 St. Louis-- Robert Trent Jones (1955)
 
 
 
94. GREENVILLE C.C. (Chanticleer) 6,864 72 56.79

 Greenville, S.C.-- Robert Trent Jones (1970)
 
 

[A_Clay_Man]

I could read that guy all day long, Great piece!

It's balance of explaining when and why many courses have been altered (dis-figured) is understandable.  The fact that some tinkered for the better, would seem to confuse the unitiated and justify changes at clubs where egos rule, (anybody know any of those?)

The reality that money makes the world go round, continues to be ever present, within our sport. In searching the deepest darkest nooks and cranies, I'd say my own personal search for value, is predicated on this bling bling motiff.

The article makes me wonder if "the Rake" isn't largely responsible for the expected conditioning of bunkers, which makes them so costly to maintain. ? ?

Is there a bunker style that is cheaper in the long-run to maintain?

or,

If pristine wasn't expected, would bunkers still be a major drain of resources?

[TEPaul]

MikeS:

I think I agree with you that analysts should probably admit  Robert Trent Jones was one of the greats of golf architecture even though it should not seem contradictory to say that the era he practically created may not survive the test of time as well as it entered its time and was received back then! To see why that might be one should probably consider more carefully what appears to be going on now! This seems to be a renaissance in architecture--not a virtual revolution as RTJ's era may have been. Today architecture doesn't seem to be looking for new concepts and principles to apply--it seems to merely be looking back closely past the approximately fifty year era we just came through to that time that preceded the era we just went through.

As you know I think the American culture is prone to this type of thing in broad cycles. We sometimes go forward so fast there comes a time we stop for breath but when we get going again, often it's not forward that we look into new unexplored worlds but back to a time before the one we've come through.

What's happening now in golf architecture after the so-called Modern Age in architecture may not be much different in a cyclical sense from the reaction to the industrial revolution at the end of the 19th century with something that Tom MacWood depicted so well---the Arts and Crafts Movement. In a real way that was a cycling back to the feeling of an age of innocence and the feeling of reconstituted humanity!

I think a lot of hay can be made for those who really understand this cycling back inclinaton in our culture. It's sure not lost on me that Ralph Lauren has been plying it ulta successfully for almost 15-20 years now--which interestingly almost coincides with the beginnings of the age of classic course architectural restoration and preservation!

And I think it's save to say that many, many feel today that those people of the Golden Age in most all they did, including golf architecture, really did have tremendous style and tremendous taste!

[Mike_Sweeney]

Tom P,

I sometimes think of the comparison beteen RTJ, Ross and Fazio in the "three eras" of golf course architecture. I don't think that I have ever walked off any of their courses not liking the course. They seem to be consistently good to very good to varying degrees, but none of their courses are in my personal Top 10-15 played. I am sure the Ross defenders would say I need to play Pinehurst #2, and the Fazio defenders would say go see Wade Hampton (that really jumped up on my list during the recent North Carolina thread).

Maybe they did not get the right land, maybe they were all guilty of building too many courses, maybe they missed the details or maybe I have not seen enough of their work to really comment.

[A_Clay_Man]

Dr.Bill, Not only with what the Dyes produced on the ground, but also, that they produced and inspired others to produce, after mentoring.

I'm sure that un-selfish spirit, is missing, in many an office.

[TEPaul]

redanman;

You're certainly right that Pete (and Alice) Dye must have been an unusual and separate influence in the entire "Modern Age" of architecture that might be seen to be perhaps fifty years in duration. Determining what their influence was exactly, although undeniably strong, is an interesting question.

The first thing I think one needs to look at with the Dyes is what influenced them in architecture? By their own admission what they were impressed with and the architectural ideas they basically brought back from their year in Europe (Scotland) and how they applied those ideas and concepts in America is what made them famous and respected.

The things they say impressed them and were the concepts they later used in their styles here is an interesting mixed bag some of which are perhaps not the things that some of us might suspect. The Dyes were also sort of an easy going family company that operated quite differently than most of the name architects of that time which certainly included the Dyes. Their home phone was basically their office phone and there're some good old stories of what some heavy hitting potential clients heard if they happened to get Pete's mother on the phone first!

They certainly were an apparent clearlnghouse of later architectural talent too but in my opinon the styles of a number of those that apprenticed under them are very different than the Dye style---and that alone is interesting to know. It seems to me one of the notable things some of the best known of those that went through their company took from the Dyes is sort of that same easy going way of looking at the art of architecture as well as a similar easy-going way of looking at the business end of it too.

[SPDB]

Gib - Well done, a very thoughtful piece, and I commend you on your dispassionate inquiry, where others tend to look at it in terms of fault.

Something that i have been thinking about recently is the comparative post-depression/WW II development in architecture in the British Isles and in North America. It would seem that if the development of architecture in this period was a natural progression, and not a cult of personality in RTJ that it would have had worldwide recognition, and certainly there would have been examples in Scotland, Ireland and England. Strangely, there are none (although RTJ qualities would migrate there over time, e.g. Thomas' Brabazon).

Was there no analogue to RTJ in the U.K., who stepped into the void created during this period?

[T_MacWood]

Mike
I don't believe the rankings are an indication architectural quaility...I don't put much stock in them.

IMO early RTJ (Peachtree, Dunes, etc) is much more interesting than his later formulaic work. Why did his style change so dramatically?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

What do you think happens if you have 20 or more courses under design and construction at the same time?

[T_MacWood]

TE
I hear you.

What is sad, after looking at a number of his 30's and 40's designs, I've come to the conclusion RTJ was among the very best Golden Age architects. His early work should not be lumped in with hius other designs and certainly not into the so-called Dark Ages...he was definitely a Golden Age architect at that time--one of the more under appreciated ones too.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

I don't know that I'd necessarily agree with this but Cornish & Whitten claim that RTJ, along with Stanley Thompson and Donald Ross were probably the primary proponents of classic/strategic golf architecture. But they said this about him (them) durng his pre-WW2 period, I think!

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Gibby, as always that was very well thought out and written.

[Evan Fleisher]

Enjoyed the read, Gib...well done!

[BCrosby]

TEP/TMac

Why did RTJ's work go downhill in the early '50's?

Well, what remarkable event happened to RTJ in the early '50's?

He became the US Open Doctor.

My working hypothesis, therefore, is that the quality of his work is inversely correlated with the degree to which he was associated with the USGA.

As he became identified as the Open Doctor - and that indentification was cemented at the '51 Open at Oakland Hills - his work got distinctly worse. The closer the ties, the more formulaic his designs. The Age got Darker and Darker from then on, if you will.

Pure coincidence? A causal connection?

Bob

[TEPaul]

Bob:

I don't really know if I'd say RTJ's work went downhill somehow even in the 1950s but only because I know very little about his architecture. As to architects making themselves more famous as redesigners for championship venues the list is pretty long and interesting----RTJ, Rees, Fazio, Ross, Flynn and even attempts made by MacKenzie before Morse flipped him off and went with Chandler Egan (with some cool possible negotiating from Hunter) to smooth some ruffled feathers!  

[Evan Fleisher]

Very interesting thoery Bob...what therefore can be said of Rees's work as well???

[BCrosby]

Evan/Tom -

Mine is just a hypothesis. I hope someone will pursue it. It has an initial plausibility, I think.

After Oakland Hills, the "Monster" course became all the rage. It continued to be the rage into the early 80's. (Note, for example, that course ratings first appeared in the early 80's and were based exclusively on resistance to scoring.)

The heroic, monster courses - a RTJ/USGA joint production - drove the market for about three decades. That was the basic formula, repeated ad nauseum.

The RTJ/USGA-inspired popular view was that either your course was hard or it wasn't very good. And, thus, the table was set for the Dark Ages.

I hope someone will dig into the issue.

Bob

P.S. My personal view is that even the best RTJ was not especially good. Ditto for Rees. They just weren't/aren't particularly talented designers. Many contemporary architects had/have better artistic instincts. What their contemporaries lacked, however, was/is the promotional and organizational skills of the Jones clan. And that can take you a long way. There may be a lesson in that for all of us.

[Mike_Sweeney]

Bob & Tom Mac,

So where does The Cashen Course (early 70's) fit into this puzzle ? I have not played it but it is on my must play list due to two regulars here that swear by it. The main complaint I hear about it is  it is too hard, but certainly not "standard RTJ fare".
 

TE
I hear you.

What is sad, after looking at a number of his 30's and 40's designs, I've come to the conclusion RTJ was among the very best Golden Age architects. His early work should not be lumped in with hius other designs and certainly not into the so-called Dark Ages...he was definitely a Golden Age architect at that time--one of the more under appreciated ones too.

Tom Mac,

I really only know the Cornell course from the list below, and while I personally love the course, I would not call it great architecture. The Cornell site did not list the 1940's courses, but the 30's has mainly remodeling jobs. What were RTJ's standouts in the 40's? The Cornell site does not list them, wasn't there a war going on?

Jones' Early History
1929 - 1940

1929 - Designed Sodus Bay GC (only 2 greens remain)

1930 - Jones finishes at Cornell University

1931 - Designed Midvale G&CC, Penfield, NJ w/ Stanley Thompson (18)

1931- Remodeled Locust Hill CC, Rochester, NY

1931 - Remodeled Stafford CC , Stafford, NY w/ Stanely Thompson

1934 - Designed Durand-Eastman Park GC, Rochester, NY (18)

1934 - Designed Teresopolis GC, Brazil w/ Stanley Thompson (9)

1935 - Designed Norris Estate, St. Charles, Illinois (no longer exists)

1935 - Designed Green Lakes State Park GC, Fayetteville, NY. Remodeled since then (18).

1935 - Remodeled Montclair GC, Montclair, NJ

1935 - Remodeled Garden City CC, Garden City, NJ

1936 - Remodeled Bonnie Briar CC, Larchmont, NY w/ Stanley Thompson

1936 - Designed Pottawatomie Park, St. Charles, Illinois (9)
1937 - Designed The RTJ GC at Cornell U., Ithaca, NY (Additional 9 in 1953)

1938 - Designed Amsterdam Muni, Amsterdam, NY (18)

1938 - Remodeled Vestal Hills CC, Binghamton (no longer exists)

1938 - Remodeled Niagara Falls CC, Lewiston, NY

1939 - Remodeled CC of Ithaca (no longer exists)

1940 - Designed Duke Estate GC, New Jersey (no longer exists)

1940 - Remodeled Valley View GC, Utica, NY

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Brilliant. Absollutely brilliant and the type of discussion that warrants praise and respect.

[paul cowley]

TEP......go write a book and get some sleep  

[Craig Disher]

Thanks for a fine essay. One small quibble. I don't think it's easy to make the case that "by the time Jones arrived, there was often little left worth saving." I've said this before in the context of looking at hundreds of aerials from the late 30s through the early 50s - I'm amazed at how many courses built in the Golden Age appear almost unchanged from their original design or, even with modest changes, remain in synch with classic principles.

I'm fairly convinced that something happened in the 50s and 60s that fundamentally changed the way that members wanted their classic golf courses to look. Through the 40s, classic principles were still reasonably intact.

[Tags:]

Tags: