Are some architects more equal than others

[JakaB]

TEPaul,

I would have to think you lost thousands of sales by not having your Flynn book ready for the Open at Shinnecock....I would think that if Ross had designed 10 or so courses of the higherst caliber he would be no more loved by the masses than Macdonald and Raynor.....Look at the numbers and influence of the Ross Society vs the Raynor Society....it has more to do with numbers than quality....Where is the Crump Society...where is the Fownes Society.....The teaching of architectural historians is based on as much as who will invite them to speak as it is on the quality of the work...

[Tom_Doak]

John K.:  You're right about Ross, but it doesn't extend just to book sales ... why do you think so many architects are Ross restoration experts, and not Stiles?

As for the profit motivation in a MacKenzie book, I would be happy to take cash offers for my 1/3 of royalties on the Clock Tower Press bio.

[T_MacWood]

"Actually right #9 was probably done to Alison's specs by Flynn with Thomas looking on."

TE
Very interesting...Flynn (with George Thomas) carried out Alison's plans for #9 at PV?

[TEPaul]

"TE
Very interesting...Flynn (with George Thomas) carried out Alison's plans for #9 at PV?"

Tom MacW:

I've only heard that--never actually seen anything in writing to document it but I've heard it from a few sources who I consider very reliable who probably did see it in writing and probably at PV. But even if true it may not be as interesting as you think or for the reasons you might think.

The thing that most don't realize or appreciate the extent of is all the architects and people sort of in and around the business who were at PV and actually belonged to the club---Wilson, Fownes, Thomas, Flynn, Toomey and Maxwell to name a few. And Alison wasn't just hired by the 1921 Advisory Committee, he was actually a member of the committee.

In 1921, after the course had been through about a three year hiatus following Crump's death in 1918 there were varying opinions on that 1921 committee of what to tackle first. The condition of the course continued to be problematic at that time and some on the 1921 Advisory Committee which was charged with finalizing PVGC thought the available money (which may've been a bit short since their "wallet" (Crump) was gone) should be used to put the course's agronomy into top shape before spending money to work on finalizing the architecture.

You can see from the report of the 1921 Advisory Committee that they would've preferred to get everything they approved from the Alison recommendations and get it done while he was still in the area. But again, lack of available money may've slowed them down some on that. It's also quite possible that with all the architects and those in the business who belonged to the club that they got Thomas and Flynn to oversee construction of the Alison design for right #9 that had already been approved by the committee because they didn't have to pay them. It's probably a certainty that they didn't need to pay them as they may have had to pay Alison to hang around. Maxwell never took a fee from PVGC, I doubt Flynn did and Thomas never took a nickel for anything he ever did in architecture.

It's probably hard to appreciate today how close and interconnected a lot of those guys may've been due to PVGC and the "Philly School". We have a letter from close to that time when Alison tried to go into partnership with Flynn but Wilson wrote a letter to someone else saying he didn't think that was a good idea.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Tom Paul:

Pursuant to your earlier question re: Augusta's seventh...

Clifford Roberts said that the rebuilt seventh was the idea of Horton Smith, but that Maxwell "supervised construction."  Your guess is as good as mine (perhaps better) as to whether or not this is accurate.

DW

[Patrick_Mucci]

AG Crockett,

You raise an interesting point.

When I think of Dick Wilson's successful redo of # 18 at Seminole, I can't think of one single criticism leveled at this alteration.

Yet, when I recall discussions about the right side green at
# 8 at Pine Valley, I have heard a good degree of criticism.
Some have even suggested that it was heresy to inject a second green onto a hole at Pine Valley, not even knowing of  Maxwell's previous work at # 9, which has been widely acclaimed.

Is the alteration of a classic golf course only viewed in a negative sense if the altered hole is inferior or questionable ?

The current 16th at ANGC seems to be universally if not widely acclaimed.

How will Rees Jones's work at Bethpage be viewed ?
I know the sentiments voiced by some on this site.
Many who never played the course were vocal about the changes.  I wonder how they would have received Wilson's work at Seminole ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You're right about a certain amount of criticism of Fazio's right #8. It was inevitable I guess as that was the first real architectural inclusion of significance to PV for decades---since the 1921 Advisory Committee completed their charge to finish the course (of course what Maxwell did was only sort of a delayed change that had already been approved back in 1921 by the Advisory Committee.

But in retrospect what Fazio did on #8 was a good thing considering what the alternatives were or would have been. #8 left was beginning to look like a mine field there was so much play on the tiny little green so the wise course was to build another one rather than tamper with that one. The Fazio green is actually really good, in my opinion. It's even smaller than it's left counterpart, it's lower for increased variety but it's a tough little mother to putt if you're in the wrong place to a pin.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Any specifics on Wilson's advice to no join Alison in partnership?  I assume that Alison was not planning to leave Colt, since they had much success in later years.  Was Flynn asked to join the firm of Colt and Alison?

[T_MacWood]

Contemporary architects have a much better chance for success if their alterations are limited or relatively minor, for example the dual green at PV or pushing the 18th green closer to the dunes at Seminole. On the other hand Wilson and Fazio's extensive work at Scioto, Inverness and Oak Hill permenantly scarred three of Ross's greatest designs.

Bethapge is a great design, one of Tillinghast's greatest designs and still an impressive golf course. It was a crime the course was allowed to deteriorate; everyone is happy the Black is no longer in a state of disrepair.  But from a historic accuracy perspective and an architectural perspective Rees' work at Bethpage is horrendous....magnified by a comparison to a true Tilly restoration like Fenway or sensative preservation like Somerset Hills.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Somerset Hills hasn't been sensatively preserved.

The 10th green was moved to a new location which dramatically altered the play and feel of the hole.

I'm curious about your comments categorizing Rees's work in the context of historical accuracy and architectural perspective, as horrendous, at Bethpage.

Could you explain your categorization and assessment in greater detail ?

For discussion's sake could you seperate the two issues.

# 1 Historical accuracy
# 2 Architecturally

Could you also spend a short time expounding on Maxwell's dedication to historical accuracy at Gulph Mills and Pine Valley and Wilson's committement to historical accuracy at Seminole ?

Thanks

[ian]

Wison may be a perfect candidate to study. Seminole was an excellent example of a hole that is wonderful, but contrast that with the work at Scioto, and your left not sure what to think of his work.

With Fazio, is the disdain for the right green at Pine Valley, more about a lingering anger over Oak Hill and other previous work?

When you look at the left green and the right green, it looks like he tried to keep the feel of the original.

[TEPaul]

"With Fazio, is the disdain for the right green at Pine Valley, more about a lingering anger over Oak Hill and other previous work?"

Ian:

It's not that at all, at least not at PV. The only flack at all about the right green at #8 is merely that it was the first time since the course was finished that something like that was done. Some from PV feel the architecture of PV should just not be touched--that a course like that has earned that right. But #8 right was a complete necessity at the time it was done. The only other option was to redesign and obviously expand left #8 which anyone would have considered a real tragedy. In the case of right #8 it's by far the best compromise to the problem of left #8 getting absolutely pummeled. The rounds back when this was done were higher, and by quite a bit than now though.

Right #8 has actually turned into sort of a good natured ribbing affair on Ernie Ransome, and in fact the members feel fine about right #8, with maybe only an exception or two. Most of the members refer to right #8 more as Ernie's green than Fazio's. Not long ago the club gave Ernie a roast as he sort of retired down to SC and one member got up and toasted Ernie and said they all hoped Ernie lived a long long life but when that sad time came when he did go they were going to scatter his ashes on right #8 and then blow the damn thing up (uproarious laughter apparently)!

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Yes, Somerset Hills has been sensatively preserved, as has Garden City despite a few well-known flaws. There aren't too many vintage courses as well preserved as those two golf courses.

Tillinghast created a very difficult and rugged test at Bethpage, its reputation has centered around its difficulty and it retains that aspect. The two things that struck me about the course, in addition to its difficulty, was the routing, which uses the rugged site brilliantly and the awful bunkering--over-stylized bull crap. Why Rees ignored the look and placement of Tillinghast's bunkers is a mystery. By far the two most impressive bunkers on the golf course are the waste-like bunkers at #5 and #7 which are original. In addtion Rees chose to mimic Winged Foot when redesigning the green complexes...there is a repetative nature in contrast to the variety shown in the original Tillinghast design. Variety is an important aspect of golf architecture...as is bunkering...as is aesthetics. The 18th is an embarassment.

I wouldn't compare Gulph Mills to Bethpage-Black from architectural stand point. Gulph Mills has always had a solid reputation as very good golf course, but not a landmark design like Bethpage. Gulph Mills was hardly historical when Maxwell was called (18 years old), and the course had already been adivsed by Flynn and Ross, who recommend changes. Pine Valley was even younger.

What Maxwell at Gulph Mills and Pine Valley and Wilson at Seminole have in common, is that their work was fairly limited....especially when compared to the wholesale alterations made by Rees at Bethpage....including imposing his own style.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I'm not looking to start a Bethpage argument, just looking to clarify some facts as I have now come to appreciate them.

For the past several years I have spent considerable time in researching the origins of Bethpage and the Black. As I am certain that you will remember, last Spring you & I went at it pretty good over a number of Bethpage "facts" that were being bandied about, and things actually became quite heated and for that I apologized then and do so now.

Let me share some things with you & the others here that have been unknown to most until very recently. There can be no doubt that Tilly designed & routed the Black, and that though Burbeck oversaw the general construction from day-to-day, he didn't design it. What he DID do was the FIRST RENOVATION to the course between September of 1935 and 1938. As proof of this I offer two photographs, both aerials. One was taken in 1938 & hangs in the Bethpage clubhouse and office of Dave Catalano. Until three months ago it was the ONLY one that they were ever aware of. There actually was one taken in September of 1935 that had been lost to posterity and that they were unaware of.

There are some STRIKING differences in the course as shown in these two photos. In September of 1935, the Black course was complete and grown in, having been seeded a year late earlier that spring. The course was built EXACTLY as shown on the Park Developmental Plan that all of the powers that be at Bethpage thought was just a general plan because of how different the 1938 aerial looked. They had NO idea of the changes that were made.

Between 1935 & 1938 then, the following things were done at Bethpage Black:

1- Two long bunkers that ran up the entire right side of the fairway to the green, with the exception of a 15-20 yard area at the very corner of the dog-leg, were REMOVED and mature trees standing some 10+ feet in height were planted in there place.

2- "The waste-like bunker" (as you referred to it) on the 5th hole, DID NOT EXIST! It was NOT part of the original course construction and was NOT on the Developmental Plan. BURBECK put this in. Was it done after consulting with Tillinghast? He was on Long Island in September of 1936 and so may have advised on this aqnd other changes, but there is no proof yes or no.

3- The 2 wonderful bunkers that guard the edge of the fairway before it plunges downhill on the 6th hole were NOT there. These were added at this time also.

4- The bunker in front of the tee on the 11th hole, and the fairway portion that fronted the far right bunkers that are now 30 yards or more wide of the fairway were REMOVED at this time, with the hole now playing more straight forward as it does today.

5- A number of other small bunkers were added and removed.

For quite a while, a number of posters have bashed Rees Jones for "changing the bunkers from Tillinghast's original design." Well, unfortunately, Rees was given a copy of the 1938 aerial to work from & was told that it represented the original course. Clearly, we can now say that those at Bethpage were mistaken in this, an honest one, but a mistake none the less.

Regardless of whether one likes the finished product of Rees Jones work at Bethpage or not, he can NOT be held accountable for changing Tillinghast's bunkers. Many of these had been changed by Burbeck. In fact, a carefull analysis of what he did proves that his bunker work actually brought them back to more accurately reflect where and how Tillinghast had designed and located them.

I have gone into great detail about all of this in my coming Tillinghast biography, including the photographs that prove this. Because I gave grief to Tom in this public forum based upon some misinformation that I had been given (i.e. - that the 1938 aerial was original), I owe Tom an apology for having done so unfairly and do so now. Although I was planning to apologize to Tom a little further down the road when my bio comes out, since the issues were raised in this discussion I feel that I should not wait any longer.

If anyone would like to see this chapter, please e-mail me at philwritesbooks@aol.com & I will send it on to you.

[T_MacWood]

Phil
First of all you don't owe me an apology for anything. Second of all I'm not sure I follow your logic.

Are you talking about the aerial in the second Tilly book from 1935?

Are you claiming that Rees accuarately followed the bogus 1938 aerial?

What year between in 1935 and 1938 was the golf course 'renovated'? If it were in 1936 would 'renovation' be the correct characterization?

I visited Bethpage this summer and I must say I really enjoyed myself. It is a wonderful place, totally unique...I've experieced nothing quite like it before. I can understand why everyone in the area is so proud of it.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I don't know that you are but IF you're attempting to look back and generalize about exactly why some holes on some golf courses were redesigned and changed by certain architects I doubt you can do that with any accuracy at all. The reasons behind various redesign sessions by an architect like Maxwell or Dick Wilson etc are as different as can be.

You say:

"I wouldn't compare Gulph Mills to Bethpage-Black from architectural stand point. Gulph Mills has always had a solid reputation as very good golf course, but not a landmark design like Bethpage. Gulph Mills was hardly historical when Maxwell was called (18 years old), and the course had already been adivsed by Flynn and Ross, who recommend changes. Pine Valley was even younger.
What Maxwell at Gulph Mills and Pine Valley and Wilson at Seminole have in common, is that their work was fairly limited....especially when compared to the wholesale alterations made by Rees at Bethpage....including imposing his own style."

Gulph Mills certainly isn't comparable to Bethpage Black or PVGC or Merion or Oakmont or any of the other traditional "championship" venues. But on all those courses, and frankly on all golf courses if the holes on them are working well for the purpose to which any course is put the holes and the architecture will very likely be left alone. Generally that could be called "passing the test of time".

But on any golf course if some hole (or holes) is not working somehow for the purpose the course is put it will very likely be changed to correct that. Because you or anyone else think some courses and their architecture are "hallmark" is very likely going to have little to do with it. That was not true in the past and it's not true now. It may, however, hopefully have a bit more to do with it in the future!

You seem to be trying to categorize golf architecture into various levels of quality, the greatest being courses and architecture that should not be touched for any reason (or never should have been touched) and the rest you're not so concerned or adamant about.

That is just not the way it works and never has at any golf course I know. The holes of golf courses just work for the purpose they're put to and they remain the same because they do work or they don't work and they are generally changed somehow because they don't work somehow. It's that way today as it was back then.

It's always interesting to know exactly why some hole on any golf course got changed---the reasons why holes on all courses got changed is probably about ten mile long---it's definitely not something one can generalize about.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I used the word "renovation" purposefully. Since Burbeck did these changes to the course I would think it obvious that he didn't design it because if he had, why weren't these in the original design. There were too many and some of them were quite major, and so deserve to be recognized as such

Yes, Rees worked very hard to bring the course back to the original design philosophy and shot values that Tillinghast intended, and based these assumptions on what he was led to believe these were. Where bunkers were moved, they were done so with this in mind.  

For example, a number of greenside bunkers were brought closer into the putting surfaces. These had evolved away from the greens due to time and poor maintenance. A few fairway bunkers were also moved. As an example, the bunker on the 4th hole guarding the corner drive, was moved and slightly extended along the rough. It was also brought closer to the fairway. With the new upper back tee the line of play and shot value was brought back to where it was prior to the evolution of equipment & distance improvements. So yes, I believe he was very faithful in his restoration of the course.

Since then, Craig Currier has been also working very hard to preserve these features. He put a new bunker front left of the green. He did this because after a careful look at the aerials he realized that Tillinghast created a longer bunker complex than what was there.

They are going to great pains to preserve Tilly's work.

I am thrilled to hear that you were finally able to visit Bethpage.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Pat asked me to expound on Maxwell's work at Gulph Mills in the context of Rees at Bethpage. IMO golf courses of outstanding merit, those few that are considered landmark designs, should be treated with extra reverence. I've never said any golf course "should not be touched for any reason (or never should have been touched)", but I have said every effort should be made to preserve and protect important golf courses.

Gulph Mills is an interesting case, it is an example of a golf course with a history of change...the one constant seems to be never being fully satisfied the golf course...the result was a long line of architects engaged over the years. Evdiently there were several points in the course's history where the club decided certain aspects of the golf course were not "working well". I'm sure there is debate today regarding some of those decisions in the past. Each golf course and the specific changes (to each golf course) should be judged on their own merits--I agree we shouldn't generalize.

Phil
I presume you are talking about the aerial in the second Tilly book--Reminiscence of the Links?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Are Pine Valley and Augusta any different then Gulph Mills ?

How many architects have had imput on those courses over the years ?

How did you like the four new bunkers at # 17 at GCGC ?

[TEPaul]

"TE
Pat asked me to expound on Maxwell's work at Gulph Mills in the context of Rees at Bethpage. IMO golf courses of outstanding merit, those few that are considered landmark designs, should be treated with extra reverence. I've never said any golf course "should not be touched for any reason (or never should have been touched)", but I have said every effort should be made to preserve and protect important golf courses."

Tom MacW:

I realize that. What I'm saying to you is today I think many more of those courses that you call "hallmark" are being treated with at least more reference than they ever have before, which includes the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s! In those decades those courses were simply not treated, as they are today, with the same reference by ANYONE---clubs or even really good architects ! That is not to say they will never be touched again, for the reasons I gave before---eg any golf course or golf hole anywhere has to work well for the purpose it's being put to and those purposes can be and are vastly different!

The fact is that the things Flynn, Tillinghast, Maxwell even Ross et al did to golf courses back then by changing them is really no different than what RTJ, Wilson, Fazios, Rees Jones et al did to courses in a later age, and all of them, the hallmark courses as much or more than other courses. Not a one of any of them apparently had the respect for the original architect that some of us apparently think they did back in the old days.

So that has to be taken into consideration first. Secondly, it does appear that many of those "hallmark" courses, as well as perhaps second tier architecture of those now "more famous than ever" architects is being treated with more respect than they ever have been. This is the very reason for this hugely popular wave of restoration attempts that we've seen in the last 15 years. Before 15 years ago the very idea of "restoration" was virtually unheard of.

Now I realize you don't seem to be much of a fan of the idea of restoration because you seem to think it's too often something else but I feel the fact that so much of it is good or better than the state most all those American courses had gotten into up to just 15 years ago makes this new restoration wave more than worthwhile!

You said:

"Gulph Mills is an interesting case, it is an example of a golf course with a history of change...the one constant seems to be never being fully satisfied the golf course...the result was a long line of architects engaged over the years. Evdiently there were several points in the course's history where the club decided certain aspects of the golf course were not "working well". I'm sure there is debate today regarding some of those decisions in the past. Each golf course and the specific changes (to each golf course) should be judged on their own merits--I agree we shouldn't generalize."

GMGC is an interesting case. However, I don't think you're able to make some general case that at GMGC the extent of the changes over the decades is a result of the fact that the club was 'never fully satisfied with the golf course'. I am completely able and more than willing to explain in every single instance WHY changes were made to GMGC and I can assure you not a single significant change to that course was the result of some egomaniacal golf or green chairman or President that seems to be the common belief on this website when anything changed on a golf course!

In almost every single case any siginifcant architectural change to GMGC took place as a result of what in retrospect was a good reason or a very necessary reason.

If you'd like to know what those reasons were on any particular hole and at any particular time I'd be more than happy to explain it to you. None of this is guess work on my part as the entire history of the evolution of the golf course from its origination until today is all recorded which lucklily in every case happened to be contemporaneous. I simply swept that record together and put it into one design evolution booklet.

This might serve to be an education to you unless of course you choose to be intransigent for some reason about the reality of it.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

That is correct. The one in Reminiscences of the Links presents an interesting dichotomy for another reason. According to Rick Wolffe, they were given that by Bethpage, but according to Bethpage, the only aerial they have is the 1938 one. They believe they sent that to Rick & have no idea where he may have come across it.

A few years back they supplied me with a copy of the 1938 aerial for my own researches, and that is what was also given to Rees.

[TEPaul]

"A few years back they supplied me with a copy of the 1938 aerial for my own researches, and that is what was also given to Rees."

Phil and Tom:

I have no idea at all how Rees went about restoring the bunkers of Bethpage Black but if he only went off an aerial that's a bit tricky, obviously. If an architect wants to exactly restore bunkering off an aerial he can pretty much nail length and wide dimensions but when it comes to the all important vertical or height dimension if he wants to be exact he sure does need a series of on-ground photos or do a bunch of core soil analysis.

Exact vertical or height dimension restoration of things like bunkering probably doesn't matter to most folks but obviously it does to some on here.

[T_MacWood]

Phil
It is an interesting theory, however there is a problem, it is based upon the 1935 aerial and the '35 aerial isn't an aerial. I'm not exactly sure what it is...a photo of a model or drawing meant to simulate an aerial or something else, but whatever it is, its not aerial. It is more or less an exact copy of the park plan of the same year...including all the features on all four golf courses (not to mention the planned tree-lined avenues that were not fully implemented in '38). Here is a comparison between a genuine aerial from 1938 and the simulated plan/aerial dated 1935. Rees was obviously aware of this aerial, he is quoted on the backcover of the book (published in 1998)....IMO he was wise to ignore it, unfortunately he also ignored portions of the legitimate aerial as well.


1935 mock aerial


1938 genuine aerial

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You present an intriguing conundrum to say the least!  Rick & Bob are now checking to see who gave them the photo & why they were told it was an actual aerial. Sooner or later we will get to the truth of this puzzle!

[Tags:]

Tags: