Are some architects more equal than others

[Patrick_Mucci]

In some recent and not so recent threads, Tom Fazio and Rees Jones were criticized for altering and lengthening some notable classic golf courses.

Yet, Perry Maxwell made substantive alterations on Alistair MacKenzie's Augusta, Donald Ross's Gulph Mills and George Crump's Pine Valley, and I never hear him taken to task for redesigning/altering these acclaimed classic golf courses.

According to C&W remodels were also performed on Merion, Maidstone, NGLA, Rockaway Hunt, Westchester, and Saucon Valley.

In fairness, Tom MacWood was the only individual that I ever heard complain about changes to # 7 at ANGC.  Tom is a purist in that regard.  

But, others who complain about the work of Fazio and Jones, and even their retention as consulting architects by a given club, never, ever complain about the alterations made to MacKenzie's Augusta, MacDonald's NGLA, Ross's Gulph Mills, Crump's Pine Valley and others.

Why is that ?

[Brian_Gracely]

Do you mean other than the fact that GolfClubAtlas.com didn't exist during Maxwell's time and that it's not very polite to talk about those that have past since they can't defend themselves?

Also, Maxwell did Southern Hills and Prairie Dunes on his own, so he had some "greatness" legs to stand on.

I just don't think people (or maybe just this crowd) feels like Fazio or R.Jones has done something that can be categorized as great.  Very good maybe, but not jumping into the great category.

 

[Michael Moore]

Maybe said posters were unaware of Maxwell's oeuvre.

[Sam Sikes]

Patrick,

I am going to have to report you to the plagiarism police.  The title of this thread is a Nearly a direct quote from Animal Farm.  George Orwell would not be pleased to know that you blatantly copied his lifes work.  Please cite your references next time.  F-

[Tyler Kearns]

Pat,

I think it is fair to say that a double-standard exists here on GCA, and that is a little unfair. Perhaps it is the fact that many on the board are enamoured by golden age architecture, and have played Riviera/Merion, pre and post Tom Fazio, and that allows them to criticize his work so vociferously. I would like to think that a pre-WWII golf club atlas would be as harsh on such esteemed architects as Perry Maxwell, A.W. Tillinghast (bunker removal) - however, only for the sake of being fair, because not all of this renovation work is necessarily bad. Certainly, all renovation work being done on the great golf courses should be analysized with a critical eye, but those who judge the merit of said work must do so without bias directed towards the architect. Let the work stand, or sink for itself.

Is it possible that Tom Doak, Ron Forse etc., in consultation with many classic designs have never made a poor decision? I believe whole-heartedly that they have a much higher regard for classic architecture that most architects, and do not desire to leave their mark on such venerable courses, but I'm sure they've strayed from pure restoration at times - and for this, they seem to avoid criticism in GCA-land. I do not believe it is because they frequent and participate on this site. In fact, I'm sure they would welcome a thoughtful discussion of classical renovation - which would probably teach us a lot of the behind the scenes stuff an architect has to deal with, and things that are out of their control.

Tyler Kearns

[TEPaul]

"In fairness, Tom MacWood was the only individual that I ever heard complain about changes to # 7 at ANGC.  Tom is a purist in that regard."

Pat:

No shit! In fairness, I don't think I've ever heard Tom MacWood NOT complain about anything that was changed from the pre-WW2 age, particularly if it was changed at some point in the Modern Age. But if Tom MacWood complains about changes made by Perry Maxwell that's where I really draw the line and say he's not just a purist, he's irrational!

Redesign never seems to be a pretty word or idea on here from any time but I frankly can't think of a single thing Perry Maxwell ever changed on any golf course, certainly including mine that didn't make that golf course better. It's not me just saying that and opining that in a vacuum either. I'd challenge anyone, certainly including Tom MacWood, to idenify any change to anyone's course by Perry Maxwell that hasn't stood that all important test of time and stood that test of time really well!

I should slightly amend that. Perry got most of our 7th hole right in a redesign in the 1930s but he sort of blew one little facet of it and things evolved downhill from there on that hole. Part of the reason may have been that my club resisted Perry on what he wanted to do on that hole back in the 1930s.

But last year Gil and I and the master plan committee fixed that problem or at least we thought we did. Now we find maybe we blew it just a little bit too but hopefully this winter the committee and the club will let us fix that little something.

You know what Bill Coore says---it's like arranging a symphony--only problem is you can't get even a note out of place or it might cause dissonance!  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Are you trying to just needless stir the pot on here again with a thread like this? I thought I'd beaten that "BIAS" word out of you because I haven't seen you use it in a couple of years. BTW, how does someone become more equal than someone else?  

[TEPaul]

"Maybe said posters were unaware of Maxwell's oeuvre."

Michael:

Did Perry get pregnant? I thought I knew a lot about him but I never heard that.

[Daniel_Wexler]

Pat:

In Lost Links I wrote of Augusta's 6th that:

"one wonders how [MacKenzie] would feel about Maxwell's subsequent leveling of this putting surface"

And of the 10th:

"Sadly, Perry Maxwell’s 1937 construction of the new green quickly rendered this grand hazard little more than a hood ornament"

So my conscience is clean.  

DW

[T_MacWood]

I prefer the design of the old 7th, on the other hand I waver on the 10th, I wonder if Maxwell's tenth is better or not and if the 11th was siginificantly better when the tee was moved at that time.

IMO you have to judge each golf course and specific change on its merits. For example the changes made to Pebble Beach in the late 1920's clearly made a superior golf course. Maidstone, Muirfield and Kingston Heath were all improved. Tillinghast made a tour of the States in the 30's which had a negative impact on a number of golf courses in my view. You have study each situation.

I would also say once a golf course establishes itself as a historically important design (whatever that time frame may be), modern changes are judged much more critically. For example the 17th green at GCGC who ever is responsible really butchered that up from a historic (and architectural) perspective.

[TEPaul]

Dan Wexler:

I've assumed that Perry Maxwell redesigned ANGC's #7 green. Is that what you feel? The reason I ask is that green seems to be a bit of a Maxwell template, particularly the green-side bunker scheme. It seems he used that design a number of times but may have tried to hide it by flipping the green quadrants around. The particular reason I ask is we have one at my course by Maxwell and it seems to be the earliest one I can find.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

It'd seem to be a bit hard for someone to judge a green on its merits and compare it to what's there now merely from a drawing. Do you have any on-ground photos of the Mackenzie greens of ANGC that Maxwell redesigned?

[A.G._Crockett]

One simple reason might be that we have seen (and in some cases, played) the courses before and after the changes in the cases of Fazio and R. Jones, among others, and therefore have a rational basis for criticism or praise.  Whether or not the criticisms are fair and constructive is, of course, another question.

In the case of changes made by Maxwell to a Ross course, far less information (if any) exists as to the before and after conditions, much less first person experience with walking and/or playing the course.  That isn't bias in favor of a Perry Maxwell; it is just circumstance.

Defending the work of current GCA's not on the quality of their work, but rather by claiming that they are held to a different standard than those who did similar renovations in the past means that we would accept the current renovations as good simply because we can't properly evaluate renovations done 75 years ago!  A remarkable premise, and one that doesn't apply to anything else that I know of.

I personally loved the renovation work that Rees Jones did on his father's design at Duke.  Does the premise of this thread mean that my enjoyment of that renovation is unfair because of my inability to properly evaluate work that Maxwell did decades ago at another course?  

[T_MacWood]

TE
You are right, but in the case of the 7th and 10th Maxwell moved the greens and significantlly altered the design and strategy of the both holes.

[BCrosby]

I have frequently criticized Maxwell's changes to ANGC. In addition to 7, I don't like his changes to 10, 6 and some other holes. I would be pleased to rehash those views on request.

Others not named Tom MacWood seemed to have similar views on some of those holes. I certainly don't recall being a voice in the wilderness.

My conscience is clear too.

Bob

PS - But in answer to the question whether some archies are more equal than others, the answer is abso-friggin-lutley.


 

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

At the actual time of the changes.  There is usually much complaining.  

Maxwell doesn't get nailed now because his work has stood the test of time.  The modern guys get nailed because they change holes that have withstood the test of time.

In the case of PV.  In the opinion of CH Alison (who was called in after Crump died) Crump's green contours were not working very well on several holes.  He redesigned a few and Maxwell did a couple too.

[Tyler Kearns]

Paul,

I believe the work done by C.H. Alison at Pine Valley was based on conversations between Crump and close friends W.P. Smith & Simon Carr. It was all in an effort by the 1921 Advisory Committee to finish the course after Crump's death, and these conversations guided the work.

This is second-hand information, and hopefully TEPaul can provide a more detailed description of Ailson's work.

Tyler Kearns

[Paul_Turner]

Tyler

Yes that's true for some of the work Alison did.  But Crump didn't leave detailed plans, these were guidlines, and so Alison had creative input (6th, 9th, 11th and 17th greens for example).

[TEPaul]

"PS - But in answer to the question whether some archies are more equal than others, the answer is abso-friggin-lutley."

I hereby nominate Bob Crosby's word---"abso-friggn-lutley" as GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's "Word of the Month". I love it!

[TEPaul]

A.G. Crockett:

Post #12 is something else. Some very interesting thoughts to ponder! I want to respond but I need a few days to think about some of those things first. I think if we, on here, can generate a really intelligent discussion on some of the things you mentioned we should have a shot at truly understanding some of the history and evolution of golf architecture far better.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Need you ask?  Thanks for getting my day off to a good start with a laugh, though.

My business section had a "look back" article today that sort of applies here.  Basically, he looked at all the futurist books from the time he graduated in college, about 1970.  There have been literally millions of predictions of disaster since then, and only a few have come true.  I think that bit of human nature applies, if just a smidge, on this site!

But life goes on!  Speaking solely of Augusta, isn't the RTJ change to 16 generally well regarded?  Certainly, the masters wouldn't be the same without it, even if Mr. Jones probably didn't foresee the green speeds creating that much shot option of drifting it down the hill.

For that matter, how much would anyone back up keeping the tenth green where originally contemplated, which couldn't grow grass owing to poor drainage and sunlight in that area?  Of course, after Shinnecock, with little green grass, maybe they will move it back down there to keep up with the times.

[BCrosby]

Thanks Tom, but full credit goes to my 16 year old son. He spouts that kind of stuff all day every day.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"In the case of PV.  In the opinion of CH Alison (who was called in after Crump died) Crump's green contours were not working very well on several holes.  He redesigned a few and Maxwell did a couple too."

Paul:

That probably needs to be characterized a bit differently in the context of the subject of this thread. It was not just the opinion of CH Alison that a few greens and green contours were not working very well and were consequently redesigned. It appears to have been not just the general consensus of the membership and those who played PVGC but in some cases of Crump himself.

Tyler Kearns is right that the entire work of the so-called 1921 Advisory Committee was to finish off and improve PVGC in the spirit of what they knew or felt Crump himself wanted to do and would have done. Those so-called "remembrances" of Smith and Carr are pretty interesting and pretty indicative. When one reads the entire recommendation of CH Alison one can see the context and spirit he was both analyzing and working in to a large extent.

It's interesting that Maxwell did two greens there later. If you look at the 1921 Advisory Committee's report on Alison's recommendation report you can see that they approved Alison's recommendation on #8 green but it wasn't done by him---it was done by Maxwell later. Both that and the 9th greens were probably more a factor of just not having the money at the time otherwise Alison probably would have done both #8 and #9 greens instead of Maxwell doing #8 and left #9 later. Actually right #9 was probably done to Alison's specs by Flynn with Thomas looking on.
 
 

[JakaB]

I have always believed that the only reason Brad Klein writes books about Ross and not Wayne Stiles is that when you do the math of 400 Ross courses time the numbers of members who might purchase a book he really had no choice because of the economic possibilities of greater sales....Ross fits the profit demographic better than any other dead architect.....MacKenzie comes in second because of the Masters exposure...

[TEPaul]

Thanks a lot John B. I was about to do an in-depth book on that great but unheralded architect of the world's greatest hidden gem, Fernandina Beach Municipal, Tommy Birdsong!! But now your economic model of how to best sell golf architecture books has convinced me otherwise.

Did you know Tommy Birdsong was one of the last of the Timucuan indians, and that he was 7'9" and tatooed from head to toe. I thought that alone might have the potential for some break-away marketability.

[Tags:]

Tags: