Where does Stanley Thompson stand?

[ian]

Highland Links is a special situation since the government ownes the course. The heritage designation would help, becuse then it becomes like a historical site. To be preserved for generations to come. This would be my first choice of his work for "true" preservation.

Working in a National Park is already near imposible since most of the Parks people have the philosophy of golf is bad and shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Robert Thompson]

Adam: it is interesting that the Canadian gov't doesn't really consider Thompson's work to be art in the way that Tom Thomson's paintings are. No where is this more evident than at Highlands Links, which has really significant problems facing it at the moment. Lorne Rubenstein has started to write about this and I intend to next year as well -- this is an issue that can't be ignored, though the powers that be are doing their best to do just that.
Sure, there are some private Thompson courses that have disappeared (Mayfair is reportedly so much of a disaster that friends in Edmonton suggested to me that I shouldn't even bother seeing it when I was there last summer). However, most clubs now pride themselves on their "Thompson" heritage. Take, for example, Brantford, which loves to say it is Stanley's work, when it was clearly done by his brother. In Canada, having a "Stanley Thompson" course is like having a brand name. There's even a Stanley Thompson society now, though they are largely ineffectual and incoherent.

RT

[Dan Herrmann]

How has the conditioning been at HL?  I remember an article from Toronto that lambasted the conditioning this past year.  I was there in 2002, and the conditions were fine...

[Robert Thompson]

Dan: I was there in 2003 and found things to be OK, though the trees need to be taken back a bit and Graham Cooke's cart path and bunker work is a disaster. It is still great, but feeling a bit old and tired these days.
This year the national park workers went on strike, which, to my understanding, included the maintenance staff. Lorne Rubenstein was pretty critical of the course's shape in a story this summer, but others who played it didn't find a big change from past years.

RT

[Jay Carstens]

While I cannot comment on the quality of the courses designed by Stanley Thompson in South America, here is a list of them;

Constant Springs GC - Kingston, Jamaica - 1930
Manchester GC - Mandeville, Jamaica - 1930 (9 holes)
Gavea G & CC - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - 1930
Medellin GC - Medellin, Columbia - 1930
Sao Paulo GC - Sao Paulo, Brazil - 1932
Teresopolis CC - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - 1935
Itanhanga CC - Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - 1935 (36 holes)
San Andres GC - Bogota, Columbia - 1946

Here's a link to Sao Paulo GC.  A friend drives by everyday but has never played.  http://www.spgc.com.br/

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

My spanish is pretty poor, though they do mention Stan the Man in reference to renovating in 1935. I am almost positive that he did not build the fountain on the main page of Sao Paulo's website...

[Dick Kirkpatrick]

Robert Thompson:
As a member of the Board of Directors of the Stanley Thompson Society I would like to thank you for your compliments.

[Jay Carstens]

My spanish is pretty poor, though they do mention Stan the Man in reference to renovating in 1935. I am almost positive that he did not build the fountain on the main page of Sao Paulo's website...

Ben-
I'm with you.  That fountain looks new to me.  
Here's a "best available" Portutugese translation of the Thompson part:

With passing of the years, club was growing, firming itself as one of most traditional of the State - already with the name of São Paulo Golf Club - and starting to exhibit enviable status.  She was necessary to follow the progress.  E the directions had not neglected of the improvement that if made necessary, to take care of to the increasing number of associates and the requirements of the same ones.  Thus in 1935 the first reform was processed, when club contracted the services of one of the biggest names in architecture De Campos of golf of the United States, Stanley Thompson, that with the aid of the Professional Jose Gonzalez Maria, with many years of club, introduced the reforms of the field and greens of gram, in substitution to the ones of sand.

[Matthew MacKay]

I'm not sure that Thompson had considerable influence outside of Canada but we sure are fortunate that he left the legacy that he did, otherwise I'm afraid the 'great white north' would be a bit of a golfing wasteland.  Not to say there is nothing else worthy here but what a bonus it was to have a talented artist take centre stage at the most crucial juncture in golf architecture, The Golden Age.  Of course he had great land to work with but he certainly took full advantage.

It's amazing to see the gathering exposure that Thompson is getting here, in fact I recieved a  Kawartha G&CC hat for Christmas emblazoned with "A Stanley Thompson Design" logo.  This branding increases golfer's awareness of Thompson and golf design in general, but it also reeks of opportunism in cases such as the one pointed out by Rob at Brantford.  There probably aren't many courses at this stage that can rightfully call themselves a Thompson design, maybe Ian can help us with this.  

I would encourage anyone to make the effort and spend a week playing Thompson's work just within 200km of Toronto; even at that you still wouldn't see all that's worth seeing.  

I'll second the notion that Ian is doing yeoman's work up here and that any Thompson course he has touched has improved simply by him being sympathetic to Thompson's original intent.  I wish he could do work on every last one of them because there are more than a few 'Thompson" designs that could be much more than they currently are.

 

[Jay Carstens]

Here's another Brazilian course Thompson was involved with:  http://www.itanhanga.com.br/index.jsp

translated course history:
The creation of the Itanhangá Golf Club in 16 of May of 1933 was a significant landmark in the Capital life of then the Federal one in the beginning of the decade of 30. The initial conception for that new club was unknown in the history of the city of Rio De Janeiro, therefore the idea was to create a species of esportiva city of end-of-week, where the proper associates would construct chalés, a formula very en vogue in the Europe, and where could practise an ample variety of sophisticated esportivas modalities, as the golf, polar region, riding, shot-ao-plate, iatismo, boating, arc and arrow, tennis and even though bowling. But the priorities were same the golf and the polar region, until then only practised in the Golf Topsail and Country Club, whose structure did not obtain more to take care of the sophisticated Carioca social elite who if expanded with the economic modernization initiate for the Revolution of 1930, added to the increasing presence of members of North American, Canadian companies and British that initiated a new cycle of investments in the country. The place initially foreseen for the installation of the new club was restinga of Jacarepaguá, but in way to the difficult negotiations with the proprietors of the area, the chance of acquisition of a set of small small farms located in the lowered one of the Itanhangá appeared, enters High of the Boavista and the lagoons of the region. After to be certifyd of that the land was adequate to its objectives, the group of founding partners was decided for the new place. They had carried through a subscript to quit the first parcels, and had given immediate beginning to the workmanships of construction of the fields. In July of 1935 he was inaugurated, with a great party which had appeared authorities of the Government and members of the body diplomatist, the first stretch of 9 holes of the field of golf, projected and constructed by the Canadian Stanley Thompson, of the detached company Thompson & Jones, beyond canchas of polar region and riding. A long history of devotion to the sport, mainly to the golf and the polar region, and a pioneering enterprise started there that would go to determine the growth and the form of occupation of the quarter of the Itanhangá.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Thanks to those who have given so much information about Thompson's courses and, especially those in South America.  The clickable course map at the Itanhanga website gives details of the bunkering etc and the course map gives an excellent idea of the routing.  To those of you experienced in these matters, how much looks to be surviving original Thompson?

[ian]

I understand that Chateau Montebello after a major renoavtion by John Watson a dozen or so years ago, is currently undergoing another that will continue to strip the Stanley Thompson completely out of the course.

 

[Jeff_Mingay]

Ian,

Tell me if you agree.

One of the biggest travesties in Canadian golf has involved a legion of golf architects claiming to be disciples of Stanley Thompson who have destroyed his work.

Apparently, the trend continues.

It's a sad state of affairs.

[ian]

I was talking to Rob tonight about the fact that Canadian architects on mass don't seem to give a shit about history, yet many belong to societies designated to preserve architects work. WHY? Why do they bother? Is it for appearances? Is it to get work? Is so they can play an annual tournyment on a cool course?

I'm currently very frustrated with what's going on. As I said to Rob, I don't claim to be perfect when it comes to restoration; but I really think that none of the better known names in Canada even care at all.

aughhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm having a bad day today.

[Robert Thompson]

With all due respect to Dick -- I think the Thompson society has several members who have done a lot of damage to some of Stanley's work. That really brings into question the merit of having a "Thompson society," doesn't it? After all, if a society's members don't even stand up for the work of an architect they represent, then what do they stand for?
Like Ian says, there appear to be few, if any, architects in Canada who actually won't completely overhaul a Thompson course if given the cash.
It is a bit of a sad state of affairs -- considering the lip service given by Canadians to the "legendary" Stanley Thompson.
I'm not having a bad day -- these are just facts.

Robert

[Adam_F_Collins]

Ahh, now we're getting to it. From Ian's post #38 on. We started with an optimistic picture on this thread, but we're slipping into a different tone...

Which is it?

How well is the work of Thompson being preserved and cared for on the whole? Jeff and Robert both speak of Canadian architects doing "a lot of damage" or "having destroyed" his work.

Jeff refers to "a sad state of affairs" and Robert mentions that the Thompson Society is "largely ineffectual and incoherent".

Can we not name names? Who is destroying the work; how and why? What can be done to stop this trend? What does the Thompson Society need to do to be more effective in helping?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Adam,

It all starts with club members and course owners. They have to put some serious thought into who they'd like to handle their golf courses, instead of simply hiring a "name architect" who designed a course down the road they like. Or an architect who's office is simply close by.

And, those club members and course owners also need to do some thorough research into the history and evolution of their respective courses so a consulting architect can't simply "pull the wool over their eyes", as has been done so many times.

In other words, it's not uncommon for a consulting architect to show up professing to be a disciple of Stanley Thompson, and claim to interested in restoration. Then, the same architect carries out renovation work that doesn't reflect Thompson's original design in the least bit. Because, in so many cases, club members or course owners have no idea what Thompson's original designs or ideals are all about, they simply figure they've been left with a restored Thompson course, when in fact, they've aided in the loss of Thompson's architecture.

Again, it's a sad state of affairs.

I know of a few other cases where Ian's tried to sincerely restore Thompson's work, but club members, course owners, and golf course superintendents have made it difficult on him. This is another problem. Situations where people want a Thompson course "restored", but at the same time claim that a particularly green is too heavily contoured or sloped and thus should be softened; that it makes no sense to reinstall a bunker some 175 yards from the tee or widen a fairway; that certain trees simply can't be taken down, etc., etc.  

A few years ago now, I was asked by the Stanley Thompson Society to assist with putting together a series of "techical manuals" that would be made available to Thompson-designed courses, to assist them with restoring and preserving those original designs. I actually wrote a bunch of stuff, but the Society's enthusiasm for the project died. The idea has recently resurfaced, and I'm hopeful we can put something together by the end of 2005.

[Adam_F_Collins]

It seems to me that it's largely a question of education - both for the architects as well as the golfing public who make up the committees which hire those architects.

Contrary to what people might think, no designer sets out to piss people off and to knowingly erase the great work of a great historical architect.

The problem comes in the definition of 'great'. One has to be sufficiently schooled in GCA in order to know when, if and how some aspect of a classic work should be altered for the specific needs of modern demands. THEN that architect has to be sufficiently schooled in the work (both theoretical as well as physical) of a particular classic architect in order to discover how best to integrate the new work and best preserve the design integrity.

If one subscribes to the minimalist approach - A new project should respect nature, and what the land offers first. Any artificial activity should be blended well enough to be invisible. A restoration or renovation has to look at the original work as nature itself and do the same thing. Do all that you can NOT to change things - but when it is absolutely necessary, then make those changes in an attempt to make them indistinguishable from the work of the original master.

Someone like Thompson may be in danger because there's really not a lot of information out there to help people understand what makes his work unique to him. An architect like Donald Ross has much more notoriety and study directed toward his work - this focus may be necessary in order to provide solid direction for the preservation of his work.

[Robert Thompson]

Adam: Well, if we are going to name names, we could start with Thompson's right hand man, Robbie Robinson, who messed with many of his former boss' courses. He's deceased now.
Interesting, Cooke has done an awful job on several Thompson courses, including Highlands Links. Why Graham even bothers with so-called "restoration" baffles me. Of course Les Furber and Bill Robinson did their bit to Banff -- and the results are well, stunning, to say the least.
Of course there are also some individuals claiming to have ties to Thompson -- architects with high profiles in the Thompson Society -- that have destroyed some great work. Ian has spent some time recently redoing those mistakes. At least it creates work for him.

R

[Jeff_Mingay]

Adam,

The information's out there re: Thompson and his architecture. It just hasn't been properly organized.

It's a lot of work. And, I think the "politics" of some of these architectural societies, and the personalities involved actually get in the way sometimes.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Check out Cooke's article on the restoration of Highlands:

http://home.total.net/~gcooke/approach.html

bottom of the page.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Rob,

I think it was Doak who once said it was a good thing that so many classic courses were permitted to be "screwed up" over the years, 'cause it created those opportunities for Renaissance Golf Design to work at fixing them!

Frankly, I've always been a little creeped out by those contemporary Canadian architects who claim a "connection" to Thompson. None of them ever met the guy. It's just pretty pathetic salesmanship, really.  

[Robert Thompson]

Adam: Having been to Highlands twice since Graham's so-called "restoration," I can say his cart work is the worst I have ever witnessed and his bunker work has absolutely no connection to anything Stanley Thompson ever did.
There was lots of material to choose from -- including the club pro, who has been around the course since the 1950s and remembers all the changes. If that wasn't enough, there is also a copy of Shell's Wonderful World (Balding vs. Knudson) that shows the state of the course in the 1960s.
Needless to say, it is my understanding Graham never bothered to pay attention to any of this -- and worst of all, only made it to the course once or twice, sending his east coast associate for the most part.
The word pathetic comes to mind.

Robert

[Jeff_Mingay]

Rob,

All I will say is, Joe Robinson should have been HEAVILY involved with the work at Highlands Links back in the mid 1990s. He wasn't even consulted.

Joe's a great guy. He grew-up in Ingonish, and learned to play golf well at Highlands Links. He LOVES the golf course, and has a tremendous amount of respect and knowledge of Thompson's original design there.

And he wasn't consulted? Amazing really.