Geometric Design and Battlefields

[Mike_Cirba]

I've gotten really busy at work and home lately, and haven't had much chance to post here...behind in my email as well, for those who've tried to reach me.

But, I wanted to post something that struck me the other day...

I took my daughter for a walk at Valley Forge National Park a recent Sunday afternoon.  For those who've never been there, it's a sprawling, largely open piece of land with significant elevation changes and long views from several prominent hilltops.  In golf parlance, not to sound disrespectful of the historical memorial to those brave soldiers, it is a "great site".  

Still, in and of itself, some earth needed to be "moved" to create the appropriate defensive structure that Washington and his men needed to ward off the expected offensive thrusts of the British troops.  Positions and armaments needed to be hidden, camoflauged, protected, beyond what the natural lay of the land provided.

As such, several earthen "features" were created, behind which men and cannons, horses and supplies could be hidden from view from "approach areas".  In some cases, steep rises would also provide difficult ascents on foot, further stymieing those approaches.

The features were of somewhat varied shapes and sizes, but generally along strict geometric scales.  Long straight berms were "pushed up", where a line of troops could position themselves on their bellies behind, providing them with a view of attacking soldiers while not betraying their positions.  Other features were more abrupt, behind which cannons would be located.  None of it looked particularly "natural", yet in the "long view", those features did tend to blend into the terain while still providing their functional purpose.

I couldn't help but notice the amazing similarities between those battlefield features of war in less technical times, and the features that were created in the first man-made golf courses once golf moved inland and even through CB Macdonald and Raynor's time.

It occurred to me that the man made features on our first golf courses were built to provide an analogous defense of the "target" areas on the golf course that those battlefield features provided for defending forces in wartime.  They were built to protect, to hide, to deceive, to physically weary, and to deflect the oppositions "shots", if you will.

From a physical standpoint, their characteristics are almost identical.  Why, you cut just cut a hole in many of them, fill them with sand, and do Charles Banks proud!  

There has been speculation over the years as to why golf architecture would have taken off in this clearly unnatural direction when we always had the natural links to emulate.  I would propose, and it seems to make sense to me, that the earliest architects and those who built the first inland courses, were simply emulating the techniques and strategies of earthmoving that they saw for too much of their lives...wartime battlefields.  

  

[MBL]

Mike-

Didn't the good Doctor Mac reference as much?  I seem to recall such a discussion in "The Spirit of St. Andrews".  

[Mike_Cirba]

MB Lewis;

If I recall correctly, the Good Doctor talked about the theories involved in the use of camouflage, misdirection, etc., as directly applicable to his practice of golf course architecture, and that analogy is apt.

However, what really struck me at Valley Forge was the geometric shaping of the earthen features, and how closely that parallelled the type of features created in our first courses.  I've read a good deal of discussion where people have been perplexed as to why the earliest architects would build such clearly unnatural looking features.  It seems to me that they were clearly looking at how things were done on battlefields, with a clear emphasis on function over form.

Not coincidentally, Dr. Mac was certainly one of the first to start the trend out of the geomtric phase, and to purposefully "blend" his man-made features with nature in a way as much concerned with aesthetic pleasure as functional purpose.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Mike I agree with you on two points.
1) Had General Washington decided to winter at another location, I believe that Valley Forge would be a golf course!

2) Raynor's use of pushed up hazards and greens sites certainly remind me of fortifications evident not only on Revolutionary war battlefields but also on Civil War sites as well.  I have not toured WWI sites in Europe but suspect that these fortifications would be similar.

I wonder when 'modern'  design began to shift from the idea of creating golf courses as fortifications resistant to attack to the natural flowing design evident later in the 20th century. The movement culminating in Fazio's framing of nature which separates itself from the strategy evident in the work of Raynor, MacDonald and other early Philadelphia school architects.

[Mike_Cirba]

Cos,

1) Yes, I felt sacriligious, but there were times during my walk when I envisioned wonderful golf holes out on that property, even some utilizing the geometric features.  :-/

2) Yes, and the civil war "trenches" are another example of the type of features I'm talking about.  

I'm guessing that Tom MacWood probably knows much more about this subject and linkage than me, so I'm hoping he weighs in with his thoughts, as well.

[Craig_Rokke]

Interesting thoughts, Mike. I've had golf holes on my mind
when driving through the park myself.

I bet William Flynn could have fashioned a few dandy holes
utilizing the stream as a hazard.

[TEPaul]

OHMYGOD:

So much of what we've talked about in the 2 1/2 years since Golfclubatlas has come into existence is right here in this thread topic in the way of questions and speculation on a few things and ideas.

What I've just read seems to me like that jigsaw puzzle whose pieces have not quite yet been completely fitted together!

The battlefield thing, strategy, geometrics, straight lines, natural lines, Mackenzie, camouflage, 1920s, "tying in", naturalizing, etc, etc, and then on to the stultified next era of architecture after the hiatus--it's all right here!

This thread should be treated very carefully and if developed well should be transfered to the "In My Opinion" section.

It's all right here, in my opinion, and the answers are in the correct piecing together of the evolution of it all! That's the key ingredient to understand how it all developed the way it did, I think.

From what I've read so far, the truth of it all, the truth of the evolution is all here in this thread except I feel the correct progression of that evolution and the reasons why are a bit off!

This one could be really interesting and a very valuable topic. But for now--I gotta go to bed!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

It occurs to me that some pictures might be in order here.  I'll try to get over there with a digital camera in the next couple of days.  Unfortunately, after taking my daughter on a 7-mile walk that day, my odds of dragging her back over there (with HER digital camera) might require bribery.  Fortunately, I have two "No Doubt" concert tickets in my pocket that she doesn't yet know about.

It would be particularly interesting to juxtapose them with pics of our earliest courses, I believe.  

I'm also hoping to hear MacWood's thoughts, because he is so knowledgable about the next phase of architecture, as he clearly defined in his earlier "in my opinion" section.  His speculation on the artificial features that replaced the "Geometric School" might tie in nicely to the whole discussion.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I really don't think that photos are necessary on this one! In my opinion, it will all be in the explanation of the evolution of these things!

So often we just look back at things, period, and we have opinions of them, we like them or we don't but always through the prism of our own time looking backwards!

But my feeling is when we see why they evolved the way they did, how they evolved the way they did, and even where those people who were the ones central to that evolution were hoping to go with it all, well then......!!

But the first thing to do is strip away as best we can everything we know since that time and go back to how it was then and forget about our own prism and our own time or even everything that ensued since their time! Only then can we see it just the way they must have and the evolution of it all will become much clearer, I think!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mike
I have not been to Valley Forge, but I have been to place called Fort Anne near Annapolis Royal in Nova Scotia. It was built in the same era, perhaps a bit earlier, and sits on a bluff overlooking the Bay of Fundy. The site and the views are beautiful, and the bold earthen fortifications are striking and enhance the experience. One has to consider this fort is over 250 years old and nature has had a little effect on its appearance - a little weathering, a little softer and the turf is gorgeous - but none the less the formations are for the most part geometric, or at least soft geometry. A perfect example of the Raynor paradox. Where the man-made can contrast with the natural, to actually enhance/bring more attention to the natural features.

[WilliamWang]

the link below is clearly the answer to these questions and more...

http://civilwarfortifications.com/

it's quite possible, i suppose, the military engineers from the civil war found employment as civil engineers on golf courses in the 1890-1910 period.  or more probably that civil war experience with fortifications percolated in the minds of early geometric golf designers.

off the top of my head, i imagine that trenches, rifle pits, and defilades could all have been adopted from civil war military engineering for use on man-made golf courses, but more likely they were in existence earlier on scottish links courses.

more interesting is perhaps the use of ramparts/parapets in the construction of golf greens, i.e. using the lines and angles of earthenworks to defend or repel the golf ball into rough or sand.

[Pete G]

Great Link William! Because I "need" photos, now I'm doing a search on Mathew Brady. Very timely, with Ken Burns' "Civil War" about to air on PBS. I'll be watching and looking past the issues.

[Mike_Cirba]

William;

WOW, what a link!  Thanks so much for sharing...I think we may be onto something here!  

[TEPaul]

Again (note and refer to threads and posts over a year ago on NGLA and geometrics), I don't think there is (or was) a "Raynor paradox"! At least not when it comes to considering and understanding the use of fairly geometric shapes in the design of his courses--or more accurately it should be said the design of NGLA (with C.B. MacDonald).

The reason there is no "Raynor paradox" is because at that time--1910-12, golf architecture had simply NOT EVOLVED to that point when architects began to design to concsiously "tie in" the features they made for golf in such a way as to appear far more like natural features, natural grades, natural lines and forms that were found on sites before they got there to construct courses.

That ability and inclination (to "tie in" the created features more naturally) came later (at least in a big way) but not much later!

In my opinion, it really started in the early to mid 1920s and might have had as much to do with the thinking and implimentation of Alister MacKenzie's ideas on camouflage as anything else. Certainly Colt, though, and some of the other European architects were scratching the surface of this interesting idea somewhat earlier and particularly on things like bunker creation (with a more natural look in formation).

But what was the purpose and impact of MacKenzie's ideas on military camouflage when it came to a golf architectural application? What even was MacKenzie's purpose when it came to camouflage in a military application.

From a lecture to the brass in 1925 it's very clear that MacKenzie's point on comouflage in a military application, particularly trenching, was to go beyond the accepted construction practices at that time! Preceding MacKenzie's ideas the military idea was to simply provide cover for troops in trenches and not to necessarily hide the fact that the trenches were there!

But MacKenzie's idea was to create trenches in such a way that the enemy would not even know the trenches and the troops were there until within 100 or sometimes even 50 yards of the trenches. Previously, it can be assumed that the enemy was aware where the trenches were at a far greater distance than that!

How did MacKenzie recommend accomplishing this change? Basically to NEVER use straight lines in construction! Previous to MacKenzie's ideas military thinking was to use straight lines in the creation of their ramparts, trenches or whatever!

Mackenzie's whole point was the absolute necessity of never using straight lines when troops were trying to protect (and then camouflage) themselves!

So really what MacKenzie's point was concerned this seemingly simple leap in logic to use only the lines of nature if you were trying to camouflage yourself in nature. And furthermore MacKenzie was very specific about how this could actually be done in trench construction.

But how did he apply that to golf architecture? GeoffShac and others, including myself, think that this was the first real dedicated effort in golf architecture to "tie in" manmade golf features in such a way (not using straight lines or hiding them) so that the architectural features created would be almost indistinguishable from the natural features!

And isn't this dedicated effort quite apparent at Cypress Point where it is and always has been hard to tell where Mackenzie's features stopped or started or were even used at all! He hid his architectural hand there real well--maybe even the best in the history of golf architecture!

But then we might say what about his bunker features and such--they certainly do hit the eye and become indicators for golf and golfers in various highly visible ways?

But they're supposed to do that! From the direction the golfer comes at holes and plays them they're supposed to be visible and anything but camouflaged! There's certainly that although no one could deny that it's even hard at Cypress to sometimes tell what are Mackenzie's bunkering and what is natural dunsy bunkering--these in a real way, he "ties in" too with anything but straight lines!

The true key to much of MacKenzie's ideas on camouflage in a golf architectural context is when you look at many of his holes from the opposite direction! In that context the manmade features, the highly visible bunkering from the golfer's normal direction, tends to fade away almost completely!

But other architects even into the late 1920s and later never got into doing this kind of thing that much! Raynor apparently never did, Banks didn't, Langford and many others never did and in an interesting way even Pete Dye never really did!

Why not? Because to them obviously other things were more important in their architecture like creating some really interesting and challenging holes despite whether their hand was hidden that well or not!

Generally really understanding things like battlefields, military construction, geometrics (which military and battlefield applications certainly used) had just not progressed to that point of using camouflage to "tie in" their creations with nature.

So, to me, all of this in golf architecture is not just about NOT using straight lines and tying in with natural lines, but when it all started to be done that way or even thought of!

It's all about understanding the EVOLUTION of golf architect and not just what happened and how, but why and certainly when!

[TEPaul]

In this vein, another very interesting thing to do if you're truly interested in golf architecture and it's construction is to not only look at the architecture from the direction in which most all golfers come at it but from the opposite direction!

It's just amazing what you can see if you do this with this in mind! I've been doing a lot of that lately and it's a lot like  looking at a stage set not from the direction that the audience looks at it but from the opposite direction! When you do that you can really see the construction exposed and the presentation exposed in a way! You can sort of see the raw mechanics of it all!

Remember near the end of the movie when Dorothy went behind the Wizard of Oz and behind a curtain and saw this little man pushing buttons and pulling strings? It's not that different in architecture--or some architecture!

In a sense MacKenzie thought of a way in a golf architectural context of hiding that little man from Dorothy even if she did happen to go behind the Wizard of Oz and behind the curtain!

There's one last thing about MacKenzie's novel ideas on camouflage in a military application! It probably has no golf architecture application but it's interesting nonetheless and a credit to MacKenzie's comprehensive thinking!

What if the troops had to retreat and leave their trenches and the enemy occupied them?

Ahhh! From the rear (where the good guys had to retreat)  his trench defenses were designed to be weak and highly piercable!! From that direction if the enemy occupied the good guys' trenches, the trenches were designed basically to be a trap!!

I don't think that has or could have a golf application though, but who knows? What about the idea of courses with in a course, an idea that certainly fascinates me more and more? I'm surely not the only one--it clearly fascinated George Thomas too!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom;

The only analogy I can think of to your last point about Mackenzie is the Perry Maxwell green!  

Just when you think you're "home", you've only just begun!  

[WilliamWang]

mackenzie's wartime influence in the use of camouflage and concealment may have been much greater than just GB&I.  i found a web site which reprints much of a 1917 U.S. department of war engineer's manual.  there are quite a few references to a maj. mackenzie, which i guess come from mackenzie's "trenches and camouflage" article??

http://cartome.org/eim3/eim3.htm

[TEPaul]

Mike:

What's the Perry Maxwell green mean? Do you mean, perhaps, when Perry pointed out to Alister that the great nine at Crystal that Alister had just congratulated himself on was only a great eight?

You do understand, don't you, that Alister MacKenzie mastered a great deal in both war and golf architecture but the one person Alister could never quite get the better of was John Barleycorn?

He waged many a battle with him but sadly realized he never won one! Tillinghast, on the other hand, had many an interesting battle with John Barleycorn too and some interesting results came from them but Tillie never quite understood that he won nary a one of them!

And as far as your journey just beginning despite the fact that you think you're finally home--I would say that even the very best of them were and are always aware to "know what you don't know"!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I think they were more than scratching the surface long before the 1920's. Huntercombe (1900), Sunningdale (1901-08), Ashdown Forest (1900-1910), Woking (1900-1910), New Zealand (1900-1910), Wimbeldon (1907), Alwoodley (1907),Worplesdon (1908), Westward Ho! (1908), Le Touquet (1908), Coombe Hill (1909), Swinley Forest (1909), Moortown (1909), Delamere Forest (1910), Knocke (1910), Ganton (1911), St.Georges Hill (1912), Blackmoor (1912) and The Addington (1913) are just a few famous examples of courses built or rebuilt prior to the 1920's that were "tied in." MacKenize developed his theories on camouflage during the Boar War (1899-1901).


Blackmoor (1912)

But all these dates (including when Raynor actually began to work solo) is beside the point. It has nothing to do with any chronology. The paradox that I originally noted had to do with a geometric formation contrasted or juxta positioned against natural features can create a very interesting aesthetic effect. That was true at Fort Anne in the 1700's, that was true at Yeamans Hall in the 20's and Lawsonia in the 30's or Black Creek and Hawk Pointe in the 2000's. The paradox is not dependent on when integration was first developed -- the gardens of Japan predate any golf development -- it is strictly an interesting aesthetic relationship between the natural and the man-made.

I also believe that it is not easy to create the Raynor effect. One of Raynor's greatest talents was the ability to recognize and utilize natural features, without that ability the aesthetic condition would not have worked.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

On this point of an interesting evolution in golf architecture when designers dedicatedly began to try to "tie in" their man-made features with what was natural, you and I must have a fundamental difference of opinion and perhaps we always will.

Most if not all of the courses you cited above that preceded say the late teens or the 1920s all had numerous man-made features, including greens and green-ends, bunkering and such that did not really "tie in" at all with natural grades and natural lines and such! The vestiges of that and all the evidence of it is very much still there on those courses. But don't necessarily confuse that fact with a discussion of "geometrics" in architecture!

I did not mean to say that most or any of that was necessarily "geometric" but it certainly was and still is man-made looking simply because it doesn't really "tie in" or even remotely so! The demarcations between what was man-made and what wasn't on many of those courses you cited is clear as the noonday--at least it is to me.

As for "geometrics", Raynor did use a good deal of basic geometrics in his designs and that is clearly evident to anyone who sees his courses!

I never once said in any post on this subject that I don't apprciate Raynor's courses either despite his use of "geometrics"! I do appreciate them very much but I see in them a real difference from much of what came later in a real attempt to "tie" almost everything into the lines of nature and natural grade and such!

So I see no "paradox" at all about appreciating Raynor's style. I see it as a good deal of "geometrics" and man-made golf features rather starkly juxtaposed to natural lines and grades and say so what? I appreciate it too for the time in which it was done. I don't have a problem with that at all.

I think the problems begin to arise when someone tries to rationalize that Raynor's style and his clearly constructed features really do "tie in" to those natural lines and grades somehow to become almost indistinguishalble from them. This is simply not the case!

But how others went from that time when most man-made features did not "tie in" very well to a time when they did is fascinating to me!

I'm not even saying what came later has to be considered better (although personally I think it is, not so much for golf maybe but for aesthetics)!

Many on here seem to be overly concerned that all things about golf architecture should look natural and if they don't something is inherently wrong!

I don't really subscribe to that idea because what may not look particularly natural may play extremely well! This much at least we do know as a certainty!

I'm just not sure what it is that you think is a paradox! I just don't see one, and to me most of it is understanding how any course plays for interesting golf but also understanding how and when the look of things in architecture evolved to something else--and in this case that would be really tying in golf features with natural features. And that's something Raynor did not seem particularly intent on doing, probably for a variety of reasons, but so what?

[TEPaul]

Tom;

So as not to confuse you with what I just said, particularly if you, or say Pat Mucci, asks me how then I could say that I appreciate Raynor and his sometimes starkly juxtaposed geometric or man-made look against natural features while at the same time I may not like the same overall effect of other architects, modern architects etc, whomever, I'll tell you right now it is difficult to explain but I certainly don't think it's impossible to explain!

Even someone as clearly talented and knowledgeable as Bill Coore struggles to explain it and has very much stated such! If that's what it is that you call a "Raynor paradox" then we very much do agree on these things!

But please, again, don't tell me that Raynor's constructed features "tie in" to natural features even as remotely indistinguishably as do MacKenzie's about 20 years later at Cypress because they just don't!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul;

My point about Maxwell greens was alluding to your mention of the "backside" of Mackenzie's trenches.  

You pointed out that if the entrenched "good guys" had to retreat, and those positions were overtaken by the "Approaching" bad guys, that Mackenzie took pains to ensure that the view (and protection) was a lot different on the far side of the trench.  In fact, troops taking over these positions just might find themselves in a very weakened, vulnerable state!

So it is with the Maxwellian green.  Just when you think you've gotten past all of the other defenses and "arrived safely", you often find that your biggest challenges and problems are now DIRECTLY in front of you!

Does that make more sense?  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
It's paradox because many believe that features that are tied or integrated into nature are the most aesthetically pleasing. And the work of Raynor, Langford, Alison, etc are cited as interesting exceptions. Most everyone finds them pleasing, but in some kind of odd quirky way in contrast to the more aesthetically pleasing work of MacKenzie, Thomas, Simpson, etc.

Geometric feaures which contrast with nature can be equally asethetically pleasing in my mind. As an example the contrast created by geometric rock features that shoot above Yosimite make for one of the most beautiful visions in the world. Enhancing both the bold geometric feature and the soft valley floor. And the reason it works so well? Because this stark contrast occurs in nature, some of the most striking natural situations are contrasts not tie ins - the rocky Pacific coast and the Canadian Rockies are two that come to mind.

[Lynn Shackelford]

Did anyone read the description of redan in the glossary on civilwarfortifications.com?  Who wrote that Max Behr?  I didn't get much out of that.

[MBL]

The true key to much of MacKenzie's ideas on camouflage in a golf architectural context is when you look at many of his holes from the opposite direction! In that context the manmade features, the highly visible bunkering from the golfer's normal direction, tends to fade away almost completely!

But other architects even into the late 1920s and later never got into doing this kind of thing that much! Raynor apparently never did, Banks didn't, Langford and many others never did and in an interesting way even Pete Dye never really did!

TEPaul-

Pinehurst No. 2 is rife with bunkering as referenced above.  If you look from the green to the tee on #16, Ross has all but disguised the yawning bunkers that are so intimidating from the tee box (and, if I remember correctly) even the hidden cross bunkering.  I guess my question is the level of influence that Dr. Mac had on Mr. Ross, given the above.