Did the Arts and Crafts Movement really influence GCA?

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

Each of the examples you provided were broad generalizations, the very thing you initially objected to regarding a post of mine.

You can't have it both ways.

Can you cite the names of the courses MacKenzie, Leach, Simpson and Hutchinson were refering too ?

And, can you cite the specific features, the architectural elements that they took offense to ?

Can you cite what they were refering to as architectural features that were purely the creation of the Victorian or industrial age ?

And, why, if Tom MacWood's theory of the A&C movement is focused primarily in GB did he choose to put a photo of the
16th at Pasatiempo on the cover of his treatise ?

Are we to conclude that MacKenzie's work was a rebellion against the Victorian or Industrial age ?

If so, how was he rebelling ?  In what form did it take ?

There were so few courses in the US and the UK, prior to the turn of the century, that I don't think you can make a valid argument regarding influences upon design, especially when a good number of the UK courses were linksland.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

It has become quite clear that you have no interest in getting to the bottom of this issue . . .

These are not my generalizations, these descriptions given by experts alive at the time, based either on first hand knowledge, or from C&W, supposed experts on the topic.   You'll have to ask them to what courses they refer.  

Again Patrick,  Do you deny the accuracy of these descriptions?  If so, based on what?  

.

[TEPaul]

Patrick Mucci asked Tom MacWood;

"Who are these A&C designers you allude to ?
What are their names?"

Tom MacWood responded:

"The first architects to breakaway from the Victorian inland mold and create more naturalistic inland designs in accord with A&C movement were Park, Fowler, Colt, Abercromy, MacKenzie and Simpson...see my A&C essay. Many of the same guys referred to in the ‘The Links’ as practioners of the ‘new art’.

Tom:

'In accord with the A/C movement??' 'See my A&C essay'??

Have you forgotten something? This thread is questioning YOUR conclusion and suggestion (at least I am and I started this thread) that the A/C movement was the primary architectural influence of the Golden Age of golf architecture---an influence that to date in golf architecture's historical literature only you have concluded and suggested was strong enough to merit renaming the Golden Age---"arts and crafts architecture, and YOUR suggestion that Horace Hutchinson should be considered the "Father" of golf course architecture.

As we discuss and debate the question and subject of this thread which is ABOUT YOUR conclusion and suggestion in that essay, and was started to debate that conclusion and suggestion contained in your essay on the A/C movement, I hardly think its supportable for you to point to your own conclusion and suggestion in that essay as evidence, historical or otherwise to support your conclusion and suggestion in that essay.

Have you forgotten what we're debating here? It's YOUR conclusion and suggestion in YOUR "arts and crafts" essay.

[TEPaul]

"To repeat my bottom line--  I dont know whether it is appropriate or accurate to classify the early inland architecture in GB as Victorian or Industrial.  But I do know that all the sources I have seen either explicitly call it Victorian, or describe features and an approach which would seem to be entirely consistent with such a classification.

Thus far you have not offered any facts or documents which even begin to bring the accuracy of these sources into question.  

Neither has Tom Paul.  Neither has Rich.  No one has.  Until we settle this business about the Victorian Era, there is no use continuing."

David Moriarty;

Could you tell me in a simple paragraph why you are so concerned about what the inland architecture that was first created outside the linksland and preceded the first  breakthrough linksland inspired natuarlistic architecture in the heathlands was called?

I think we all know what that first rudimentary, geometric, super symmetrical, inland architecture of that period most refer to as the "Dark Ages" when golf first migrated out of the linksland was like. Why are you so concerned if it was called Victorian, Industrial, geometric, Dark Ages, or even f...up architecture? Again, most on here know what it was like, and most should know by now why it was done that way at that time.

[T_MacWood]

"The influence on the architecture of Sunningdale was not some general 'movement' primarily in building architecture and art and craft (having perhaps at the time having come to be known as the A/C Movement). "

TE
Again I must say this statement reveals a general ignorance about the A&C movement. It was all-incompassing movement, of its founders Ruskin was not architect he was artist and writer; Morris was an artist, furniture, tapestry and wallpaper designer; Burne-Jones an artist; Ashbee a silversmith; Jekyll a gardener; Stickley a furniture maker.

Willie Park II deserves enormous credit...which I gave him in my essay. But as I have been saying all along he did not operate in a vacuum. The purpose of the essay was to expose the conditions and atmosphere at the time (including the overall society) and the influences that sparked the revolution in golf architecture--from the dark ages to what many consider the high point of the craft. Based upon my extensive research Park, Hutchinson and the A&C movement should all be given their due.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Again I must say this statement reveals a general ignorance about the A&C movement. It was all-incompassing movement, of its founders Ruskin was not architect he was artist and writer; Morris was an artist, furniture, tapestry and wallpaper designer; Burne-Jones an artist; Ashbee a silversmith; Jekyll a gardener; Stickley a furniture maker."

Tom MacW:

Of course that's what you must say. That's what you always say when asked to answer questions about your conclusion and suggestion that the Golden Age of golf architecture should be renamed "arts and crafts architecture" and that Hutchinson should be considered the "Father" of golf architecure. You apparently have no other answer to support those conclusions and suggestions other than to call those who legitimately question them ignorant.

I'm glad to know that all those people you named above from the A/C movement were into all those OTHER art forms and professions. I agree with that--I've never denied that or disagreed with it. However, we are talking on here about GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE, and not all those other art forms and professions or the A/C movement's influence on them.

All you've ever come up with on the subject of the "arts and crafts" movement's influence on the golf course architecture of the Golden Age is a English country magazine and its golf writer Horace Hutchinson. If you can't do better than that I hardly think discussing your conclusions and suggestions are worth pursuing. Many of us just don't agree with them or accept them, and many of us have just as good or better understanding of the history of golf course architecture as you do whether you think so or not. We are discussing what the primary influences were on GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE in this era. While a complete understanding of the "Arts and Crafts" movement might be interesting and edifying its not that important unless it can be proven that it WAS in fact a primary influence on golf course architecture of this era. And so far you haven't even come remotely close to establishing that fact. Noone has, and frankly it's obvious why noone in the last 105 years has never even bothered to try to establish such a thing---it is not true---it is not supportable by the facts of the evolution of architecture and the influences on it.

You seem to want everyone to take your conclusion and suggestion on faith simply because you made the conclusion and suggestion. That's not good enough. You must also defend and support those conclusions and suggestions when they're legitimately questioned with bona fide evidence to the contrary.

It is not my original idea that the primary influences on the Golden Age of golf architecture was linksland architecture followed by inland heathland architecture. I have the entire body of the literature of the history of golf architecture of that time to support me. Essentially you are attempting to revise or even deny what the entire body of the literature of the history of golf course architecture says the primary influence on the Golden Age was.

You have not and are not coming close to revising what the primary influence on that age was with this A/C theory of yours and of course you never will. The reason is it just denies or revises fact. Reverting to calling those who proffer the evidence of that fact ignorant is the modus of a man who probably understands his assumptions and conclusions have been exposed as untrue or irrelevant.

[T_MacWood]

"...an influence that to date in golf architecture's historical literature only you have concluded and suggested was strong enough to merit renaming the Golden Age---"arts and crafts architecture, and YOUR suggestion that Horace Hutchinson should be considered the "Father" of golf course architecture."

TE
As I have said before if I re-write the essay (which I'm sure I will do at some point), I would change Hutchinson from Father to Guide, and if you have better name for the period, I'm all for it. I have no desire to re-name the period or get credit for re-naming the period. These two issues appear to be very soar subjects with you (as you continue to repeat yourself), apparently your unhappiness with the my essay boils down to these two side issues.

Pat
"Can you cite the names of the courses MacKenzie, Leach, Simpson and Hutchinson were refering too ?"

Is it possible these respected men made up the Victorian era and its flaws?

"And, can you cite the specific features, the architectural elements that they took offense to ?"

The Cop bunker.

"Can you cite what they were refering to as architectural features that were purely the creation of the Victorian or industrial age ?"

No.

"And, why, if Tom MacWood's theory of the A&C movement is focused primarily in GB did he choose to put a photo of the
16th at Pasatiempo on the cover of his treatise ?"

Because it reflects the naturalness promoted by the movement. Afterall Nature, golf and the golden age were not confined to Britain. One of the interesting aspects of that architectural movement is tracing its migration from Britain around the world (not unlike the A&C movement).

"Are we to conclude that MacKenzie's work was a rebellion against the Victorian or Industrial age ?"

I don't know if I would look at it from that angle. I prefer to say he embrace the philosphies of naturalness found in the A&C movement.

"There were so few courses in the US and the UK, prior to the turn of the century, that I don't think you can make a valid argument regarding influences upon design, especially when a good number of the UK courses were linksland."

How many courses were there in the US and UK prior to the turn of the century?

[T_MacWood]

“I'm glad to know that all those people you named above from the A/C movement were into all those OTHER art forms and professions. I agree with that--I've never denied that or disagreed with it. However, we are talking on here about GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE, and not all those other art forms and professions or the A/C movement's influence on them.”

TE
You continue to bring up architecture as the main art form of the A&C movement. I’m starting worry about you…re-read your previous post:

"The influence on the architecture of Sunningdale was not some general 'movement' primarily in building architecture and art and craft (having perhaps at the time having come to be known as the A/C Movement). "

If you agree stop bringing up BUILDING ARCHITECTURE.

“All you've ever come up with on the subject of the "arts and crafts" movement's influence on the golf course architecture of the Golden Age is a English country magazine and its golf writer Horace Hutchinson.”

Not just an English country magazine, but THE English Country magazine, which historian often cite as a major influence upon British upper-middle class life at that time. That English country magazine also employed Bernard Darwin. Has any golf magazine in history EVER had two writers of their stature (simultaneously I might add)? Not bad for an English Country magazine.

I take it you aren't too impressed with Hutchinson. IMO C&W did not give him proper importance, which might explain your opinion.

I think I came up with a little more than you say, but that is for others to judge.

“If you can't do better than that I hardly think discussing your conclusions and suggestions are worth pursuing. Many of us just don't agree with them or accept them, and many of us have just as good or better understanding of the history of golf course architecture as you do whether you think so or not. We are discussing what the primary influences were on GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE in this era.”

That’s good.

“While a complete understanding of the "Arts and Crafts" movement might be interesting and edifying its not that important unless it can be proven that it WAS in fact a primary influence on golf course architecture of this era. And so far you haven't even come remotely close to establishing that fact. Noone has, and frankly it's obvious why noone in the last 105 years has never even bothered to try to establish such a thing---it is not true---it is not supportable by the facts of the evolution of architecture and the influences on it.”

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I knew when I wrote the essay that it would be somewhat controversial. You can’t convince everyone.

“You seem to want everyone to take your conclusion and suggestion on faith simply because you made the conclusion and suggestion. That's not good enough. You must also defend and support those conclusions and suggestions when they're legitimately questioned with bona fide evidence to the contrary.”

I included a good number of quotes in the essay, my research was extensive…beyone C&W even.

“It is not my original idea that the primary influences on the Golden Age of golf architecture was linksland architecture followed by inland heathland architecture. I have the entire body of the literature of the history of golf architecture of that time to support me. Essentially you are attempting to revise or even deny what the entire body of the literature of the history of golf course architecture says the primary influence on the Golden Age was”

I don't believe I disputed their findings...only built upon them.

“You have not and are not coming close to revising what the primary influence on that age was with this A/C theory of yours and of course you never will. The reason is it just denies or revises fact. Reverting to calling those who proffer the evidence of that fact ignorant is the modus of a man who probably understands his assumptions and conclusions have been exposed as untrue or irrelevant.”

You are entitled to your opinion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Moriarty,

Of course I deny the accuracy.
They failed to identify a single golf course, hole or feature.

You want us to accept, on blind faith, the notion that:

1  there was a A&C movement in Golf course architecture
2  It was the underlying foundation of Golden Age architecture
3  That no other alternatives are possible
4  That general references, absent identifiable sources should
    be accepted as gospel.  At least Tom Doak identified the
    golf course and his view and assigned a numeric rating to
    it.  No such identification of any feature, hole or golf course
    exists from your sourced writers.  You're blindly riding a
    horse named MacWood, who's also wearing blinders.
5  Links golf had a minor influence on Golden Age designs.
6  Links golf had little or no influence on Victorian Age designs.

As to your choice of words that contributed to misunderstandings, I can only go by what I read.


Tom MacWood,

In order to better understand your theory, what date do you attribute to the begining of the A&C movement in golf course architecture, and what was the sentinel event that keyed that date ?

And, when did the A&C movement end ?

What sentinel event triggered the begining of a new movement ?

You referenced Hunter, in "The Links", however, Hunter is clear, the retention of golf's linksland roots and values are the enduring bases for interesting and challenging architecture and golf, throughout the ages.

To attribute a previously unacknowledged, or even unidentified A&C movement. in golf course architecture as the spring board or genesis of "Golden Age" architecture is preposterous.

But, that's just my opinion.

P.S.  I do admire your devotion to golf course architecture.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Thanks.

“In order to better understand your theory, what date do you attribute to the begining of the A&C movement in golf course architecture, and what was the sentinel event that keyed that date ?”

1900. Willie Park, Sunningdale and Huntercombe.

“And, when did the A&C movement end ?”

I’m not sure it has ended or maybe the movement is enjoying a revival. It can be seen everywhere today.

“What sentinel event triggered the begining of a new movement ?”

Which movement?

“You referenced Hunter, in "The Links", however, Hunter is clear, the retention of golf's linksland roots and values are the enduring bases for interesting and challenging architecture and golf, throughout the ages.”

The links were the inspiration.

“To attribute a previously unacknowledged, or even unidentified A&C movement. in golf course architecture as the spring board or genesis of "Golden Age" architecture is preposterous.”

Why? Do you feel golf architecture is immune from prevalent social pressures?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
Thanks.

“In order to better understand your theory, what date do you attribute to the begining of the A&C movement in golf course architecture, and what was the sentinel event that keyed that date ?”

1900. Willie Park, Sunningdale and Huntercombe.
Dave Moriarty, wouldn't that date blow your premise and contentions out of the water ?  

Tom, that would seem to be a short lived movement, unless you merge it into the "Golden Age".  Isn't it difficult to establish where one begins and the other ends, or evolves, or merges ?[/color]

“And, when did the A&C movement end ?”

I’m not sure it has ended or maybe the movement is enjoying a revival. It can be seen everywhere today.

You're certainly not going to contend that RTJ represented a harmonious continuation of the A&C movement... are you ?
[/color]
“What sentinel event triggered the begining of a new movement ?”

Which movement?

The one that succeeded your A&C movement.[/color]

“You referenced Hunter, in "The Links", however, Hunter is clear, the retention of golf's linksland roots and values are the enduring bases for interesting and challenging architecture and golf, throughout the ages.”

The links were the inspiration.

Inspiration would seem to connote, the root of all creation, which would seem to reinforce my point.[/color]

“To attribute a previously unacknowledged, or even unidentified A&C movement. in golf course architecture as the spring board or genesis of "Golden Age" architecture is preposterous.”

Why? Do you feel golf architecture is immune from prevalent social pressures?

Immune, No, Insulated, Yes.
When it comes to golf course architecture, I think financial pressures exert far more influence than social pressures. [/color]

[T_MacWood]

"Tom, that would seem to be a short lived movement, unless you merge it into the "Golden Age".  Isn't it difficult to establish where one begins and the other ends, or evolves, or merges ?"

Did you read my essay?

"You're certainly not going to contend that RTJ represented a harmonious continuation of the A&C movement... are you ?"

Yes. Some of RTJ is definitely in harmony.

"The one that succeeded your A&C movement."

Which one?

"Inspiration would seem to connote, the root of all creation, which would seem to reinforce my point."

What point? Is the links inspiration not consistent with the principles of the A&C movement?

"Immune, No, Insulated, Yes.
When it comes to golf course architecture, I think financial pressures exert far more influence than social pressures."

Why is golf architecture more prone to financial pressures than architecture, gardening, painting, jewelery, glasswork and furntiture design?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Tom, that would seem to be a short lived movement, unless you merge it into the "Golden Age".  Isn't it difficult to establish where one begins and the other ends, or evolves, or merges ?"

Did you read my essay?

Yes, but, not in a vacuum, as I've read all of your posts on the subject, on these recent threads.[/color]

"You're certainly not going to contend that RTJ represented a harmonious continuation of the A&C movement... are you ?"

Yes. Some of RTJ is definitely in harmony.

Which RTJ ?
Naccarato, are you listening ?[/color]

"The one that succeeded your A&C movement."

Which one?

How many A&C movements have you discovered ?[/color]

"Inspiration would seem to connote, the root of all creation, which would seem to reinforce my point."

What point? Is the links inspiration not consistent with the principles of the A&C movement?

Not necessarily, but it is a stretch to attribute your A&C movement as the primary influence in "Golden Age" architecture, rather then the Links.[/color]

"Immune, No, Insulated, Yes.
When it comes to golf course architecture, I think financial pressures exert far more influence than social pressures."

Why is golf architecture more prone to financial pressures than architecture, gardening, painting, jewelery, glasswork and furntiture design?

Because poor guys, paint, sculpt, write and garden, you need lots of money to acquire, design, build and maintain a golf course, that's one of the reasons it was refered to as a rich man's game.

Financial pressures exert far greater influence on the ability to create the finished product.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said:

“TE
As I have said before if I re-write the essay (which I'm sure I will do at some point), I would change Hutchinson from Father to Guide, and if you have better name for the period, I'm all for it. I have no desire to re-name the period or get credit for re-naming the period. These two issues appear to be very soar subjects with you (as you continue to repeat yourself), apparently your unhappiness with the my essay boils down to these two side issues.

From Tom MacWood’s “Arts and Crafts” Movement essay;

“I am not suggesting that the term ‘Golden Age’or ‘classical’ be rejected or erased from our golfing literature, they have served us well to this point, only that there will come a day when a more relevant term will be needed. And considering the historical circumstances and the powerful influence that this artistic movement had on all aspects of life including golf-architecture, ‘Arts and Crafts’ would not only accurately describe this golf design era, but it would allow golf-architecture to take its rightful place among the other arts.”


“When considering the great theorists who influenced the art of golf design, Horace Hutchinson normally gets no more than passing mention. He is not known for complex theories on strategy, his ideas were simple -- provide the golfer with choices. Above all he preached the importance of nature and variety, the same message sounded by Ruskin, Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement. Strategy, naturalness and variety were all alien to those early golf courses of the Victorian era and Hutchinson was responsible for rescuing the game from what might have been a fatal deterioration. You might ask why is he not better known, and the answer is partially due to timing, his impact was very early and after the Great War many of his simple views were considered antiquated and old-fashioned. His theories had been expressed just after the turn of the century and Hutchinson had long abandoned his platform by the 1920’s when many of the most prominent essays on design were being written. But his impact can not be overlooked; his simple theories still hold true. Horace Hutchinson is the father of the art of golf-architecture.”

Tom:

I’m glad to hear you’ll consider changing your suggestion that Hutchinson be viewed in the evolution of golf architecture to perhaps a guide rather than saying ‘Horace Hutchinson is the father of the art of golf-architecture.’ I’d certainly accept that alteration.

And I don’t have a better name for the period. I think the term “the Golden Age of golf architecture” has probably served the era just fine---it’s what it’s been referred to for quite some time. It’s identifiable to us. As for the primary influence on it, again, I think the literature that has been written over the decades from its time until today describes and explains the primary influences on it accurately and factually. The primary influence of the  linksland and heathland on the “Golden Age” is well known and accurate, the A/C movement, a term known and used before the “Golden Age” began, has virtually never been used for it or referred to as a primary influence on it and seemingly for good reason. I see no factual or necessary reason to describe it that way now. These issues are certainly not ‘soar subjects” with me. We discuss golf course architecture on this website, it’s particulars and specifics, its evolution and the influences on it. I am only interested in keeping that record accurate, and it seems others on here are as well judging from this six page thread.

If you consider your remark in your essay---“‘Arts and Crafts’ would not only accurately describe this golf design era, but it would allow golf-architecture to take its rightful place among the other arts.”, or your remark in your essay----“ Horace Hutchinson is the father of the art of golf-architecture.”, just ‘side-issues’ I certainly wish you would have told all of us that before now.

[TEPaul]

"TE
You continue to bring up architecture as the main art form of the A&C movement. I’m starting worry about you…re-read your previous post:"

Where did I say that in a previous thread? What architecture? Building architecture? Golf course architecture? Landscape architecture? I have no doubt the A/C movement may have had some primary influence on building or landscape architecture in a particular era and in particular regions. I just don't think it had a primary influence on the so-called "Golden Age" of golf course architecture. At least not remotely to the extent of meriting relabeling that era "arts and crafts architecture".

That's all I've ever said on here.  

[SPDB]

TEPaul - It sounds like you and Pat Mucci are the only ones who are "keeping the record accurate." In fact, it would seem that more people on this thread tend to disagree with your efforts than agree with them.

Its not at all clear to me what you find so objectionable about an academic theory put forth by Tom M., a theory which even you concede, is not so far fetched as to be dismissed out of hand. That the A&C movement's impact on british golf architectural development cannot be "proved" is not at all surprising, it is the rare case that an artist will acknowledge or even identify himself with the movement while he's engaged in his art. Nor can it be proven that linksland architecture was the primary or even exclusive influence on heathland, as you claim it can. Artistic influences and aesthetic movements aren't the sort of thing that lend themselves to empirical quantification.

And so what if it hasn't been written about before, or advocated in the past, neither had the fact that George Crump committed suicide, and despite your obstinancy and well intentioned incredulity, that's a fact that came to see the light of day. Few intellectually interesting ideas are the product of regurgitation or imitation.  It's not like he's suggesting a controversial influence. If it makes you take a deeper look into the history of the craft, irrespective of whether you ultimately agree with him, isn't that a good thing? I applaud Tom M. for challenging accepted norms of the development of golf architecture. Whether his thesis is true or not, or whether it can be proven, is, for our purposes, irrelevant; what matters is that it is enormously thought provoking.

[TEPaul]

"I take it you aren't too impressed with Hutchinson. IMO C&W did not give him proper importance, which might explain your opinion."

No, you certainly shouldn't take it that way. I have never said anything like that, not on here, not anywhere. And please do me and everyone on here a favor, would you please? Do not keep referring to C&W as the only thing or the only source I have on golf course architecture. That you should just keep saying that is petty and you ought to know that. I guess I'm just not in the habit of informing you and everyone else on this website of everything I've read on golf course architecture as you seem to constantly do.

I have a lot of respect for Hutchinson. I was very impressed by how much Macdonald counted on him and apparently valued his opinions on early golf rules and the adoption of them by the USGA, on the floater ball, on political issues between the R&A and the USGA, on the Schenectedy putter issue and I&B etc, as well as his opinion of NGLA and I'm sure golf course architecture generally. He was definitely a most respected man in golf, particularly in Europe.

[Adam_F_Collins]

SPDB

I think the whole discussion leads us all to take a deeper look at the history of this subject, which we all find so interesting.

I think Tom MacWood's article was well-researched and thoughtful, well-written and indeed, very thought-provoking.

But now that we have been provoked, we need to renew our debate in light of Mr. MacWood's findings and his theories. His position can and should be challenged in order to put it into its proper place in history.

If Tom's work is to have any importance to the history of golf, then it must be shared, considered and debated. It has to take on all comers, and weather the test of time itself.

I agree with TEPaul's challenge and feel that he's right to do so to the best of his ability.

I don't think such challenges show anything but respect and interest. Controversy is a sign of life. Dismissal (and ill-considered acceptance) is more detrimental to the life of a theory.

[SPDB]

AFC -
You're right. I would just like to see it met with some counterargument that doesn't repeat the conclusion. Or follows the form - All golf writers know everything there is to know about the history of golf course architecture, no golf writer has ever written anything specifically tying heathland architecture to Arts & Crafts, therefore, Arts & Crafts had nothing to do whatever with the development of golf architecture. That's not proof, that's logical fallacy.

Apart from the suppressive effect this type of logic would have, generally, on any sort of scholarship, it demeans Tom M's research.

Don't get me wrong, Tom M's thesis isn't free from criticism, and is susceptible of an interpretation that it is mere coincidence. But some of the parallels are at least modestly compelling.

At some point, though, there has to be an acknowledgment that , in a strict sense, there can be no proof or disproof of his thesis.

[TEPaul]

Sean Berry, you'd do well to listen carefully to Adam Foster Collins and precisely what he says on here particularly throughout this particular thread.

Adam, there's been so much going on in these last few days I never got around to telling you what I wanted to tell you a few days ago which is you are most definitely about THE MOST clear-headed, balanced and fair-minded guy I've seen on this website all these years. At least that's about what every post you've ever made on here shows me.

Whatever happens please don't leave. GOLFCLUBATLAS.com really needs you.

[TEPaul]

"At some point, though, there has to be an acknowledgment that , in a strict sense, there can be no proof or disproof of his thesis."

Well, then Sean, by all means let me be the first to acknowledge that! I'll do it in a strict sense, a lenient sense, any old sense you want me to acknowledge it in.

You're in law school, aren't you pal? May I remind you that we are not exactly in a court of law here on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. This is a website that deals in opinions. Hopefully good contributors try their best to support their opinions with logical thought and as much fact as they can find.

How can I prove some negative or something I don't feel is true? I don't think the A/C movement was the primary influence on the Golden Age of golf course architecture. The only way I can establish the point that I don't think the A/C movement wasn't the primary influence on the Golden Age is try the best I can to establish what I think, and have for a long time thought WAS the primary influence on the Golden Age---and that is the influence of linksland and heathland architecture. There's a lot of literature out there from some great sources that most everyone on here acknowledges are great historical sources who seem to have supported that point for a long, long time. And I'm not the one who came up with this novel theory after 105 years. I'm not sure there's all that much burden of proof or of opinion on me right now on this subject.

[DMoriarty]

Of course I deny the accuracy.
They failed to identify a single golf course, hole or feature.

MacKenzie, Leach in American Golfer, Hutchinson, Simpson, C&W, Behr all give consistent descriptions of this period.   Others too I presume.   In contrast, you have not cited a single source which disagrees with their description of this period.   Yet you refuse to even address their point, continuously demanding more and more information to authenticate their observations.  

This isnt radical stuff.  This is some of the most respected names in golf all consistently describing the same period of golf course design.   Yet you disagree for no apparent reason except that you claim to doubt the authenticity of their like descriptions.    

Honestly Patrick,  I am not sure I buy TomM's theory entirely,  but think it worthy of a discussion to flesh it out a bit.   But this is not a dialogue.   You guys began with heels dug in and you wont budge.  

By the way, they do discuss specific courses.  Go read their works if you truly interested.   I am not going to continue trying to convince you, since it has apparently become purely rhetorical to you.

A disappointing conversation, to say the least.  

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty;

Could you tell me in a simple paragraph why you are so concerned about what the inland architecture that was first created outside the linksland and preceded the first  breakthrough linksland inspired natuarlistic architecture in the heathlands was called?

I think we all know what that first rudimentary, geometric, super symmetrical, inland architecture of that period most refer to as the "Dark Ages" when golf first migrated out of the linksland was like.

For one, Patrick Mucci doesnt know this.  Or so he says.  

Why are you so concerned if it was called Victorian, Industrial, geometric, Dark Ages, or even f...up architecture?

As I posted in the other thread, I am not much presently concerned with labeling Early Inland design.  First I'd like to try to figure out what if anything these courses had in common.  Only then would it make much sense to try to see if these common characteristics fit under some definitional umbrella.  

That being said, I do find it very interesting that at least a few writers of the time did characterize it as Victorian Age design.  

Again, most on here know what it was like, and most should know by now why it was done that way at that time.

TomP, how do you reconcile the MacKenzie book and the Leach article with your position?    Are you aware of any documents, photographs, or articles which refute their descriptions?  

[ForkaB]

Dave

I re-read MacKenzie's book a month ago and found it to be very light lifting, intellectually.  Some interesting stuff, but mostly a bunch of self-serving throw-away lines without any research, experience or logic behind them.  Mack didn't even play golf when the "Victorian" architects were (apparently) rampant, raping and pillaging all the great golf course sites with their cop bunkers and overly geometric forms.  My guess is that his comments on this issue was a lazy regurgitation of Hutchinson or Leach (who probably was regurgitating Hutchinson).  But, that's just my opinion.

You and Tom MacW seem to be inclined to grasp at threads of second-hand evidence and present them as whole cloth and/or fact.  Surely this wouldn't work in court, counsellor, or would it........??

[T_MacWood]

"You and Tom MacW seem to be inclined to grasp at threads of second-hand evidence and present them as whole cloth and/or fact."

Rich
That's true, to give you an idea, I actually believe there was a golden age of golf architecture, an arts & craft movement and that man landed on the moon.

The fact is the A&C movement had a significant impact on the aesthetic and philosphy of that period...if you choose to exclude golf design from the rest of society, that is your perogative, but the evidence shows it was definitely interwoven.

"I certainly wish you would have told all of us that before now."

TE
I did, I'm surprised you missed it. It was right after I saked you a pointed question about WP II, which evidently didn't know the answer to, so you may have stopped reading at that point. It was about seventy posts ago...I didn't write the essay to get naming rights (which appeared to be a very soar subject with you) and both are minor issues in the greater scheme of things:

"On your two main issues…if you can come up with a better name, go ahead. My purpose in writing the essay was not to rename the period, but to explain the A&C movement and the impact it had upon all design at that time…including golf architecture at a key juncture.

If your name is good…I say we go with it. It would probably be more inline with the umbrella nature of the movement: consolidating sub-categories, Prairie, Craftsman, Mission, Natural gardening, etc.

When and if I rewrite the essay in the future, I’ll probably rewrite the part about Hutchinson being the Father of modern GA.  I don’t particularly like calling anyone the Father of anything…it really doesn’t explain much. IMO it doesn’t explain clearly the significant impact Hutchinson had in those early years. I’m not sure what I’ll call him (if anything), but I kind of like ‘the guide’…because it better describes his guiding impact upon so many."

Pat
"Which RTJ ?" His work with Stanley Thompson in the 1930's.

I don't which movement that proceeded the A&C movement you are referring to....what is the name of the movement?

Rich, TE and Pat...I must be doing something right.