[Ran Morrissett]

...The Architect as Genius is now posted under In My Opinion and in it, architect Mike Young asks aloud when does reverence for the old become counter-productive.

He starts by suggesting that there is "not a single architectural attribution anywhere to be found in Darwin's Golf Courses of the British Isles." Contrast that today with the hero worshipping that occurs if MacKenzie was once in the same state as your golf course and well, Mike's got a point - something has definitely changed.

Mike acknowledges that "the best of the Golden Age were unmatched geniuses at using existing landforms to create strategy and interesting shot options" but he goes on by saying, "my point, to turn the old axiom on its head, is that their genius does not reside in every detail. It can be counter-productive to treat Golden Age courses with too much deference....A balance has to be struck...."

I wish more golf course architects would take the time to pen such pieces - whether you agree with Mike's premise or not, it is CERTAINLY thought provoking.

Cheers,

[Dan King]

I agreed with many of Mike Young's points, but I was recently re-reading The Golf Courses of the British Isles and his point about Darwin doesn't hold true.

Consider, for example, Bernard Darwin’s famous Golf Courses of the British Isles, a book that brought public attention to legendary courses in England, Scotland and Ireland for the first time. Discussions of golf architecture are central to the book, but there is not a single architectural attribution anywhere to be found.

Darwin doesn't give much credit to architects involved in links courses, as he says, "The elder 'architects' took a piece of country that was more or less ready to their hand, rolled it and mowed it, cut some trenches and built some ramparts, and there was the course." (3)

But he does give non-links course architects credit both good and bad. Following examples in just the first dozen pages:
"All the other courses would have been lumped together under some such description as they consisted of fields interspersed by trees and artificial ramparts, the latter mostly built by Tom Dunn;" (1)

"Sunningdale was designed by Willy Park, who is an architect of very pronounced characteristics, though Sunningdale is not perhaps quite so clearly to be recognized as his handiwork as are some of his other courses." (5)

"[Walton Heath] is the work of Mr. Herbert Fowler, who is perhaps the most daring and original of all golfing architects, and gifted with an almost inspired eye for the possibilities of a golfing country." (11)

Dan King

"The 'Redan' is a beautiful one-shot hole on the top of a plateau, with a bunker short of the green to the left and another further on to the right, and we must vary our mode of attach according to the wind, playing a shot to come from the right or making a direct frontal attack."
 --Bernard Darwin

[Geoff_Shackelford]

An interesting read, but I have to disagree with the premise. It seems way too many golfers, plenty of architects and a few superintendents are rarely interested in the details unless they somehow relate to their game (golfer), their own vision for a course (architect) or making work as easy as possible (superintendent/contractor).  I have heard of few projects where there was an overabundance of concern for details getting in the way of a good outcome. The more restorations I see, the more they disregard the subtle details impacting play or aesthetics. Too many projects ultimately fail because no one even bothered to notice the details and their impact, whether they were accidental details or intentionally created or added on by Perry Maxwell a few years after a course opened.

I have yet to see where it's been "counter-productive to treat Golden Age courses with too much deference."  I'm trying to think of course that has been too protective and discretionary in its approach to restoration and thus negatively impacted playing characteristics. So far, none are coming to mind, I know there is one I'm forgetting.

But I can think of plenty of projects that misfired badly or which came off lacking something because there was a lack of respect or admiration for the "detail," often some mind-boggling basics of architecture.  And there are many more couress resisting the restoration of key hole locations or bunkers because they have injected themselves into the equation over the old architect.
Geoff

[Tom Doak]

I agree with Mike's thought that golf architects' names, whether they are dead or alive, are given far too much weight today.  This is probably because 90% of members don't really understand WHY they enjoy their course so much, but now they have a name to latch onto.

However, he's certainly wrong about Darwin's book, as Dan King points out -- in fact, I believe Darwin was the first writer to attribute golf architectural work.  And I'd also debate his point about whether Dr. MacKenzie really hoped for future designers to modify and improve his work.  While he deferred to the fact that technology might someday necessitate changes, MacKenzie proudly pointed out in his writings that not a single change of any consequence had been made to his routings or to his green contouring (ignoring the unpleasant facts of Sitwell Park).

[BCrosby]

Geoff -

I think Mike's point (and he can speak for himself) is that sometimes the deference paid to Golden Age courses is over the top because sometimes it is a false deference. Not every detail was carefully carved out by the Master.

To paraphrase Freud, sometime a drainage ditch is just a drainage ditch. Sometimes what members think was designed by a Golden Ager was not.

Mike gives an example I am familiar with. At the Athens CC, the committee is convinced that the raised fronts on several greens were designed by Ross. They think they are classic Ross greens. They aren't. They are clearly the result of decades of top-dressing. Ross's own drawings have those fronts at fairway level.

My guess is that another thing Mike is getting at is the tendency on GCA to oppose any changes to any Golden Age course. There is an attitude sometimes expressed here that if, say, Thomas is the archtect of record, every detail on the course as it appears today is sacred. That can get a little loopy.

There is no doubt that there are many situations where you wish MORE attention had been paid to the original architect's drawings. I feel your pain about Riviera. But I don't think Mike is saying those kinds of wholesale, uninformed revsions are ok.

In other words, we talk a lot here about the barbarians and their butchery of Riviera. Theirs is a high crime. But we talk less about the other extreme, where people want to preserve every hollow and ridge. That too can be a problem and can get in the way of things. There's a middle ground somewhere that makes sense, IMHO.

Bob

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Bob,

Mike may be saying that too much deference is paid to names and old guys here on GCA, but I felt the essay was saying that this is a problem with everyday golfers at everyday older courses, not just GCA.

Places like Meadow Club and their MacKenzie-driven project are much LESS common than say, projects where clubs and architects have downplayed the old architects work (or interesting evolution by other means) and placed themselves on a higher plain than the original/early flavor of the course.

I think by pointing out that too much attention is paid to the names of the old guys is dangerous and an easy way around approach projects with thought, analysis, discussion and reasearch. Some here are overinfatuated with the "classic" era architects because too many modern architects have successfully downplayed the old architect (like a Bob Cupp) to convince clubs to do what he thinks is best, not necessarily what is restorative or sensical. And then there are the Rees Jones' who proclaim their admiration for the old guys, but don't show much respect or understanding or care when the work commences, but at the end of the day still call it a restoration!  I find both of these approaches much more problematic misuses of names/philosophies/facts than the extremely rare cases where change has not occured because of an overly cautious approach to a course in the name of Ross or Tillinghast. The list of unsuccessfully modernized courses is a lot longer than the list of courses steadfastly protecting the names, reputations and designs of their old architects.

There is certainly a balance to be found, and erring on the side of those who aren't here to defend themselves seems more logical to me if you abosorb their writings. As Tom Doak pointed out, MacKenzie wrote with pride at the lack of change to his courses, yet Mike asserts that he might understand Maxwell's changes and others. (For instance, I have a hard time seeing how Augusta's #7 original green site had drainage problems. The reasons for its change were strictly subjective, not functional, and no one really has denied that.)

So I think in a majority of cases, the older courses are more often proclaimed something they weren't, than cautiously protected. The simplest justification for change is to say these guys were a little overrated and if they were here today, they'd would likely do it our way. I just have trouble reading their writings and believing that Donald Ross or George Thomas would create big, obvious drainage bowls with a drain cap at the base in place of subtle, naturally inspired swales to move water.
Geoff

[BCrosby]

Geoff -

I don't think we are very far apart on this.

I share your concerns. My greatest fear for our old Ross course in Athens is that some hotshot new greens chairman hires a Fazio/Rees Jones/Bob Cupp, etc. to do one of their world famous "restorations."  That prospect terrifies me. I've seen and played Rees's work at East Lake. I've heard enough from you about Fazio at Riviera. It is a real threat that morphs into a living nightmare if the next greens chairman comes to office with "some ideas I got from playing Ocean Forest last week."  And it could happen tomorrow.

You are right, that is a bigger threat to classic courses than the "literalist" threat that Mike talks about.

Still, Mike's point is worth thinking about. Why? Because opponents of restorations will often lampoon people who want to do restorations as clowns who just want to turn the clock back. You play into these peoples' hands if you get too finicky about preserving every detail of an older course. You/me and the GCA crowd generally come off as the wing-nuts if you treat every hill and dale on a course as high art.

Mike's piece talks in detail about the hard work required to do a truly thoughtful restoration. Seems to me he is getting at a theory of how a "sympathetic" restoration ought to be approached. Unless I miss my bet, he is not trying to justify restorations in the Fazio/Jones mode nor trying to justify those kinds of restorations in the future.

Bob

[Mike_Young]

OK you guys are correct regarding Darwin’s book.  I used a poor choice of words.  I was trying to convey the level of significance that was given the individual architect versus publications today.   Let me use the example of our classic ball parks.  I know I like Fenway and Wrigley and others but many others and I could not name the architect.  I assume this is what Tom is speaking of above when he says 90% of members don’t know why they like their course but now have a name to attach.  And because so many know they like some aspect of these old parks, we are now designing ballparks with the intangible of the old and the technology of the new.

Geoff, I think we have thee same respect for the classics.  I do not nor have I ever asserted that I know what Maxwell wanted to convey.  I state that I have great respect for those architects.  Wee both agree that subtleties are of utmost importance.  People such as you and Tom that constantly research these issues know of what you speak but many in clubs and on this site take these subtleties literally and go overboard.  
It has always been my belief that it is these subtleties that are the main ingredient in the recipe of sound restoration vs. the wholesale restoration that you, Bob Crosby, and others including me despise.  I have watched half-baked committee members describe and enlighten me on subtleties that were not subtleties of the architect at all.  For example:  In the past many trees were dynamited and then filled without compaction.  As they have rotted and settled over the years they have created indentions around greens, in fairways and other areas.  With the advent of lightweight, low height of cut mowers these areas have to been examined and in most cases smoothed.  And greens contours changed in many cases due to settling over years as well as topdressing.
 What I am trying to say is that many clubs take these aspects and with lack of knowledge attribute these to the architect and will hear of no changes.  We have this problem at Athens CC where every details good or bad is attributed to Ross and therefore we can do nothing to the course whatsoever (unless fans or wide cart paths) We would not have this problem if they did not know the architect’s name.

Geoff, you describe players, architects and superintendents as being a problem with restorations.  We are in full agreement.  And at the risk of offending some supts, I put them at the top.  It is my belief that much of the destruction that is leveled at the architect is the direct results of the relationship of the superintendent with the greens committee at his employ.  I credit superintendents as being the main element in how a course is viewed yet when he has not armed himself with the knowledge and history relevant to his project he can be dangerous.  As you say many of the subtleties complicate his job and he can show a greens chairman on a daily basis “why not” to do as the architect recommends.  It may be bunker maintenance, green contours, irrigation heads, or in most cases cart path logistics.  I saw one this week convince a club to put 8 ft. wide concrete on a classic in order to carry his maintenance equipment during wet weather.  I have always stated that   maintenance was meant for golf and not that golf was meant for maintenance.

While several of you may have issues with many of the modern “names” that have “restored” the different classics; don’t put me in that battle.  I mentioned that issue nowhere.  I think I agree with Geoff, Tom, Bob Crosby and most of you  on the big picture.  My article was in no way meant to "downplay" the original architect and his contribution.  It was meant to highlight him .
Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()