Is golf architecture on the verge of a revolution?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
If it began after WWI -- how do you differentiate the pre-WWI work of Park, Colt, Fowler, MacKenzie, Simpson, Hutchinson, Abercromby, Leeds, JD Dunn, Travis, and Macdonald from their post-WWI work? What occured during WWI in your opinion that transformed their work from not naturalistic to naturalistic?

[RJ_Daley]

The need to create landing strips pronto! They built better dozers just like they built better tanks.  Once the SeaBees returned from building the airfields, they only had the interstate to build and RTJ Sr to work for.

[Forrest Richardson]

ForkaB, might you also add one more to your brilliant list...

7. Variability -- courses that are created for games other than those we have come to rely on; e.g., traditional stroke play or match play. This may prove that golf can be more, less or off-center from the 3-4 hour trek it has evolved to now.

?

Your thoughts are right on.

[ForkaB]

Mr. Richardson

"Versatil" is a very intriguing "ity".  What games are you thinking of?  Cross country golfing treks from 1-18 without stopping at any green along the way?  Skills challenges along the way (i.e. hit 3 shots to drop shot short holes and count the cumulative distance away)?  Perhaps some lawn tennis or badminton to while the time away whilst waiting for greens to be cleared?  Even my warped mind boggles.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

In my last post I shouldn’t have used the word “began” referring to naturalism post WW1. That’s certainly not true as naturalism in man-made architecture definitely was applied far before that, and that’s not what I meant to say about MacKenzie et al. I believe, however, as I’ve mentioned on other threads, that his ideas on camouflage particularly, amongst other things, took the application of naturalism in the man-made and constructed areas of architecture to more comprehensive and sophisticated levels than ever before.

In my opinion, the vast difference in style and look of “naturalism” in the features and overall architecture between the likes of MacKenzie, Colt, Fowler, Alison, Abercrombie et al and MacDonald/Raynor, Banks, Strong et al is fairly vast and noticeable. I do think, though, MacKenzie took it to the most advanced level.

That doesn’t mean for a minute that I’m criticizing the latter group for their architecture or the play of it just that it has a far more engineered and man-made look to portions of it. The reasons for that are many and varied, in my opinion, and most interesting.

We had these discussions before on threads on NGLA and your ideas about a “dichotomy” (I think was the word—or was it conundrum or riddle?) about the engineering of  NGLA and MacD/Raynor.

I think the engineered look and style of portions of the architecture of MacD/Raynor is fascinating, particularly juxtaposed to the naturalness of their sites but I sure don’t think it melds into and mimics the look of nature remotely to the extent MacKenzie’s architecture does.

You might insist that there’re straight lines in nature very much conforming to those that much of MacD/Raynor’s architecture exhibits, and I’m sure somewhere there probably are but I sure don’t think those lines match or mimic the natural lines of their sites remotely as well as MacKenzie’s architectural lines match the natural lines of his sites.

You asked what differences I think there was in the pre and post WW1 architecture of a number of architects and those can be discussed later but I think there was very little   difference in the pre and post WW1 architecture of MacD/Raynor but Mackenzie’s seemed to continue to evolve ever closer to good imitation in almost all ways to the look of the natural lines and aspects of his sites. Some of MacKenzie’s bunkering, including Cypress, was “stylized”, in my opinion, but still more of a good imitation of the look of his sites than MacD/Raynor’s .

[Steve Lang]

Revolution is too much overused.  Unless there's major blood and guts spilled of the leaders, and some innocents needlessly, let's not consider it necessary.

Some nice simple evolution is all that's needed.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Ronan,
Hunter, Thomas and MacKenzie all made the suggestion that courses in the future would eclipse their work or at least, take the art to another level. Meanwhile Max Behr clearly felt things were already lost beyond hope and wrote accordingly. I bet they all had some interesting discussions on this subject...you know those transplanted Californians!

I think Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes embody what they were hoping for in the closest sense, sporting grounds with created features carefully disguised and artfully built to give the golf a feel of being played in ultra natural settings, ala hunting or fishing (minus the blood and guts). Behr obsessed about this subject in his argument that golf must go back to being a sport (ala hunting) of limited rules, with a sense of mystery, and not become a game with boundaries (ala tennis or football) and outside agencies dictated the outcome of the golf. Basically, embody the qualities of old style links courses that exude the feeling of minimal interference from man.

I sense they also believed that courses could take on playing characteristics/aesthetics of a Sand Hills or the Old Course, even on sites that weren't so special, but where construction was creatively approached. Behr tried to import dunes to Studio City (Lakeside), while some early photos of Rancho Santa Fe show massively wide undulating fairways with native scrub areas left intact, to give that feeling of playing somewhere that they just decided to mow down the grass, but which over time revealed idiosyncracies and rewards for local knowledge and intelligence. Native golf.

Perhaps the Sheep Ranch at Bandon Dunes will be the closest thing yet to what they had in mind.
Geoff

[Mark_Fine]

Ronan,
You don't know me and it's been awhile since I've had any time to post here.  I get to play quite a few different courses each year and for every one that I play that embodies that "greater subtlety and naturalness" you talk about, there are at least ten or more that don't.  I think the design business has a long way to go if it were to ever get to the "revolution" stage.

On the positive side, however, I believe we will continue to see more of those "rugged beauty of nature designs" that you refer to, but they will be few and far between and you'll have to have the means and connections to travel and seek them out.  The number of golfers that know of and have played Sand Hills for example, I'm sure is less than one tenth of one percent!  How influencial can a course like that be?  I hope it is but I guess only time will tell.  I'd even be willing to bet that of all of us golf architecture nuts that participate on this site, only a small percentage have played there.

I recall the comment I received while visiting Talking Stick when I asked why their courses were kept so green and lush.  They said simply, "because that is what the public wants".  

It's going to be a long time coming before golfers here are willing to fork out $150 and play on some firm and fast less then perfect browned out layout even though most of us know that both courses would look and play much better if kept that way.  Sad but true!

Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
I was always under the impression that MacKenzie developed his ideas on camouflage during the Boer War (1899-1901) and prior to embarking on his golf design career (around 1906). I'd say his work at Alwoodley and Moortown was stylized in  similar vain to his latter designs.

I believe Strong is underappreciated in his use of very bold naturalistic features. I realy admire his creativity and think he may have been more influencial than he is given credit. I certainly would not put his design style in the same group as Raynor or Banks. Alison on the other hand leaned more toward the Macdonald/Raynor/Langford school, especially in the US. From what I've found I'd put Strong in the same class as a number of architects whose work was naturally sympathetic - Colt, MacKenzie, Thomas, Thompson, Simpson and Morrison.

Didn't Macdonald focus his latter efforts at NGLA into trying to make the features appear more natural? Do you think he succeeded?

[Mark_Fine]

Can't think of any Mac/Raynor courses that look natural or "blend in" to their site.  Think about what their styles and what they would have done on sites like Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes?  I love Fishers Island for example, but C&C and/or Doak would have designed something completely different and "more natural" if given that property.  

We love Mac/Raynor courses more for their strategic interest than for their "natural" asthetics!
Mark

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Maybe Herbert Strong and his style doesn't belong in that category with MacD/Raynor and Banks. I don't know much about Strong.

And I don't know if MacDonald spent time in the later years trying to make NGLA appear more natural to the site in it's man-made architecture--I've never heard that and I really can't imagine why he would want to do that.

All I've ever heard about MacDonald in that vein is he took advice from some about making the front approach slope of #7 less severe--but probably more for purposes of play than look.

I can't imagine though why MacDonald would try to blend the engineered look of the architecture of NGLA more naturally into the site of NGLA. I can't imagine why that sort of thing would concern him. The golf course played extremely well and it was exactly what he meant to achieve, in my opinion.

Much of the architecture he studied in Europe to prepare to build NGLA probably had portions of it that were anything but melded naturally into their sites. MacD's #7 green, as fascinating as it is, looks anything but naturally melded into the landscape in which it sits as great and interesting as it is to play. MacDonald may have been as interested in the rudimentary creations of early European architecture as apparently Pete Dye was seven or so decades later. Things such as early bunker supporting "sleepers" apparently fascinated him. "Sleepers" are anything but site natural looking! All they really are is rudimentary bunker supports.

It really doesn't matter, as different as it might be from the style and look of the architecture of a MacKenzie and the others that conform more to that style. Difference is often the essence of architecture and the fact that MacD and then Raynor continued on with their engineered but highly popular style is only another indication of the diversity in architecture.

Blending and mimicing nature was important to most of them but clearly far more important to some than to others.

[Doug Siebert]

Redanman asks "Which faction will win out?"  Why does there have to be a winner and a loser?  What's wrong with having courses like Sand Hills as well as courses that spend $2 million on flowers like your friend's (I'll bet ANGC spends more than that per year planting and maintaining theirs, so don't knock it)  I don't have a problem with anything people want to try, from the weirdest stuff Muirhead did to Trump putting waterfalls on holes or some goofball who wants to make a full sized golf course like a putt-putt course complete with loop de loops and windmills.

Variety is the spice of life.  The only thing we have to worry about is making sure they don't do anything goofy to existing treasures, waste prime land near existing treasures (no windmill holes with the city limits of St. Andrews, please) and that the USGA and R&A never host their championships on anything goofy.  That's all we should care about, for our own personal definitions of goofy.  But if instead of Kingsbarns they'd thrown up some course that looked like the one in that Caddyshack sequel (if you haven't see that one, you haven't missed anything, I promise!) what difference would it make to any of us, other than having one less option of where to play when in the area?  Besides, that 9th green at Kingsbarns treads beyond the line of goofy for me anyway, so its all a matter of degree...

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
In 'Scotlands Gift' (1928), after discussing how he had altered many of the holes through the years, Macdonald wrote that all he was concentrating on now was making the hazards as natural as possible.

[JakaB]

Is the current change social or artistic...and in other periods of social change where did the intellectuals stand...it seems clear to me that the people who perceive naturalness and minimalism as great to be the intellectuals pitted against the ignorant big money of the F's and T's of the world...can an intellectual ever be a protectionist or do they always require change to prove they are smarter than the status quo...does history ever recognize the faction on the wrong side of revolution as part of the intellectual class...I think its interesting that what was simply an artistic trend in GCA is being molded into social change with first access to the masses through fair pricing and now an attempt to destroy private club status through the inclusion of people who choose to be identified by the genitalia they may or may not have...its now the ignorant rich who refuse to change against the pure intellectual who knows who has the big guns and where the blade must fall....a simple choice for those who study the history of past revolutions that was been written by the soft hands of observers comfortably behind the protected walls of the winning faction.

[ForkaB]

Mr. JakaB

Please do not get apoplectic.  The revolution is not scheduled until long after your hands too get soft and can no longer do magic with the devil incarnate Ely's evil implements, or even an asphalt spreader, and you will be begging for members of the opposite genitalia to be members of your clubs because the guys you got old playing with are just that, old, and you will be lookingfor a little bit of strange.  Please enlighten us with your version of history at that time.

Your pajo

[TEPaul]

Barney:

Keep all these personas coming--they're terrific! I particularly enjoyed the Robespierre-like social revolution post by JakaB above!

Tom MacW:

When MacDonald mentioned; "The only thing I do now is endeavor to make the hazards as natural as possible", who knows whether he was speaking about the architecture of his bunkers, the grassing of them, or both?

If you ask me there's not all that much that looks unnatural or "engineered" about NGLA's bunkers. Perhaps the rear bunker on #7 but technically that one is supposed to mimic the road on #17 TOC.

The areas of NGLA that look more manufacutered or engineered to me are a few of the greens such as #7, #8, #11, the tee area of #9, the berm behind #3 and very much the right side of that green.

But I would also say that NGLA never seemed anywhere near as "engineered" looking to me as some of Raynor's work, particularly parts of a course like Fox Chapel!

[Michael Dugger]

Boy, I may not be the dumbest man on GCA, but after reading what JakaB and Fork? wrote I know I'm certainly not the smartest.  That's just about the finest piece of 'telling it like it is' that I've read here to date.  Bravo Fellas,

Ran...that's it.  Shut down the site!!!!!!!

[TEPaul]

MDugger:

You may not be the smartest on this site but I'm sure you certainly aren't the dumbest--I probably am--so would you mind telling me what that, "That's just about the finest piece of 'tell it like it is' that I've read here to date", actually means?

[Michael Dugger]

My comment is to be taken with a grain of salt-tongue in cheek.  I'd explain what I mean but it would be in the same language those two spoke in.  You know what I mean, ramble on with big words and words that you made up and in the end everyone is confused and so you won!!

I can understand making a distinction between an artistic revolution and a social one, but what jakab said about where the intellects stand and so on lost me.  Sounds like Shakespeare, and I slept through that in college.  What this means to golf course architecture...I'm not sure.  Just trying to be funny.  If I know you, TEPAul, you are not unfamiliar with witticisms.  GCA's most witty Doyen.

[Forrest Richardson]

A revolution suggests a complete change in thinking. I suppose we can change back to a distant time -- but would that constitute a revolution or just another retro direction?

[Michael Dugger]

On a relevant note...Revolution or no revolution, that is the question.  It seems sort of a romantic notion to me to get all huffed up about this.  Was there a digression in golf course architecture after the golden era?  Hard to say.  I'd like to think that there is a lot to be said for the great courses of the golden era being the way they are as a result of the fact that man could not manipulate the landscape to the degree we do today.

There is a lot to be said for those who believe that there is some virtue in letting the land dictate the golf course.  But does this mean that all of those architects that build courses like Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are revolutionary?

Does this a revolution make?  

Some people simply have poor taste.  Furthermore, some have the poor judgement of telling others that they have poor taste.  I personally fall into the later category.  

For my money it comes down to exposure.  And even then it is all subjective.  Only when the masses can play the truly wonderful and special places of golf will the 'others' realize how shitty their local tracts really are.  If we can define 'good' and 'bad' then we can make a case for change.  That would be, of course, if we lived in a rational world.  

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

Maybe you can help me out -- you posted a picture of Ballyowen -- the course you described as a "delicious tarmac."
Have you ever played the course or are you just basing the assessment of the course from a photo?

I also appreciate the courses you mentioned (i.e. Sand Hills, Pac Dunes, etc, etc.).

Help me to better understand how you came to the conclusion on Ballyowen. I've played the course countless times and believe it to be one of Roger Rulewich's finest designs. Thanks!

[Mark_Fine]

Matt,
I agree with you on Ballyowen and was going to say something as well.  It's by no means perfect but it's a decent golf course, a 5+ on the Doak scale.  For many golfers, this will be one of the better courses they will have easy access to.  
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
You appreciate courses like Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes? Fantastic! I see no need for you to defend your tastes. And what does your appreciation of those courses have to do with the theme of this thread?  :-/

I have not played Ballyowen and frankly don't have a burning desire to do so. I did however love the photo. It was a perfect illustration of the differences in design practices, a wonderful visual example of the over shaped hyper graded courses that are popular now a days.  

I can imagine experiencing engine problems in my crop-duster, wondering where the hell I'm going to take her down and then low and behold seeing that fairway at Ballyowen. Praise Hadji!  

[Forrest Richardson]

Are you saying the fairways at Ballyowen are named "22-Right", etc.? Hardly. I've not seen it in person, but from what I can tell it is quite the interesting and intriguing course. The fact that we are discussing it makes this so. You cannot judge a course by one photo. Even three. I do believe you can judge a course by five photos. I will ask the Golf Gods next week when I see them about some bunkers up in Canada. Until then.