News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Kelly Blake Moran

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2006, 08:40:10 AM »
Tom,

I think that is a very simplistic and self serving way to look at this issue.  I never even preceived that to be in the realm of possibility in this discussion.  I think the distinctions that some try to make are based more upon a desire to debate and discuss ideas, like where design inspirations come from not to try to disparage one group or another as you see it.  I think the basis for one's creativity and inspiration is at the heart of the matter, where does one receive inspiration, who are their teachers and at point point did they depart and begin to formulate their own approach to creativity.  There is nothing worse than just continuing what your teacher taught, boring.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2006, 08:57:24 AM by Kelly Blake Moran »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2006, 08:57:54 AM »
I sometimes get the impression that some contemporary architects feel they are in competition with the 'dead masters'...and becasue of that perceived competition there is a tendency (subconscious or conscious) to minimize their (the dead guys) contributions and talents.

Not at all...I think it is the other way... i recognize their talents and their "weaknesses".....I recognize what is credited to them that evolved as well as originated...and I recognize the role of the club for which they were employed....AND most importantly I recognize the physical limitations that they faced which kept them from having the particiaption that is often perceived...
This doesn't mean I don't respect what they left or began....most art is a study in history and I think it has been said that true genius only exist in original ideas or thought.....and since most all admit to acquiring from these dead guys.....we would be admitting to not being "true genius" as would they.....JMO
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

T_MacWood

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2006, 09:13:10 AM »
Mike,

I think there is a desire to make sense of life by gathering what one feels are the essential principles, codifing them, and then educating everyone about them, in otherwords there is a tendancy for an orthodoxy to form and establish order.  In golf it has not really happened however this website has come the closes thing to creating an orthodox religion based upon the dead masters, maybe the media has in the past created another based upon the celebrity architects, and the ASGCA I think is incapable of doing any of this because they must represent a broader perspective, although you will see more members supporting the celebrities in their group then say another member like Bill Coore.  So in my ffeble attempt at trying to make some sense of this I will have to place you in the category of the gnostics!  Once you begin to form these orthodoxies you do use some facts to justify your view but eventually over time these get distorted and do become myths in order to perpetuate your own view.  Most that want to follow the group and believe that there is only one inspired message from a select few, like the dead masters, accept the myths and vehemently defend them while those that challenge these myths, challenge the orthodoxy are heretics.  

Again more blanket generalities...what are the orothodoxies of the dead masters? What are the myths that are being vehemently defended?

T_MacWood

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2006, 09:27:20 AM »
Not at all...I think it is the other way... i recognize their talents and their "weaknesses".....I recognize what is credited to them that evolved as well as originated...and I recognize the role of the club for which they were employed....AND most importantly I recognize the physical limitations that they faced which kept them from having the particiaption that is often perceived...
This doesn't mean I don't respect what they left or began....most art is a study in history and I think it has been said that true genius only exist in original ideas or thought.....and since most all admit to acquiring from these dead guys.....we would be admitting to not being "true genius" as would they.....JMO

Mike
You gave Seth Raynor as your example of the myth benefiting from your #1 and #2 factors.

Can you give specific examples of how his courses have benifited from evolving more than what he created originally?

And what were some of the physical limitations he and his orgnization weren't able to overcome that has kept them from having the participation that is percieved?  How did these physical limitations manifest itself in his work?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2006, 09:27:58 AM by Tom MacWood »

Kyle Harris

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2006, 09:33:27 AM »
Jeff,
ah...I don't know...

RJ,
I dont think it is exaggerated at all.  I know of several DR courses where he sent a plan and the club hired the local farmer....their deal was a plan and nothing more...plus in many cases these clubs could not pay for the architect to be coming back or having a foreman onsite....I would wager that the percentage built by local farmers is much greater than the foreman supervised project....

Mike and RJ,

Foreman or not, trusted or not, that is still another degree of seperation from an architect's mind and eye away from the plan. Frank James worked as the construction foreman on a number of Donald Ross projects and also with Willie Park. I'd venture to say that he injected a few of his own interpretations and that his construction style injected some personality into the golf course that Ross or Park didn't have. Frank James may have also done original work, including Schuylkill Country Club's first nine hole routing that was later remodelled by Ross.

As for importance outside of this arena, I'd argue there is little. While there may have been variations under the Ross banner based on who carried out the plans - those courses were still under the Ross banner. Fact is, it was Ross's organization and methods that allowed the course to come to being, and he is the one ultimately responsible, if only in a transcendental way.

T_MacWood

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2006, 09:50:54 AM »
Tom,

You couldn't be more wrong, at least in my case.  I think most gca's would agree that there is good architecture in every era.  As I said above, the common thread is doing what is best for the client we have now.  Doing that sometimes means we have to ignore some historical ideas, but we don't feel in competition with dead guys.

And the definition of good varies quite a bit with project need - for example, I love the simple Floyd Farley golf courses all over the midwest as much as some classics, believing he did as much for golf by building those rudimentary courses as Tillie did in creating about 20 championship venues.

Jeff
I don't know Floyd Farley, but I do know Jack Kidwell and he did hell of a lot for golf in this area too. Accepting his contribution, I do not recall ever stepping off the 18th green of one of his courses and saying to myself that was a brilliant design, like I did at Somerset Hills or SFGC. And I don't believe either one of those courses hosted a major.

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2006, 09:59:38 AM »
Not at all...I think it is the other way... i recognize their talents and their "weaknesses".....I recognize what is credited to them that evolved as well as originated...and I recognize the role of the club for which they were employed....AND most importantly I recognize the physical limitations that they faced which kept them from having the particiaption that is often perceived...

This doesn't mean I don't respect what they left or began....most art is a study in history and I think it has been said that true genius only exist in original ideas or thought.....and since most all admit to acquiring from these dead guys.....we would be admitting to not being "true genius" as would they.....JMO

Mike
You gave Seth Raynor as your example of the myth benefiting from your #1 and #2 factors.

Can you give specific examples of how his courses have benifited from evolving more than what he created originally?

And what were some of the physical limitations he and his orgnization weren't able to overcome that has kept them from having the participation that is percieved?  How did these physical limitations manifest itself in his work?


Well lets take Camargo.......if this had been a public course you would have never heard of it.  And by the way it is one of my favorites.....
From what I can perceive Raynor wasn't very creative...he had proven strategies that worked so all you needed were his templates and some local could just put them on the ground....and then they would evolve...his work was so rigid that I don't know that it mattered if he was there or not because you would not be able to tell....
Now after saying all of that I like the work I have seen I just don't fall for the hype.....
Let me use a CNN example....
A friend of mine was President of CNN during the time of the 1991 bombing in Iraq.  That day he was called by President, Powell and Fitzsimmons saying that his reporters were in grave danger and they needed to leave Baghdad(sp).  He knew he could move them to the outskirts or to Amman Jordan ....meanwhile Turner said to leave it up to the individuals...Bernie Shaw and Holliman wanted out...Blitzer wanted to stay....they waited too long and all stayed...since they were the only news with a microwave transfer they became heros over night....even the ones that wanted out rode the wave to news stardom....same goes for these old guys....most of them don't even know they are riding this wave.....FACT..none of them know they are riding this wave
« Last Edit: February 15, 2006, 10:00:12 AM by Mike_Young »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2006, 10:11:10 AM »
Tom MacWood:

Your assertion that some guys think they are competing with the dead masters and try to take them down a notch shouldn't have been interpreted as a knock on Mike Y or anyone who participates here -- they're just being realists.  However, Mike did NOT say how Camargo had evolved for the better in any way, he just said it was overrated because of Raynor's name, which of course is in the eye of the individual.

However, I do think that Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus and even Pete Dye have become very critical of the old masters in recent years, and I think in part they are jealous because they believe their own designs are held in by a "glass ceiling" and unable to crack the top ten.  There is indeed a glass ceiling, but they should relax and be comfortable with the idea that it will disappear over time, and their own designs will take their rightful place whether it's in the top ten or not.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2006, 10:22:15 AM »
It's important to remember that there were bad architects during the Golden Age. Some emerged from the GA with enormous reputations, others were relegated to the dust bin of history. There is a weeding out process.

History can make mistakes, of course. It is always open to reconsideration. But it should never be taken lightly. The judgment of history comes from a lot of different sources, but it doesn't materialize from thin air or from the tender care of superintendents.

Bob



BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2006, 10:31:10 AM »
TomD -

I think you are basically right about the existence of a glass ceiling. And I understand that people may resent it.

But the courses that break through it first will not be by Dye or Fazio or Nicklaus.

They will be courses like SH or Pac Dunes.

That is to say, breaking through the glass (and it is past due) will have something to do with quality. But perhaps I am being too naive.

Bob

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2006, 10:34:09 AM »
Tom MacWood:

Your assertion that some guys think they are competing with the dead masters and try to take them down a notch shouldn't have been interpreted as a knock on Mike Y or anyone who participates here -- they're just being realists.  However, Mike did NOT say how Camargo had evolved for the better in any way, he just said it was overrated because of Raynor's name, which of course is in the eye of the individual.

However, I do think that Tom Fazio and Jack Nicklaus and even Pete Dye have become very critical of the old masters in recent years, and I think in part they are jealous because they believe their own designs are held in by a "glass ceiling" and unable to crack the top ten.  There is indeed a glass ceiling, but they should relax and be comfortable with the idea that it will disappear over time, and their own designs will take their rightful place whether it's in the top ten or not.
TD,
I don't know enough about Camargo to say how it has evolved except for those bunkers done by Von Hagge....I'm just being an instigator....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #36 on: February 16, 2006, 07:13:46 AM »
“Again more blanket generalities...what are the orthodoxies of the dead masters? What are the myths that are being vehemently defended?” Tom McWood

The discussion about Mackenzie’s use of the jagged edge bunkers at Cypress Point as a version of his theories of camouflage, that these patterns actually mimic natural patterns and therefore blend into the landscape.  I don’t see that at all, yet it has been partly responsible for a whole industry of expert shapers to recreate these patterns on modern courses.  The MacKenzie bunkering is not natural, there is not credible argument to make about it being as natural as the the landscape, I mean come on, unless you are some sort of modernists artist or critic, which in that case you can pretty much interpret anything anyway you want.  In some ways the whole notion of natural design that is always associated with the masters in fact is not very natural.  Even the British Isles which in itself is kind of a master architect because of the tremendous landscape has been hijacked as a measure by which all bunkering in the United States judged.  When that style of bunkering is performed here it is often hailed as natural, evoking the spirit of the British Isles yet it may be a tract of farmland in eastern Pennsylvania.  There is nothing in the PA countryside that looks anything like the shaping and bunkering that is being built today and hailed as natural.  I think in general the notion that some of the old masters were masters at hiding the hand of man in their work is somewhat of a myth. I don't think nature is given enough credit for soften the effects of manmade construction.  I have seen some pretty awful scars on the land that over time become charming after nature has had its way with it.

The great masters can also be seen as a kind of orthodoxy in the sense that they are held up as the epitome of architecture by which everything is measured, and they have become a means by which to give instant credibility to a course.  There is one course whose website you can get to through this site because someone here is tied to this course.  You go to the web site and its home page invokes the names of C.B. MacDonald, Seth Raynor, Harry Colt, William Flynn, A.W. Tillinghast, James Braid, and Stiles & Van Kleek, and that the modern architect was inspired by features inspired by the likes of Shinnecock Hills, Charleston Country Club, and Fox Chapel, the modern architect even goes on to say “The 27 holes are inspired by the renaissance of golf architects 100 years ago”, yet you go to the architect’s website and the only mention of anything remotely close to what he is saying on the courses website is that he finds natural holes, not one mention of the master architects and being inspired by them.  So Tom I think just the whole perception today that living architects some how have tapped into the great talents and secrets of the master architects has created one massive myth that is perpetuated everyday, and it has placed a select few dead architects at a god-like level to which many architects shamelessly want us to believe they reach to for some sort of divine inspiration, that somehow they have unlocked the secrets of the these gods among men.  

There is the notion that the master architects were much more strategic in their thinking therefore some could reach the conclusion that the bunkering was always well thought out, strategic and many on here will go on about the strategic value of a certain bunker when frankly to me the bunker was eye candy, I mean Mackenzie created eye candy beyond any eye candy Fazio could ever dream to create.  And the masters may very well acknowledge that is what they were doing yet those today that want to inject some majestic quality to everything these guys did will never acknowledge the some what frivolous use of eye candy bunkering by some of the old masters.  

MacKenzie is attributed with saying a course should look hard and play easy.  I posted a long piece about why to me that is a silly statement without much backup, actually Tom it is was a generality with no supporting evidence, imagine that, a dead master speaking in generalities, see it is not so bad.  In any event I think a course or a shot that looks easy yet plays more difficult is far more interesting.  However, Mackenzie’s statement is restated often by modern architects I think without much thought given to what it means, but it comes from up high so it must be right.

Tom, those are a few of the things I can think of that hopefully expand upon what I meant in my statement.  I have not kept notes over time when I have run across these myths and “accepted truths”, but it might be an interesting thing to write about, although I believe Mike Young did an opinion piece on this.  With regards for the orthodoxy in many respects it is not a bad thing, there is nothing wrong with having a body of writing or works that becomes a kind of canon and the people that created it kind of a group of cardinals to which you can go back to for truths, but in my position I don’t want to be spoon fed by someone, I do not want to just take what is taught to me and repeat it, that to me is the equivalent of being dead, I think you can go to the sources and forgive me but in some subconscious or spiritual way absorb these teachings but ultimately you must create in your own vision.  I think all of us to some extent or another have the very same inclinations and thoughts that these guys did and sometimes we act on them without even knowing that we are just merely reinforcing some great principle that is unchanging throughout the years, but there are times when you believe that some accepted truth that everyone else claims as doctrine is in fact hollow and you move away from it.  I think that definitely exists and that the more these ideas about design are challenged and debated the better.  The whole cottage industry that has been built around the dead masters has spawned some pretty light weight books and just out-in-out fraud on the part of architects and developers who give very little care to these guys other than finding another way to shore up their credibility.  And the guys in the media suck it up, that buy it hook line and sinker.  It is very disturbing to witness.  I talk with some who are intimately involved in some restoration work and when you mention about how so and so architect talks about digging down to find the floor of the original bunkers and so on and they laugh at it, they tell me convincingly that that was never done on one single bunker, that the restoration architect provided no plans or concept sketches based upon some earlier look, and that they rarely saw the architect, which in this case I guess would be in line with the way some of the master architects conducted their work as well.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2006, 08:49:25 AM by Kelly Blake Moran »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #37 on: February 16, 2006, 07:56:02 AM »
KBM,
You need to write for me....it would take me all day to say that....
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #38 on: February 16, 2006, 08:03:09 AM »
Knowing that what I just wrote may be turned on me soon when the marketing begins for a course about to open, I was schooled by a management company on the value of selling my course as a links course, a scottish course.  So here is my reply back to the marketing giants at this managment company, including some comment about the best new nomination process that is underway:

"This is the email I received from Ron. I forwarded it to Del sometime back so the Township would be aware of the opportunity.  It certainly would benefit them if the course received recognition.  For myself I feel this whole process and the rankings are a sham and actually hurtful to the promotion of good architecture so I do not participate.  If a client wishes to then I certainly will assist them in any way for their benefit.

With regard for marketing this as a scottish links basically my position is that this practice has been done for some time.  by now knowledgeable golfers, and even just casual golfers see this as a joke and it could in fact reflect badly on the course owner.  Most golfers are sophisticated enough to know it is purely a marketing ploy therefore I think it just lowers the integrity of the course rather than elevating it. "



ForkaB

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #39 on: February 16, 2006, 08:45:44 AM »
Kelly

Bravo (two times!)!

Rich

Ian Andrew

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #40 on: February 16, 2006, 08:52:40 AM »
Kelly,

Your reply #37 was one of the most thoughtful and well written replies I have enjoyed in a while. I'm not saying I agree with all of it, but I enjoyed thinking about what you had to say.

Your right about your comment on natural bunkers and golden age architecture. I fact, much of it is less natural than the many modern architects work, although I think that is why some of it is so much more interesting. It’s the boldness that excites me – Thompson and Tillinghast rather than Ross.

The dead masters have one thing on new architecture that can not be changed. Time. Time for the property to mature, time for the golf course to go through minor changes, time for the course to grow with player’s familiarity. I know I have found Pine Valley more enjoyable each time out – because I am much more relaxed each time I go.

I don't think time will help most of the modern works, but it will help a certain few be understood and better appreciated. What is also important is that we discuss all modern golf architecture against a few special golden age courses and that overall comparison is unfair too. Once the best of the moderns have a chance to age, it will be interesting to see where the next generation places them in comparison to the best of golden age work. I have my opinion, but because of what I do – I think I can not offer a balanced enough opinion. Everyone is always nostalgic and prefers things from the past - how will modern architecture of this era stack up when it is also considered part of the past?

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #41 on: February 16, 2006, 09:25:17 AM »
Kelly:

We've never drawn plans for any restoration work because the work is better depicted in old photos.  And I can assure you that at Camargo or The Valley Club or Pasatiempo, we have dug a lot of little trenches to determine where the original edges of the bunkers had been.  I even found one bunker at Pasatiempo that wasn't on any of the aerials, because I suspected there was one there, dug a hole and found the sand.

I don't spend much time on those projects anymore, but many of the guys who work for me still do, their time isn't divided in as many ways as mine.  I can assure you they are a lot more careful with this work than most of the contractors you've talked to.

Certainly there is a fair amount of hype about the old-time architects, but there's at least as much about modern design, don't you think?

T_MacWood

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #42 on: February 16, 2006, 09:29:39 AM »
Kelly
Your understanding of the Boer’s camouflage methods does not match mine. I was under the impression they utilized land forms (and vegetation) to mask their position.

MacKenzie’s jagged bunkers were meant to mimic broken-ground, erosion and dunes blowouts…all naturally occurring phenomenon. IMO he was pretty successful, especially when contrasted with the many geometric unnatural hazards of his era.

As far that website evoking the names of all the past greats…there are always going to be people who will use or pervert acknowledged masters for their own purposes. Should we think less of the accomplishments of Frank Lloyd Wright, The Beatles or Ronald Reagan because some hack uses their name for his own personal gain? Do their works, theories, and principles hold any less weight because someone today is trying benefit from them?

On your own website you wrote: “A common thread through all great golf courses is the exceptional qualities of the land on which they lay.  The land at Pine Valley, Merion, Shinnecock, National, Cypress Point, Seminole and many others is exceptional land.”  

And what does the perversion of MacKenzie, Macdonald, et al. on that website have to do with your universal “orthodoxy” that everyone is following/defending. I thought a orthodoxy is set of guiding or conforming principles. What are they?

 One of the reasons I find the ‘past masters’ so interesting is the diversity of styles and approaches….I don’t see your orthodoxy.

I personally find the eye candy at Pine Valley, Merion, Shinnecock, National, Seminole and Cypress Point aesthetically pleasing and exciting. Seeing one of your drives sailing over the eye-candy at one these courses is thrilling, even though there is little chance the hazard (eye candy) would ever jeopardize my shot. I believe golfers of all levels should have thrills, those realtively benign hazards are a good way of giving everyone thrills. Looks hard or ominous but plays relatively easy. It is the psycology of the thrill.

What are the myths that everyone is vehemently defending?
« Last Edit: February 16, 2006, 09:41:10 AM by Tom MacWood »

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #43 on: February 16, 2006, 10:05:54 AM »
Kelly
Your understanding of the Boer’s camouflage methods does not match mine. I was under the impression they utilized land forms (and vegetation) to mask their position.

THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING AS WELL HOWEVER ON THIS SITE THERE WERE SEVERAL POSTS THAT TIED THE JAGGED EDGED BUNKERING INTO THE CAMOUFLAGE METHODS AS WELL IN FACT SOMEONE POSTED A PICTURE OF A BATTLESHIP THAT WAS CAMOUFLAGED AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TECHNIQUES EMPLOYED BY MACKENZIE, MAYBE I GOT SUCKED INTO A JOKE.

MacKenzie’s jagged bunkers were meant to mimic broken-ground, erosion and dunes blowouts…all naturally occurring phenomenon. IMO he was pretty successful, especially when contrasted with the many geometric unnatural hazards of his era.

TOM, THERE IS NOTHING NATURAL AT ALL ABOUT HIS JAGGED EDGED BUNKERS.  NATURE TYPICALLY IS NOT SO BROKEN AND ERODED AND SMOOTH AND SERENE ALL IN THE SAME PICTURE  EXCEPT IN SPECIAL INSTANCES LIKE THE SANDHILLS.

As far that website evoking the names of all the past greats…there are always going to be people who will use or pervert acknowledged masters for their own purposes. Should we think less of the accomplishments of Frank Lloyd Wright, The Beatles or Ronald Reagan because some hack uses their name for his own personal gain? Do their works, theories, and principles hold any less weight because someone today is trying benefit from them?

TOM I DON'T THINK I EVER SAID I THINK LESS OF THE MASTERS BECAUSE OF THIS.  I THINK LESS OF THE PEOPLE TODAY WHO ARE EMPLOYING THESE TACTICS.

On your own website you wrote: “A common thread through all great golf courses is the exceptional qualities of the land on which they lay.  The land at Pine Valley, Merion, Shinnecock, National, Cypress Point, Seminole and many others is exceptional land.”  

WHAT'S YOUR POINT?  IF YOU ARE AS GOOD AN INVESTIGATOR AS YOU THINK YOU ARE YOU WOULD HAVE FOUND THE PIECE WHERE I ACTUALLY EMPLOY MACKENZIES NAME IN MY OWN MARKETING BUT OBVIOUSLY YOU NEED MORE TIME.  GOOD LUCK.

And what does the perversion of MacKenzie, Macdonald, et al. on that website have to do with your universal “orthodoxy” that everyone is following/defending. I thought a orthodoxy is set of guiding or conforming principles. What are they?

I BELEIVE I EXPLAINED THAT IN MY POST.

 One of the reasons I find the ‘past masters’ so interesting is the diversity of styles and approaches….I don’t see your orthodoxy.

THERE IS A DIVERSITY OF STYLE HOWEVER THE PERIOD OF THE GOLDEN AGE HAS BEEN GATHERED INTO AN ORTHODOXY BY WHICH EVERYTHING TODAY IS JUDGED.

I personally find the eye candy at Pine Valley, Merion, Shinnecock, National, Seminole and Cypress Point aesthetically pleasing and exciting. Seeing one of your drives sailing over the eye-candy at one these courses is thrilling, even though there is little chance the hazard (eye candy) would ever jeopardize my shot. I believe golfers of all levels should have thrills, those realtively benign hazards are a good way of giving everyone thrills. Looks hard or ominous but plays relatively easy. It is the psycology of the thrill.

I THINK THAT IS RUBBISH.  I AM JUST AS THRILLED TO HIT OVER A NATURAL RIDGE ON PENNSYLVANIA FARMLAND AS YOU ARE HITTING OVER EYE CANDY.  YOU ARE LIKE THE LITTLE KIDS WHO CAN NOT DERIVE PLEASURE FROM MORE SIMPLE THINGS BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN HYPNOTIZED BY TV AND PLAYSTATION.  YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME GRANDIOSE FEATURE TO GIVE YOU PLEASURE.
What are the myths that everyone is vehemently defending?
I OUTLINE SOMOE OF THE MYTHS AND I CAN BUILD ON THIS AND POST OCCASIONALY KNOW THT I HAVE ACTUALLY TAKEN THE TIME TO WRITE IT DOWN. NO PROMISES BUT I WILL TRY TO BE VIGILANT IN POINTING OUT THE MYTHS.

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #44 on: February 16, 2006, 10:32:25 AM »
Kelly:

We've never drawn plans for any restoration work because the work is better depicted in old photos.  And I can assure you that at Camargo or The Valley Club or Pasatiempo, we have dug a lot of little trenches to determine where the original edges of the bunkers had been.  I even found one bunker at Pasatiempo that wasn't on any of the aerials, because I suspected there was one there, dug a hole and found the sand.

I don't spend much time on those projects anymore, but many of the guys who work for me still do, their time isn't divided in as many ways as mine.  I can assure you they are a lot more careful with this work than most of the contractors you've talked to.

Certainly there is a fair amount of hype about the old-time architects, but there's at least as much about modern design, don't you think?

Tom, I am not going to name architects and certainly there are credible architects who are conducting their work in the manner you describe.  As you know there are so many architects pouring into this type of work that the procedures in the field are not like they should be.  

I don't understand the relevance of your last point.  Hyping the work was not the issue, certainly there is always hype on a project both in the past and present, the issue was the type of hype being employed by modern courses by invoking the names of old masters and great old courses.  Even I have done it to some extent, but in th example I gave the disconnect between the hype on the courses website and the philosophy on the architect's website was illuminating.  I expect Inspector MacWood will discover the websites of which I speak.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2006, 10:34:27 AM by Kelly Blake Moran »

T_MacWood

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #45 on: February 16, 2006, 10:45:41 AM »
Kelly
What does your (or some others) misinterpretation of Boer camouflage tactics have to do with your so-called orthodoxy? Does this mistaken idea that broken edged bunkers actually deceive the golfer have some effect on your design or the design of any of your contemporaries? You lost me.

Broken-ground and erosion occur outside of the Sand Hills. Everyday on the dirve home I pass a very interesting ditch near a freeway exit where the ground is broken and eroding—very MacKenzie-esque. You are entitled to your opinion that MacKenzie’s bunkers aren’t natural or naturalistic, but quite a few us have a different opinion. It is all relative I suppose.

Do you think employing the name of a past master is a recent phenomenon? The reason Wright, Reagan or MacKenzie’s name is employed (even in a superficial way) is because they are acknowledged to have been special men. Are people who acknowledge their greatness drinking the cool aid? And who cares if some hack uses their name for his own advantage…I don’t see the correlation between some hack perverting their name and a myth surrounding these famous figures. What is the connection? Are you saying because a minority latches on to their names (for personal gain) there must be a universal orthodoxy surrounding them...which leads to a myth?

What creative endeavor does not borrow from the past and is not compared to the past?

There are all sorts of natural features that can create excitement and thrills…including a natural ridge in Pennsylvania or spralling fore bunkers in Florida or California.  TV and Playstation…? People who find the eye-candy at PVGC, Merion, Shinnecock, NGLA, Seminole and Cypress Point thrilling are products of TV and Playstation? Interesting theory.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2006, 10:50:29 AM by Tom MacWood »

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #46 on: February 16, 2006, 11:34:00 AM »
Kelly
What does your (or some others) misinterpretation of Boer camouflage tactics have to do with your so-called orthodoxy? Does this mistaken idea that broken edged bunkers actually deceive the golfer have some effect on your design or the design of any of your contemporaries? You lost me.

BROKEN EDGE BUNKERING DECEIVES GOLFERS????  I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE.  DISTRACTS THEM MAYBE.

I THINK I MADE CLEAR THE JUXTAPOSITION OF THE BROKEN EDGE BUNKERS AND THE CAMOUFLAGE, THAT IS HOW IT WAS DEPICTED ON HERE, BUT AS I SAID PREVIOUSLY, TOM, I HAD THE SAME UNDERSTANDING AS YOU, SO TOM YOU NEED TO WORK HARDER AT THIS, YOU AREN'T PUTTING ENOUGH EFFORT INTO READING MY POSTS.

Broken-ground and erosion occur outside of the Sand Hills. Everyday on the dirve home I pass a very interesting ditch near a freeway exit where the ground is broken and eroding—very MacKenzie-esque. You are entitled to your opinion that MacKenzie’s bunkers aren’t natural or naturalistic, but quite a few us have a different opinion. It is all relative I suppose.

TOM, BROKEN EDGED BUNKERING NEXT TO SMOOTH WHITE SAND AND PERFECTLY MANICURED TURFGRASS IS NOT NATURAL.  THE DITCH YOU SEE AT THE SIDE OF THE ROAD DOESN'T HAVE SMOOTH WELL MAINTAINED TURF OR PRETTY WHITE SAND.  SO WHAT YOU SEE AT THE SIDE OF THE ROAD IS A NATURAL PROCESS, WHAT YOU SEE IN MAC IS ARTIFICIAL.  AN ERODED DITCH ALONG SIDE A ROAD IS MACKENZIE-ESQUE, YOU REALLY HAVE TO BE KIDDING ME.

Do you think employing the name of a past master is a recent phenomenon? The reason Wright, Reagan or MacKenzie’s name is employed (even in a superficial way) is because they are acknowledged to have been special men. Are people who acknowledge their greatness drinking the cool aid? And who cares if some hack uses their name for his own advantage…I don’t see the correlation between some hack perverting their name and a myth surrounding these famous figures. What is the connection? Are you saying because a minority latches on to their names (for personal gain) there must be a universal orthodoxy surrounding them...which leads to a myth?

THE ORTHODOXY IS DEVELOPED OUT OF THE MORE RECENT LITERATURE THAT HAS IDENTIFIED A GOLDEN AGE AND HAS DONE SO IN A WAY THAT HAS LOOSELY DEFINED PRINCIPLES FROM THAT PERIOD.  IS THERE A VATICAN THAT THEY SIT IN. NO. IS THERE A BIBLE, NO.  HOWEVER THERE IS MUCH LTERATURE DEVOTED TO THEM THERE IS THE COINAGE OF THE PHRASE OF GOLDEN AGE ARCHITECTS OS THERE DEFINATELY ARE A GROUP OF GUYS THAT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT EXTENSIVELY, AND OFTEN TIMES WRITTEN ABOUT A S A GROUP THAT HAS GIVEN SOME CREDENCE TO MY DEFINING THEM AS THE ORTHODOX VIEWPOINT.  I KNOW IT IS A LITTLE LOOSE TOM BUT WORK WITH ME ON THIS ONE OR HUMOR A LITTLE BECAUSE IT IS PLAUSIBLE THAT IT CAN BE DEFINED THAT WAY.  I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT IT IS A DEFINED GROUP THAT OWNS A BUILDING AND KEEPS SECRETS IN A VAULT.

What creative endeavor does not borrow from the past and is not compared to the past?

THAT IS A SIMPLISTIC STATEMENT I THINK I COVERED THIS IN MUCH MORE DEPTH IN MY POST TOM, PLEASE TRY HARDER YOUR JUST THROWING OUT STUFF.

There are all sorts of natural features that can create excitement and thrills…including a natural ridge in Pennsylvania or spralling fore bunkers in Florida or California.  TV and Playstation…? People who find the eye-candy at PVGC, Merion, Shinnecock, NGLA, Seminole and Cypress Point thrilling are products of TV and Playstation? Interesting theory.
I DIDN'T SAY THEY ARE PRODUCTS TOM, I WAS MAKING A COMPARISON, DRAWING AN ANALOGY, YOU DIDN'T READ CAREFULLY, AGAIN YOU NEED TO BE MORE ENGAGED IN THIS AND TRY HARDER TO UNDERSTAND MY POINT. HITTING A TEE SHOT OVER A SPARLING WHITE BUNKER THAT I REALLY HAVE NO CHANCE OF HITTING INTO UNLESS I HAD A HEART ATTACK AT THE MOMENT OF IMPACT IS NOT EXCITING GOLF.  MY POINT IS YOU MUST BE EASILY THRILLED LIKE A KID WHO MINDLESSLY PLAYS THESE GAMES BUT THEN CAN FIND LITTLE STIMULATION IN LIFE, MUST ALWAYS BE FED EYECANDY STUFF LIKE A PLAYSTATION GAME.

« Last Edit: February 16, 2006, 12:18:24 PM by Kelly Blake Moran »

T_MacWood

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #47 on: February 16, 2006, 12:38:21 PM »
Kelly
I read your post just fine. You misunderstood and misinterpreted MacKenzie’s thoughts - inspired by the Boers - on camouflage.  That example of orthodoxy was one based on your own confusion of his  theories. That might explain some of your frustration.

The broken ground by the ditch is a combination of smooth and rough surfaces – natural forces normally create a combination of both. The ditch is actually man-made, but you are right the erosion was the result of natural processes.

By definition anything created by man is unnatural…so technically every man-made feature in artificial. That being said there are man-made features that more successfully emulate nature.  For example a hazard that replicates the erosion of my favorite ditch. If your goal is emulate nature or to create features that are naturalistic…I would think it would be wise to study nature.

The Golden Age was period when a large number of architects analyzed, debated, argued and developed their ideas about golf architecture. They did not always agree; they often had different opinions and ideas. And as a result their designs were quite individualistic. Not only was this a period of diversity, it was also a period of many outstanding design, many which are still recognized – IMO the wealth of good design was a direct result of the debating and analysis. To categorize the results of this free exchange of ideas and to categorize these individualistic designs as part of an orthodoxy is off the mark in my view. It creates the myth that these designers were all marching to the same drum and following the same game plan. From what I understand an orthodoxy is a set of guiding or conforming principles that everyone follows…that was not the case.

You wrote: THERE IS A DIVERSITY OF STYLE HOWEVER THE PERIOD OF THE GOLDEN AGE HAS BEEN GATHERED INTO AN ORTHODOXY BY WHICH EVERYTHING TODAY IS JUDGED.

What creative endeavor is not judged or compared to the past? You really should layout the principles of this orthodoxy that you are being compared to. Are Raynor, Ross and MacKenzie part of the same orthodoxy?

« Last Edit: February 16, 2006, 12:42:56 PM by Tom MacWood »

T_MacWood

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #48 on: February 16, 2006, 01:23:50 PM »
Kelly
Might your frustration with the 'orthodoxy' be a result of your own experiences? My impression is that your own design style is unique and individualistic - unorthodox. As result your designs may be criticized or misunderstood by those who are tied to historical precidents.

Kelly Blake Moran

Re:How long does it take for Myth to become truth?
« Reply #49 on: February 16, 2006, 01:52:26 PM »

What creative endeavor is not judged or compared to the past? You really should layout the principles of this orthodoxy that you are being compared to. Are Raynor, Ross and MacKenzie part of the same orthodoxy?

Kelly
Might your frustration with the 'orthodoxy' be a result of your own experiences? My impression is that your own design style is unique and individualistic - unorthodox. As result your designs may be criticized or misunderstood by those who are tied to historical precidents.

Again, I would like to layout the principles of the orthodoxy and have to my best abilities tried to sketch out my thoughts having never taken this subject seriously by writing.

I don't view my exposition here as frustration, and have not necessarily been made aware of any criticism by those whom I might think follow the orthodox viewpoint.  Actually, very little attention has been given to anything I have done, so I do not come at this subject from some personal expereince or feeling of mistreatment.  You seem to dismiss my interest in responding to this thread as nothing new, people refering to the past as a way to judge the present has always been done, but I don't think it is always that simple and I think there is more to it, particularly if you view it from the point of view I was trying to express.

I don't know if my design style is unique or unorthodox, I really don't know if it is even worthy of attention.  That's not my concern or my desire to try and bring it into the public eye other than into the eye of the local golfer as a form of pleasure for them.  But your statement: "What creative endeavor is not judged or compared to the past? You really should layout the principles of this orthodoxy that you are being compared to. Are Raynor, Ross and MacKenzie part of the same orthodoxy?" is at the heart of the matter to which I was trying to get to and for which I am not fully prepared to discuss in detail as I have only really focused on it in writing starting about this time yesterday.  
« Last Edit: February 16, 2006, 01:53:47 PM by Kelly Blake Moran »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back