[Tom_Doak]

Kelly:

I would agree with you on the latter sort of hype invoking the names of great old courses that have nothing to do with the course being discussed.

I am guilty of helping to start that trend.  When we were working on Black Forest, the writers wanted to keep referring to it as having some sort of Scottish ancestry as all new courses were marketed then, but the setting (deep woods) and the bunkering (very flashy Thomas/MacKenzie style stuff) were nothing like that, so I invoked those names and the names of Riviera, Cypress Point, etc.

Well, it took about two years before everybody started doing that.  I gave it up when I read something about a new Nicklaus course in Hilton Head [NOT May River or Colleton River, but a different and unnotable one] which compared the course to everything from Baltusrol to Woodhall Spa.  Woodhall Spa!!!  If you dug bunkers like that on Hilton Head you'd hit water table, not to mention the fact that Jack has never been there and has no idea what it looks like.

I think that p.r. stuff for that course was written by Mark Brown.  Anyway, after reading it, I tried to move on to other descriptions, and luckily Whitten came up with the word minimalism just in time for me.

[Jim Thompson]

Mr. Moran,

Please check your IM.

Thank you.

Jim Thompson

[T_MacWood]

Kelly
I scoured your post to identify your main mythical points and these appear to be the main myths that contribute to the orthodoxy.

Moran’s Thirteen Points

1. You shot down MacKenzie’s camouflage theory stating his jagged edged bunkers do not blend into the landscape.

Unfortunately that was not his camouflage theory. Hopefully we won’t be starting a new myth.

2. You shot down the idea that MacKenzie’s bunkers are natural.

More of a personal opinion than a universal truth. A subject open to debate but certainly not a myth.

3. The notion that natural design associated with the masters is a myth, the fact is their courses aren’t very natural.

You might have to elaborate on this myth. Are you throwing a blanket over all the past masters? Are there any natural golf courses?

4. The British style of bunkering is unnatural in Pennsylvania.

What is the British style of bunkering? MacKenzie bunkering is quite different than Alison bunkering which is different from Fowler bunkering which is different from Braid bunkering. This might be a good time to shoot down the myth of a British bunkering style.

That being said you can take a good thing too far. The elaborate naturalistic bunkers with all sort of vegetation growing here and there may be overdone these days. There is something to be said for understated simplicity – a Ross specialty.

What is the appropriate bunker style for Pennsylvania?

5. That the idea of the old masters hiding the hand of man is myth.

I would agree with you there. Some attempted to; some didn’t. I’m not sure this astute group would claim that Charles Banks or William Langford tried to hide the hand of man – and by the way their courses are as interesting as any - so perhaps its not a myth that is being forwarded afterall.

6. The old masters are held up as the epitome of architecture does not sit well with you.

Not really a myth…just something about that irks you.

7. Today’s living architects have tapped into the great talents and secrets of the master architects

Not really a myth that most astute observers would fall for. I think most of us can see through the BS of an advertising campaign. There are always going to be opportunists attempting to ride the back of past greats.

8. A select few dead architects are placed at god-like level

There are number of dead architects that are celebrated – deservedly so. But again most astute observers understand not every project was a winner. It is quite natural in the arts that the best are identified, praised and studied.

9. Master architects much more strategic in their thinking and their bunkers were always well thought out.

Most all of the ideas on strategy were first put forth by these old guys…not much new under the sun as far as strategy goes. They all had different ideas when it came to bunkering, including the use of random bunkering – no orthodoxy here. In fact they were not averse to redesigning their fellow masters designs.

10. The frivolous use of eye candy is a major weakness of MacKenzie and some of the old masters.

This is more about your personal tastes and preferences than shooting down a myth. Some dead masters utilized fore-bunkers and other forms of eye candy; some like Simpson (and MacKenzie later on) were bunker minimalists. Not really a myth here as I see it.

11. You don’t understand or agree with the idea of look hard play easy.

Not a fan of MacKenzie’s ideas of giving the average golfer thrills. I’m not sure if this rates as a myth, just a different approach than the good doctor. You might have point, but I'm still waiting for you to make it convincingly.

12. A cottage industry has spawned some pretty lightweight books on the dead masters.

What books are lightweight? Most of the books I know were products of hard work and an honest appreciation of the subject. This appears to be more of personal comment or observation than a myth.

13. You shot down the idea that restoration architects dig around to find the floor of original bunkers.

It appears some restoration architects do probe for lost bunkers. I really don't know.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Tom,

You got the numbered statements right with some minor exceptions, but the bold statements for the most part miss the mark, otherwise good job.  

[Mike_Young]

Tom,
Sorry I did not research the meaning of myth more deeply before using it in the title..but after discussing this subject with Larry the Cable Guy I have decided I should change the word myth to bulls**t but then again after reading the definition of myth.......think it fits....

Jeff had warned us not to take your bait or this thing could go on forever but.....fortunately I am not a very astute wordsmith and I have to go to work today so I'll give in on one aspect of the old guys....most were good routers....AND I don't think most of the puuurist don't distingish between designing the entire course and sending a client a routing and strategy plan.....because that is about all I have ever seen from these guys.

[Jim Thompson]

Just to get this out in the open and lay it to rest, as I have recieved a number of e-mails and phone calls regarding the subject, the web sites quoted by Kelly are in fact the Angels Crossing Golf Club and Matthews Course Design sites.  I can understand the assumptions made by Kelly in his remarks and his position regarding these tactics in general, however in the case of our project those assumptions are neither true nor accurate.  As I do not wish to squelch any form of discourse on the site or be a part of the culture of argument I'm not going to call anybody names or wish anyone ill will.  I think this is a good example of the dangers of drawing conclusions based on partial information and is probably a good lesson for all of us, myself included.  Ironically, after reading Kelly's web site, I would assume that he and Bruce probably have more in common than either probably realizes relative to their respective approaches to land based architecture.

If anyone ever has a question about one of our projects, please ask me.  I am very happy to share our ideas, approaches, and even inspirations.  I, and I think I can speak for Bruce in this matter, have never viewed this site as a forum for self promotion or gain, but rather a forum for sharing ideas.  If any indication to the contrary exists, please let me know as that is not my intention.

A very fine discussion by the way, just wish an accurate exmple had been sited.

All the best!

Cheers!

JT

[T_MacWood]

When looking at subject as complex as golden age golf architecture - one that is eighty to ninety years old - misconceptions are bound to occur. No doubt there are numerous misconception surrounding each of these celebrated architects, and misconceptions about the period in general.  Correcting the record would be a good thing, but  this exercise does not appear to be interested in correcting those conceptions or finding the truth.
 
Little or no historic information has been brought to the table, and what little that has is often wrong (potentially creating a new myth). Most of what has been said is more about differences in taste and personal opinion than shooting down a myth. And there has been whole lot of blanket generalities - which is not useful IMO considering the vast variety of the period.
 
It seems to me this exercise has been more about knocking these 'masters' down a peg or two. The purpose appears to be two fold: discomfort in being compared to these iconic figures and frustration when trying to renovate their courses.

Jim T.
I had no idea what site those quotes came from I apologize if I said anything that offended you or Mathews Course Design. The little experience I've had with Bruce Mathews, I was impressed by his diligence and historical perspective.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Is Tom or Kelley trying to knock them down, or simply discuss them realistically? I think the latter.

Mike's point is that Ross may have visited once during construction, given train travel.  Mac left Australia before construction of some of his gems.

And yet, some things are portrayed as being designed almost devinely.  In reality, someone else helped a lot - either at the time, or later.

Beyond that, every one of our revered golden age architecture books were really self promotion at the time, no different than self promotion now.  I don't know who published them, but I'll bet some were self published, and while reprints now sell for big bucks, the originals were probably mostly handed to potential clients for free as a form of a brochure.  And I would also bet that some of the writing was intentionally flowery just to appeal to that audience, with the gca often breaking his own lofty rules in practice, if for no other reason that he was on the train to the next one and someone else was making decisions.

Mike was trying to say nothing more than if you look at the realities of communciations and travel in those days, not as much gca input went into those courses as is often supposed by current fans of their work.

Most current architects spend far more time on their projects, both plan and field wise.  Admittedly, not much more of that time is spent on strategy, given the added complexities of the modern project......

There can be many opinions, and certainly there are great courses in all eras.  If Mike didn't love golf courses in general, I doubt he would be a golf architect today.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

 
It seems to me this exercise has been more about knocking these 'masters' down a peg or two. The purpose appears to be two fold: discomfort in being compared to these iconic figures and frustration when trying to renovate their courses.

 

Tom,

That is one of the oldest tricks in the book, to try and divert attention away from the subject matter by calling into question your opponents motives.  I think Jeff understands some of the issues that were discussed and the attempts to meet your requests far better than you do.  In fact you are acting like a pope or cardinal who are constantly defending orthodox positions of little or no merit.  

I thought this was a much more serious discussion that had some interesting points and that could continue to grow richer but as often happens on this site people like you can't go with the flow, contribute and encourage the discussion, although you did try somewhat, rather you seek to squelch and to restate someone elses position ad nauseum rather than trying to understand it and help advance it.  

[Tom_Doak]

"Most current architects spend far more time on their projects, both plan and field wise.  Admittedly, not much more of that time is spent on strategy, given the added complexities of the modern project......"

Jeff:  I had never thought of it in those terms, but it's probably true.  It's true that I spent as much time on my Australian projects as MacKenzie did -- and I did two to his 19!

I'm sure someone will say that proves I'm not as good as MacKenzie because he was so much more efficient with his time than me.  Of course, RTJ2 will follow this by saying that I wasn't spending much time on architecture because I was leaving things alone ... but then he'll probably say that MacKenzie was overrated, too, and that Poppy Hills is really a much better course than Cypress Point, because they play more rounds there.

But you are dead right, there is a lot of myth out there about what the old guys did.  I marvel at what they did, even more so  because I understand how they had to work.  

However, I am a bit more apt than Mike to give them a fair share of credit for how their courses have evolved over time.  It isn't just a matter of how their green chairmen and superintendents have treated them through the years.  One of the things I've gotten much better at in the last ten years is understanding the evolution of a course and being more proactive in it -- both in terms of maintaining a better relationship with the clients so THEY will take care of our work, and in addressing issues such as vegetation and drainage which will have an effect down the road.  High Pointe is a mess partly because I let it happen, and I wouldn't let it happen now.  The same goes for the works of the masters.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

"Most current architects spend far more time on their projects, both plan and field wise.  Admittedly, not much more of that time is spent on strategy, given the added complexities of the modern project......"

While it is impossible to measure time spent on strategy by the old masters, I don't find that the modern complexities has impacted the time I spend in the field thinkig about strategy.  I think it depends on how many projects you have going at one time.  Certainly if you have a responsible number of projects underway you should be able to give a tremendous amount of time to the strategic design of the course.  In fact it is incumbant upon you to make that time available otherwise you might as well be a draftsman.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kelly,

I don't disagree that it is incumbant on us to make time for the important parts of the design.

Tom,

Interesting concept about 'time efficiency."  In design, can that be a reality?  While making 1000 widgets does give some time efficiencies over making 1, golf design has never struck me as having that advantage. At least, I always wonder if I "noodled" over something a few more days if I would have come up with something better.  Unlike high school chem tests, I don't think that as a rule to "go with my first answer, its usually the best."

I did a course in California, and in my rush to catch the last flight of the day home, quickly marked out the bunkers one day.  To this day, I can see the quickness in those bunkers.  I wonder if Mac got more efficient as the time for his boat to sail got closer?  I think so, although its not readily evident in his work there.  On the other hand, he did leave some associates who truly labored and loved the work there and that had a lot to do with the results.

I don't dismiss the great work of the masters because of it.  Perhaps our minds run to the best of the best when we discuss restoration.  Mike can defend himself, but I suspect he was talking about mid level Ross paper jobs rather than Pinehurst No. 2.

[T_MacWood]

Tom,

Is Tom or Kelley trying to knock them down, or simply discuss them realistically? I think the latter.

Jeff
I’m not sure Tom and Kelly are saying the same thing...are they? In fact it doesn’t appear that you or Mike are saying the same thing either. Everyone seems to have his own unique opinion on this thread.

Mike started the discussion by claiming that the reputation of the old guys was largely myth, that the quality of a large portion of our classics was do to: 1) clubs that had money and could grow the course over 75 years and 2) superintendents.

He gave Raynor as an example benefiting from #1 and #2.  When asked for specific examples he said  “Lets see...if I had about 20 different holes with an engineered look to them and went around putting them on different pieces of land.....what would be said today???  I like Camargo, Yale and haven't played FI....all I am saying is that half the times these guys didn't know what was being done in minute detail on their projects....it evolved.....”

That sounds more like personal opinion than a myth surrounding why many of his designs are considered good today.

Kelly thinks a modern orthodoxy has been created based upon these old masters, unfortunately has been unable to articulate exactly what that orthodoxy is….like Mike his myth busting consists mostly of personal opinion or taste, and a different philosophy from MacKenzie.

Tom really hasn’t mentioned any myth specifically, commenting more on modern aspects like how Fazio, Dye, etc compare themselves to the old guys and how courses evolve.

You brought up the role majors plays in courses reputation, and I would agree to a limited degree. But I don’t think Merion, Pebble Beach, Oakmont, ANGC, Riviera, Brookline, Winged Foot, Oakland Hills, Pinehurst #2 and Inverness are inflated because of their majors. Maybe it has helped Medinah, Baltusrol, Firestone, and few others. I don’t believe the majority of golden age architects reputations are due to the majors. IMO their reputations are based upon the quality of their designs.

Regarding Ross, no doubt he did not see every course and others he spent little time overseeing. Most astute observers understand this – especially after reading Klein’s biography or articles written by Whitten - we are not under any elusions, it is well documented. He was probably the most prolific architect in history and he created a very large organization to meet the demand. I think it was the late Ross historian who said there were maybe fifty courses that he really devoted significant time to. Fifty excellent golf courses is pretty good and another fifty or more collaborative efforts and you have one of the all-time greats, not a myth.  

It’s a similar situation with MacKenzie, should we discount his career because he spent only three months in Australia. There has been a lot of good research done down under and we know what he did down there. I believe all the golf courses he advised were existing in some form - some were major revisions (like Royal Melbourne); some were minor reports that may or may not have been followed. At he left the work was overseen by his partner Russell and in some cases the talented Morcom (mostly in the Sandbelt from what I understand). The work turned out pretty well I’d say, and very much in character with his designs on other continents. Is his reputation a myth and is it a myth he had a major impact upon Australian golf architecture?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

We do have slightly different opinions and takes.  I took it that Mike was questioning not the final results, but that the "myth" that the golden age guys had some secrets about design we don't know now, that they really thought things out to a greater degree, etc.  I don't think he questioned that the best results were great, but like you say, out of 400 Ross courses, maybe 40 are great.  The rest are only so so to good.

I still think the majors have a lot to do with any gca reputation - then and now.  Faz suffers because he hasn't had majors played on his courses, while JN and PD have.

Tillie was forgotten until the Hannigan article in1974 on account of several majors being played on Tillie's courses that year.  Whitten wrote his Ross article for when a major was being played on a Ross course, although others were written by Ross.  Howver, prior to the 1979 Inverness Open, where the Fazio new holes brought attention to the work, Ross had been ignored quite a bit.

Is it semantics?  Maybe, in that the courses used for the majors were obviuosly good, but the majors did bring attention back on those gca's.

[T_MacWood]

I don't think he questioned that the best results were great, but like you say, out of 400 Ross courses, maybe 40 are great.  The rest are only so so to good.

Jeff
400 is most likely a myth too. Ross listed less than 200 in his little booklet...most of those I would characterise good to very good with a few great.

No doubt the major exposure led to being noticed, but in 1974 were any of the golden age architects known? Hebert Warren Wind did a good article (I think it was in SI), Hannigan and then C&W's 'The Golf Course' really got the ball rolling.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

There wasn't the interest that there is today, but a part of that resurgence, as noted, came from major tournament golf.  That is my point.  The other was Ron Whitten, a Topeka, KS lawyer with an interest in the history of golf architecture.  

In this great big world, it was probably inevitable that there was someone like Ron, with a fanatic desire to know and write about the history of gca.  If Ron hadn't existed, I guess we would have had to invent him.......

[Tom_Doak]

Tom MacWood, you are right, I didn't talk about myths much because I feel slightly guilty for helping to perpetuate some of them.  Back when I wrote for GOLF, I didn't always have all the facts on the time and effort these architects put into their courses, and I was guilty of "projecting" that some of them were there more than they really were.

I still see a bit of that "projecting" in the recent biographies of any architect you want to name.  Having a biographer write about someone who is a hero to him is probably NOT the best way to get all the facts right, unless there is a very skeptical editor in the process as well, and none of these books has ever warranted that much attention.  And likewise, as Mike alludes, there are some restoration experts who know all the answers without needing to see the questions.

However, Tom, I think Ross's list of 400 courses HAS been pretty meticulously researched -- he didn't visit all 400 but his company did do that many, and Ross's re-dos were generally not just superficial suggestions.  Let's not create a myth about the rare true fact.

[T_MacWood]

Tom
I spent some time doing research at the Tufts Library and they have compiled a couple of interesting lists. The first list are courses credited to Ross with some documentation but no plans, there were 113 courses - not surprising considering how easily old plans disappear. The other list was Ross courses where they have absolutely no information - that list had 99 courses. I'm not sure what the number is but I think 400 is high. In Ohio I know he had nothing to do with Zanesville or long gone Arlington. Others in question: Chevy Chase, Siwanoy, Panama, Grove Park Inn and White Bear Y.

With such a long and prolific career there are bound to be errors, he still designed a huge number of courses and his reputation in my opinion does not suffer at all.

I agree there is a natural tendency for a biographer to pump up their subject, but from my experience the truth is often more interesting than the myth. And when taking credit for an interesting course from a lengendary architect, you often move credit to another lengendary architect (like Alison in the case of Panama) or you discover someone new worthy of further study (like Barker, Fujita or Rymill).

When you have a period of high quality output there is plenty of credit to spread about.

[T_MacWood]

I hope I didn't give the impression that I don't believe there are myths out there - I spend a great deal of time and effort trying to get to the truth of some of those myths - I just don't believe Mike's original myth is valid.

[Mike_Young]

I hope I didn't give the impression that I don't believe there are myths out there - I spend a great deal of time and effort trying to get to the truth of some of those myths - I just don't believe Mike's original myth is valid.

Tom,
Glad we can agree to disagree.
Mike

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()