The Second Golden Age of GC Architecture

[Bryan Izatt]

Are we living in GA II right now, and for the last 20 years?

If your great grandkids were sitting around their electronic GCA treehouse of 2106 debating the merits of golf courses, would they likely say that those guys - C&C, Doak, Dye etc - from the turn of the century (21st that is), really knew how to design great golf courses.

Would the patina of a hundred years of maturation of the current courses make them indistinguishable from the 175 year old classic courses that are so cherished from Golden Age I?  Would their top ten ratings of the courses of the combined GA I and GA II eras contain an eclectic mix of the two periods?

From their perspectives, a hundred years hence, how would they rate the architecture of these pairs of courses from these two eras?

  GA I                      GA II

Pine Valley     vs     Sand Hills

Cypress Point  vs    Pacific Dunes

Pebble Beach   vs   Whistling Straits

On what architectural factors would they rate one better than the other in these pairs?

[Garland Bayley]

Bryan,

How about lining these up a little more geographically

NGLA vs Sebonack
Shinnecock vs Friars Head
Prairie Dunes vs Sand Hills
Cypress Pont vs Pacific Dunes
Pebble Beach vs Bandon Dunes
Pasatiempo vs Bandon Trails
? vs. Whistling Staits
Riviera vs Rustic Canyon

[Joe Hancock]

Bryan,

How about lining these up a little more geographically

? vs. Whistling Staits

How about Crystal Downs?

Joe

[TEPaul]

"Are we living in GA II right now, and for the last 20 years?"

Yes, definitely!

And GA II is as much an architectural renaissance of GA I as anything.

That's the similarity. But what are the real differences between GA I and GA II?

I guess anyone would have to admit that the incredible increase in agronomic sophistication has to be the biggest difference. You get one of the GA II courses set up in its IMM (Ideal Maintenance Meld) today and show it to one of those old GA I greats and he would probably have a stroke from out of control ecstasy.  

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Are you sure we're not seeing an artifact of the Arts and Crafts Movement Part Deux?  I think it is clear that this latest A&C movement has brought about the most recent Golden Age in everything, including golf architecture.  The thing is, since we're in the midst of it, we don't realize we can call it that.  We have to wait for some egg head to publish it in a book 25 years from now.  Probably Tom MacWood the Second

[Kyle Harris]

Not even close.

Not sure if we ever had a first one:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Golden%20age

Needs to be harmony between equipment and design first.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

How about lining these up a little more geographically

NGLA vs Sebonack
Shinnecock vs Friars Head
Prairie Dunes vs Sand Hills
Cypress Pont vs Pacific Dunes
Pebble Beach vs Bandon Dunes
Pasatiempo vs Bandon Trails
? vs. Whistling Staits
Riviera vs Rustic Canyon

Garland,  I was trying to establish comparisons based on what I thought were similar styles of courses.  It removes one variable from the comparison.  Is geographic location relevant to an architectural comparison?  But if you want to make your comparisons, feel free.  Do you think GB the III would always find the courses in your first column architecturally superior to those in the second?  If so, why?

[Bryan Izatt]

Not even close.

Not sure if we ever had a first one:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=Golden%20age

Needs to be harmony between equipment and design first.

Kyle,

I suspect that those around here who coined the GA of GCA term were thinking of the definition a little further down in your dictionary  "A period of prosperity or excellent achievement".  You can have a period of excellent achievement then, as now, even in the absence of harmony on the equipment front.  Just because there are a relative handful of bombers out there doesn't mean that there isn't excellent achievement in the world of course architecture.

[Kyle Harris]

Bryan,

I agree with your assesment, but to me it also implies that we may not be able to do much better. I think coining a golden age requires experience and time, to say we are currently in one by that standard is a bit contradictory.

How many civilizations or arts have had multiple golden ages? The age is golden only in retrospect.

Are prolific courses being built now in the same manner as in the 1920s? Sure. However, their effect on the game really has yet to be seen, it's only been 80 years or so - not long in the grand scheme of things.

Consider golf has been played for almost 500 years.

[Bryan Izatt]

"Are we living in GA II right now, and for the last 20 years?"

Yes, definitely!

And GA II is as much an architectural renaissance of GA I as anything.

That's the similarity. But what are the real differences between GA I and GA II?

I guess anyone would have to admit that the incredible increase in agronomic sophistication has to be the biggest difference. You get one of the GA II courses set up in its IMM (Ideal Maintenance Meld) today and show it to one of those old GA I greats and he would probably have a stroke from out of control ecstasy.  

Tom,

Now that's the question.  What are the differences?  Are the differences such that the past is superior to the current, or vice versa?  Why do so few newish courses break into the top echelon of the classics?  Are there differences that we can identify and debate?

The agronomic one is one obvious difference.  Both in what it's possible to build, and secondarily then maintain.  Do the GA II courses have better maintenance melds and are therefore superior in that aspect?  Are there other differentiators?

I, for one, don't see a huge difference in the design features of the best GA II's vs the best GA I's.  Were the classic guys better at putting those design features together to create demonstrably superior course?  I don't think so, but I like to hear the arguments for either side.

One other difference that is obvious is that the classic courses have had many years to mature and to look natural.  The current courses haven't reached that maturity yet.  Who can forget that Whistling Straits was a flat plateau military base.  In a hunderd years only the gca historians will remember.  

Another difference is that many of the classics are private, exclusive clubs.  How much does that exclusivity and hard-to-get-ness have to do with people's perception of their value?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Are you sure we're not seeing an artifact of the Arts and Crafts Movement Part Deux?  I think it is clear that this latest A&C movement has brought about the most recent Golden Age in everything, including golf architecture.  The thing is, since we're in the midst of it, we don't realize we can call it that.  We have to wait for some egg head to publish it in a book 25 years from now.  Probably Tom MacWood the Second "

Wayne:

Interesting that you should say that. Of course I could make a joke of that but I'm definitely not going to---I'm serious, and here's why.

I firmly believe that many of the prinicples of the "Arts and Crafts" Movement as well as the inspiration for them were not really part of the golf architecture of the Golden Age. Those A/C principles were a certain dedication to regional styles and regional materials and a form of a renaissance celebration of handcraftsmanship of even the Middle Ages. The inspiration for that with the Arts and Crafts Movement at least of Britain in the 19th century was as Tom MacWood said it was in his article entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf". It was as return to the handcraftsmanship of the Gothic Age and a spurning of the dehumanizing effects of areas of the 19th Industrial Revolution and mindless mass production of various products.

I do not believe those things were much of any influence on the movement of Golden Age Golf architecture, BUT, the renaissance today that takes many of the handcrafted elements of the Golden Age of Golf Architecture before the onset of massive mechanization in golf architecture construction and the wholly unnatural influences of such as computerization on golf course design has obvoiusly inspired a renaissance today in that type of handcraftmanship of features that were a good deal of what the Golden Age of Golf Architecture was noted for.

So, ironically, the stage is actually set today for a renaissance of the Arts and Crafts principles of more handcraftmanship in golf course construction as well as a greater dedication to "regional" style and "regional" material in golf architectural construction.

Tom MacWood basically claimed, in defense of his article to my questioning of it, that the "Arts and Crafts" influence was very likely massively prevalent as an influence on the Golden Age of Golf Architecture without its practiioners back then even being aware of it.

He even claimed that sometimes it takes an observant historian, such as himself, to point out these facts up to 75 years later.

I do not really agree with him on that and that the A/C movement was a primary influence on Golden Age Golf Architecture, but I do feel that the prinicples of the A/C movement in its own renaissance currently have an excellent chance of influencing this Golden Age renaissance in golf architecture we see going on in golf course architecture today.

I very much see it happening today and so let's hope it doesn't take Tom MacWood and other historian/observers another 75 years to recognize it.  

 

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Now that's the question.  What are the differences?  Are the differences such that the past is superior to the current, or vice versa?  Why do so few newish courses break into the top echelon of the classics?  Are there differences that we can identify and debate?"

Bryan:

That certainly is the question. I don't know you but I'm coming to very much like the way you think about many things to do with golf and golf architecture.

One of the real problems I think I have with the premises and theses of Tom MacWood particularly with his "Arts and Crafts Golf" article is that he seemed to go to basically tortured and ridiculous lengths to establish "SIMILARTITIES", in various things, and from that influences, I suppose. I feel he attempted to do that by broadening the context of the "influence" (in his case the A/C Movement) to a ridiculous extent. This theme could be seen in some of his responses such as the A/C Movement's influence was not well recognized at the time because it influenced almost everything. To me that kind of logic isn't very interesting or educational.

But in that case and in this one I think discovering the DIFFERENCES (as well as some similarities) is interesting.

Basically what I'm saying is not to abuse one way or the other the old "compare/contrast" equation.  

[Dan Herrmann]

Or, is it possible that we're seeing the resurrection of the grand days of GCA that was interrupted by a few decades of blahdom?

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Very well said.  I was just trying to be humerous but you brought it back to the real cycling back and that is the handcrafting we are seeing today.  That is wonderful news.  Hopefully the excesses we've seen over the last few decades, whether by economic forces or aesthetic or a combination, will fade away.  

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,  I was trying to establish comparisons based on what I thought were similar styles of courses.  

That's why I suggested the alternative. I didn't see the style similarity between Pine Valley and Sand Hills, and between Pebble Beach and Whistling Straits.
I thought of Crystal Downs and Whistling Straits, but thought them too different.

It removes one variable from the comparison.  Is geographic location relevant to an architectural comparison?  But if you want to make your comparisons, feel free.  Do you think GB the III would always find the courses in your first column architecturally superior to those in the second?  If so, why?

Off hand, I think I am in Tom Paul's camp here preferring the current courses. Partly because the modern GCAs are trying to do the same things, but the moderns have the technology to better accomplish it.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Very well said.  I was just trying to be humerous but you brought it back to the real cycling back and that is the handcrafting we are seeing today.  That is wonderful news.  Hopefully the excesses we've seen over the last few decades, whether by economic forces or aesthetic or a combination, will fade away.  

Wayne,

So, where does that leave us with a course like Whistling Straits?  It was totally manufactured on a blah site, save for the shoreline.  Was there handcrafting enough in the finishing of it, or is it one of the excesses?  Certainly Dye has done handcrafting on other courses - Teeth of the Dog comes to mind - so he is capable of it.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Sadly, I've not been able to get into Tom MacWood's concept of Arts and Crafts.  It's too esoteric for me.  Not that that's necessarily a bad thing.  

But to me good course architecture and design is an art.  It may be supported by technology in design and mechanization in implementation, but the creation of the fundamental beauty and utility of the design is art.  Perhaps between the first and second golden ages there was a lot of industrial course design.  Cookie cutter and stamp them out.  Perhaps in the current era more of the design has gone back to an artful form.

The differences between GA I and II, though is a harder question.  If both sets of courses age and mature, what are the fundamental differences?  I'm not sure there are any.  Architects from GA I may have created new and unique features, but they borrowed from their predecessors in Scotland.  Similarly current architects borrow from their predecessors.  In another thread recently there didn't seem to be a whole lot of innovative new ideas for course design features.  Have we collectively run out of new ideas and approaches?

So, for the sake of argument, what are the differences at just Pacific Dunes and CPC.  They have similar seaside sites on cliffs.  The routings take advantage of the dunes and coastlines.  I haven't played CPC, so it gets a bit difficult here.  But is the bunkering fundamentally different in the two?  Are the location of the hazards different?  Does one provide more strategic alternatives than the other?  Does one have more variety of holes and thus shots required?  Does one challenge scoring more than the other?  Is one more suseptible to being flogged than the other?  Is one superior to the other in some other way (other than history or exclusivity)?  

[Jeff_Mingay]

I just received Golfweek's America's Best issue for 2006. There's a really interesting graphic counting the courses featured on the lists (Classic and Modern) by decade:

1890s: 3

1900s: 3

1910s: 23

1920s: 56

1930s: 10

1940s: 2

1950s: 3

1960s: 7

1970s: 7

1980s: 9

1990s: 42

2000s: 35

Draw your own conclusions...  

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

Drawing a conclusion from that list would be akin to concluding that the stock market is about to crash (again).

There is always a bias for the hype and blather of whatever projects are being built at any given time; look at the GOLF DIGEST lists from the 1970's and how many courses from the sixties and seventies were in the mix back then.   I don't think modern courses can truly be judged until they have been around ten or twenty years, but I will bet my right arm that in 20 years' time, there aren't 42 courses from the 1990's in that GOLFWEEK modern list.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom:

That's why I didn't draw a conclusion, myself  

Although, I tend to think along the same lines as you.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Fair points about the hype and recognition of the new.

If the GA I  period encompassed the 10's and 20's that would be 79 courses.  Currently the 90's and the 00's are 77.  Would you bet your left arm that 20 or 100 years hence that the GA I period will still be around 79, while the my supposed GA II will be down to a significantly lower number.  Will it get as low as the 40's, 50's and 60's? Perhaps it will statisticly if GW continues with two lists and expands the modern time period while fixing the classic period at a certain length.  Although I'm not betting, I think that the current two decades will look good in the future, and should look good compared to the classics.  

Modern architects and their creations are good.  Sometimes I think that gets lost in the reverence for the past.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Sadly, I've not been able to get into Tom MacWood's concept of Arts and Crafts.  It's too esoteric for me."

Bryan:

That's one of the better euphemisms I've heard to date for what it really is.  

[TEPaul]

"If the GA I  period encompassed the 10's and 20's that would be 79 courses.  Currently the 90's and the 00's are 77.  Would you bet your left arm that 20 or 100 years hence that the GA I period will still be around 79, while the my supposed GA II will be down to a significantly lower number.  Will it get as low as the 40's, 50's and 60's?"

Bryan:

I'd take that bet. I think the popularity of some of the courses of a heretofore modern juggernaut architect like Fazio that are now on the list will naturally just wane in the next couple of decades, not unlike many of RTJ's probably did compared to the 50s, 60s and 70s. The ones on the list from the 1890s, 1900s, teens, 1920s etc have just been there so long now they won't wane in the coming decades.

[BCrosby]

Consider the following hypothesis:

Golf architecture trails developments in b&i technology by about 20 years (give or take).

The Golden Age can be seen as golf architecture coming to terms with the Haskell ball 20 years after its introduction.

The Dark Ages (1950 - 70) can be seen as golf architecture coming to terms with the power of steel shafts 20 years after their introduction. (It took more than 30 years in this case cuz of WWII.)

Thus, starting about 2010 or 2015, there will be a new breed of gca (a new Dark Ages?) that can be seen as coming to terms with two piece balls, titanium heads and graphite shafts 20 years after their introduction.

The hole in my theory is identifying technology improvements in the 70's that spawned the Renaissance era between 1990 and now.

(Or maybe it's not a hole. From 1930 (steel shafts) to about 1990, there were relatively few developments in technology. Thus you can posit the Renaissance era as a pure and simple reaction to the Dark Ages.)

Bob    

[David Lott]

Is one criterion of a Golden Age that its achievements capture the contemporary imagination when we are in the age itself?

The Golden Age of Sport--Ruth, Dempsey, Bobby Jones--was golden partly because personalities captured the public imagination. Same with air travel (1920's, 30's), Impressionism, gothic architecture, baseball in the 1950's, Pro football since Lombardi.

Golf's golden ages have been personality dependent--Jones, Hogan-Snead-Nelson, Palmer, Nicklaus-Watson-Trevino, Woods. Personality plus high achievement. In significant part the personalities made the courses classic because of what they achieved on them.

Golden ages also are times when there are huge amounts of second rate crap--golf in the 1920's was such a time, when many mediocre courses were built, some of which remain but many of which are gone. By that standard the current era is surely a golden age, as there have been a lot of ill-concieved and/or poorly executed courses.

Unfortunately the sport today is not capturing the broad public imagination, even with a personality as compelling as Tiger Woods on the marquee. Imagine where golf would be if Tiger had chosen investment banking, with golf as a sidelight, rather than the other way around.

With a very few exceptions, golf's most compelling events--the Open, the Ryder Cup, the British Open, the PGA, are not being played on the courses that can claim to be part of a new Golden Age. The powers-that-be don't take many of the most compelling events to the new claimants to golf course greatness. Surely that has to do in significant part to factors that don't relate to the quality of the newer courses (economics, lack of imagination by powers that be, geography), but it's also an indictment of the newer courses, which must not seem so compelling that players or public insist on playing events there.

Also, the most highly regarded of the newer courses (examples: the Bandon courses, which I've played, and Sand Hills, which I haven't) don't seem to be designed with the current specifications of modern pro tournament play in mind. They might not be chosen even if located on the outskirts of Chicago. Whether this is due to the lack of imagination of the tournament planners, or the maverick mentality of the architects/developers of these new courses, I don't know. I think you could run a hell of a pro tournament at Bandon, Oregon, but do the PGA and its sponsors want this to happen?

Given what the pros can do with modern equipment, are the best architects even trying to design to the pro game? Or to the gallery requirements of the Tour? Can this be a golden age only if professional play eventually anoints certain courses, or will it be a golden age if the best architects refuse to design to the pro game, and make great courses for the handicap golfer to play? The technology explosion may be requiring them to consider whether this is a choice they must make.