[Mike_Young]

Every so often the topic of green plans and details comes up on this site.  Seems we all have different opinions of detailed green plans and how they can be interpreted.  I know that Wayne has mentioned the minute details of Flynn plans and several have mentioned the extreme detail of Ross plans.  I do think that flynn in particular did some very nice plans that were extremely neat and note worthy.  However, I still believe that both Flynn , Ross and many other dead guys did not do , what I define, as detailed plans.  To define a detailed plan I would suggest reviewing a house plan and noting the elevations of the walls, the width and height of the rooms, the trim details and the other features that can be measured and carried out by a qualified subcontractor.  When one mentions the fractions of inches with which one of the dead guys drew plans I just can't see it.  To start the preciseness would either need to be based on a surveyed elevation point such as the green centerpoint or either one would need a contour map done in inches.  
From my experience I think that three contractors will build three different greens from one set of modern plans which I think are much more detailed than the dead guys.
Now look, I know that a few on the board have spent hours finding, archiving and researching the work of these dead guys and I am grateful for that.  And I do think one can build a reasonably accurate green from the plans I have seen but I do not think the old plans were that detailed from an architecutral point of view.  JMO

[wsmorrison]

I agree, Mike.  Three contractors would likely build three slightly different greens even with today's plan.  Flynn typically used one crew with either of two foremen (Red Lawrence or William Gordon) so that the results were more likely to be what Flynn wanted.  From the materials we have located, these are about as precise as his plans get.  I have to get some later ones that we have for Old Course at The Homestead (1925) and others formatted and sized.  I'll try to post these later.  These have more detail.  Is there room for some interpretation, especially the slope between stakes?  Yes, but they are pretty precise.  I take it the numbers for Town and Country are in inches and the McCall Field are in yards and fractions of a yard.  The distance between the stakes is fixed but unknown.  You can see the green sloped left to right and front to back.

Here's a Flynn green plan from Town and Country (later Woodmont CC) in 1922:




Here's a later construction plan for greens at Flynn's 1923 addition of 9 holes and a remodel of Ross's 9 holes at Philadelphia Electric Company's McCall Field:

[Mike_Young]

Wayne,
I agree that these plans give a good description of what Flynn wanted for the green surface and the shape of the green.  And I am sure that if he only had one or two crews they could come very close with this plan.  I would think there could be some variation in the elevation at the center stake for the green once rootballs etc had been removed and the tie ins to the complex itself could vary.  Also the alighnment of the "direction of play" could be slightly off unless aligned on the turnpoint stake.  But none of this is to say these are not good plans....I am just trying to emphasize how much room is often left for interpretation in golf plans.
Mike

[wsmorrison]

"I am just trying to emphasize how much room is often left for interpretation in golf plans."

Mike, I am forced to agree with you.  Now that didn't hurt in the least  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

I don't think of those old plans as very detailed either.  I can't imagine not having actual contour lines for a contractor to stake work from, since they allow interpolation of elevation at any given point that requires it.  At least the Flynn plans have elevations on a regular grid.  Most Golden Age Plans were too conceptual to be accurate.

More and more, I can't imagine not having a computer generated 3D view available for contractors as a visual aid.  Add in tile plans, cart path locations, etc. etc. etc. and I think most modern plans have a lot more accurate information on them than golden age plans. For that matter, using the computer or other hand methods to provide construction quantities for grassing, drain tile, bunker sand, et al. also seems like a must.

Granted, we sometimes ignore those plans, but its great to have that information as a working base.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

When you try to compare the detail in the golf architectural plans of the old crowd compared to architects today and even analogize the complexity or sophistication of plans of building architecture to golf course architecture back then I think you are really beginning to get into apples and oranges.

First of all detailed architectural building plans have been around for eons longer than the architectural plans and drawing of golf course architects not the least reason being fairly sophisticated building architecture has been around for literally thousands of years in some societies but sophisticated golf course architectural design and construction has only been known to this world for less than 100 years. That right there puts the plans and drawings of older architects like Ross or Flynn in much different light relatively speaking than if man-made golf course architecture had been around even remotely as long as building architecture.

For their day, the likes of Ross and particularly Flynn were probably remarkably detailed and sophisticated in what they drew and did considering even remotely detailed golf architecture plans had not even been heard of a mere 10-20 or so years before them.

Wayne and I have always looked carefully to try to determine how close Flynn's plans were in various areas to what got done on the ground. There's no question it was remarkably close particular in the area of bunkering which is frankly a lot easier for us to translate from plans to old photos and such. Comparing green plans and what got built, particularly into the green surfaces is just not so easy for us to pick up on sometimes.

Having said all that Wayne and I feel that it is highly likely that Flynn got into such detailed plans and so often insisted on sticking right to them on the ground for another but interesting reason.

One thing there is no question at all of is that Flynn was trying to sell, perhaps even revolutionize in golf course architecture, the idea that what he was showing you on plans and drawings was PRECISELY what you were going to get and the underlying reason for that was you'd know going in not just what you were going to get but exactly what you were going to pay for it. He may've taken that bit to a new level in golf course architecture and probably as a selling point. Another interesting historical fact of Flynn's career is the type of his client list. The guy had to have networked the Holy Hell out of the rich and famous because his client list that way is probably beyond comparison in the history of golf architecture.

You know the old adage; "No wonder they got so rich?" Well, most of Flynn's clients, the Rockerfellers being the best example, despite how rich and famous they were also were about the biggst nickel nursers imagianble. Accounting for every nickel and what it was going towards was like a game to some of his mega-millionaire clients.

William Flynn was perhaps the most cost efficient and cost conscious superintendent of his day and he definitely took that mind-set and approach into golf architecture and the presentation of it to any of his clients.

The story alone from the pen of The Homestead's owner, Fay Ingalls, about the first day he met Flynn regarding building the Cascades course proves that loud and clear. It's actually pretty funny.

[Mike_Young]

Wayne and TE,
I agree with you on the detail of flynn's plans as compared to many others.  And I am sure what is on the ground is close since he used only one or two crews.
But my gripe has always been and will continue to be that most dead guys sent plans that were less detailed and were interpreted by many different people b4 being finished therefore it stands to reason there is no way one could do 400 courses and expect great results on more than a few.  JMO

[TEPaul]

"But my gripe has always been and will continue to be that most dead guys sent plans that were less detailed and were interpreted by many different people b4 being finished therefore it stands to reason there is no way one could do 400 courses and expect great results on more than a few.  JMO"

Mike:

No question about that. One could fairly easily just do the logistics year to year with the design and construction volume of a Ross compared to a Flynn and figure out what it means as far as plans translating onto the ground. In two careers that spanned most of the same decades Ross did about eight times more courses than Flynn did and from all I've heard Ross wasn't a big fan of constant travel either although Flynn sure seemed to be.

So it's hardly difficult to figure out which one of them was around all his projects a whole lot more. Plus we do have one quite well documented instance of one of Flynn's foremen (Dick Wilson) taking liberties with Flynn's plans on the ground. That got Wilson into some deep KaKa with Flynn and they had to go back and do it over to plan.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:

When you said you can't imagine not having a computer generated 3D green plan for the contractor's edification, I suddenly flashed to John Lennon's famous song.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.  I hope someday you'll join us.

[Adam_F_Collins]

hehehehehee. That's good.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I could spend all day, or part thereof coming up with a witty retort.  However, the basis of my comment was not necessarily even that they be done in AutoCad or similar.

At a recent ASGCA seminar, and other places, I learned that there are many new programs out there that let you grade your vision in 3D for a graphic representation.  Want to raise a 1 Ft mound in a green?  Pull it up with your stylus and the 3D view changes  Voila, a perfect representation of what you want to do (if you know what you want to do).

It seems to me that unless and even if you are there every single day, and I know you are not, despite the popluar image many have of you, that having an easy to generate 3D reference of your plan for the dozer guy to start with would be the ultimate tool for communication of your ideas.

And, with that ability on new Treo cell phones even, I don't think there would be any reason in the very near future not to doodle digitally and in 3D before firing up the tractors even if you are right there. You could test the visuals of several ideas in several minutes.  Even if you were in the office or around the world, you could email back and forth etc.

Other than the romanticism, I see no reason not to use technology that makes visual interpretation of ideas easier and easier.  The use of visuals to convey ideas for sales or construction has been an evident progression from the early days of golf architecture.

Just my opinion.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I think Jeff's got a good point here. Why would the use of technology necessarily have any negative effect on an architect's communication of ideas?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()