Instantly recognisable style

[Mark_Rowlinson]

If I may use a musical analogy, if you played a piece of classical music to me that I had not heard before I would usually have a pretty good idea who composed it.  If you were blindfolded and set down in the middle of a golf course would you be able to recognise who the designer had been?  What are the trade marks that would enable you to recognise a Tillinghast or Flynn course, or to distinguish between the work of Colt and MacKenzie?  Or are there designers who do not have recognisable trade marks?  (I'd suggest Fowler in this category).  

[Adam Clayman]

Mark,
 It requires numerous exposures to a certain archie, and others, to make that distinction. Just like your music analogy. You have to know a great deal of the material intimately, do have the ear to recognize the style.

Your post took me to a place I didn't want to go, the middle of a Dick Wilson, or, an RTJ course. When you threw in the Flynn and even C&A, I realized how regional, the answer to this question would be. The other thought was how so many second and third tier archies, copy most of the classic styles and looks, of successful or contemporary architects. Further clouding the recognizing of any particular person as the designer. Give me three degrees of separation and I'd gladly take the test, almost anytime, definitely anywhere.

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Adam,  I take your point about needing to have had a good deal of exposure to music or courses in order to be able to make an educated guess.  Until last summer I had never played a Tillinghast course.  I was treated to a round at Ridgewood.  My initial reaction was that it looked like what I had expected a Tillinghast course to look like, from pictures of his courses I'd seen in books and on this website.  Now, I don't pretend that from my exposure to a single Tillie course I have a comprehensive grasp of his style, of course not.  (I doubled that exposure later on that trip with a close encounter with both courses at Winged Foot.)  But there must have been something - probably the style of the bunkers - which caused me to make that connection.  

In this country I have been lucky enough to have played quite a few MacKenzie courses, and I have become very closely acquainted with Alwoodley, Mac's first essay.  I have also been fortunate enough to visit the Meadow Club (before and during the revision of the greens) and Pasatiempo.   Yet I cannot recognise a style, probably because his bunkering on the English courses has not survived.  To my limited vision the only thing these courses have in common is that Mac brilliantly used the topography each time and, because the tpography is so different, the courses are very different.  That is why I suggested Fowler as having an unrecognisable style - each of the courses of his that I know is totally different from the rest.

[Cliff Hamm]

To my limited vision the only thing these courses have in common is that Mac brilliantly used the topography each time and, because the tpography is so different, the courses are very different.  

I believe this is the epitome of what architecture should be about.  If one can immediately recognize a certain architect's style, did the land dictate the design or was the land fitted to the design?  If one believes that minimalist design is best and courses should fit the land then one should not instantly be able to recognize that this is the work of x architect.  Should not bunker style, green contours,  positioning of greens (flat with fairway, elevated, etc.), etc.  be determined by the topography?  To build quality courses that fit the land whereby one is not sure whom the architect might be is indeed a high compliment.

Cliff

[ForkaB]

Interesting question, Mark.  I'm old enough (on this site) to  remember 4-5 years ago when someone posted a question to effect of: "How can you tell a Ross course?"  Nobody responded for a day or two until I bravely and naively said something about "elevated tees into valleys and then up to elevated greens."  That was a hit, and is now part of the received wisdom.

However, getting to the question, I have a pretty good eye and ear and can distinguish instantly a Van Gogh or a Poussin, or a Bach or a Sex Pistols, but I bet that few if any of us could (with no previous additional information) distinguish a MacKenzie from a Raynor or a Coore from a Doak.

This is an easy bet since just in getting to a golf course you have all sorts of available information (i.e. the State you are in, and even the town and and/or the look and feel of the place, since you've probably seen photos, or at least read a book or two) available to you.  Show me a GCA afficionado who could not spot the 1st hole of the Old Course at first sight and I will  show you someone who is not really a GCA afficionado.........

[Doug Ralston]

Besides, if you blindfold someone and drop them into the middle of a fairway, they must SURELY take the rag off before they can 'recognize' any salient features that give away style. Or must they feel with hands and feet? LOL

I am certain I could recognize an Art Hills. It would be the one where I could here the GCA crys of angony from the 6th tee!

Doug

[Kirk Gill]

Should not bunker style, green contours,  positioning of greens (flat with fairway, elevated, etc.), etc.  be determined by the topography?

Of these, isn't bunker style the one thing that isn't necessarily a product of the land? It seems to me that bunker style is one of the most idiosyncratic items in a GCA's repertoire. The sandy blowouts that are being emulated at a Sand Hills or a Ballyneal fit in with the topography, but virtually all other bunkers do not, especially in inland, parkland settings, where sandy holes don't naturally occur. Architects do various things to make their bunkers "fit," either by shaping or creating surrounds or by placement on the topography, but if topography alone determined their placement or their size and shape, then there would be a lot more seeming-randomness in bunkering than I'm seeing.

[ForkaB]

So far, the answer seems to be "no."

[Bill_McBride]

Interesting question, Mark.  I'm old enough (on this site) to  remember 4-5 years ago when someone posted a question to effect of: "How can you tell a Ross course?"  Nobody responded for a day or two until I bravely and naively said something about "elevated tees into valleys and then up to elevated greens."  That was a hit, and is now part of the received wisdom.

Then how do you recognize Pine Needles as a Ross course, right across the road from Mid Pines, which is in the mold you mention, where most tee shots are uphill and the greens are beyond the ridges?  It's laid out almost opposite in that regard to Mid-Pines.

I guess this would be the exception.  

[ForkaB]

Bill

I just threw out a random thought into the void of what was GCA knowledge at that time.  That it stuck tells me that we don't really have a clue about the "styles" of individual architects, for many of the reasons well stated above by others.

PS--never seen Pine Needles

[wsmorrison]

Flynn has some recognizable tendencies but nothing is absolute.  The manner in which he benches greens into hillsides is one that takes a bit of experience to notice.  His par 3 greens often have 2 bunkers below green level on one side and a single bunker at green level on the other side.  He tends to use streams and water along the periphery of holes.  His greens are more about integrated slopes than internal contours.  His internal contours are usually gentle mounds that make for difficult reads as they interplay with slopes.  Flynn, especially after 1922 drew out the angles of architectural features like greens and bunkers to make them look natural.  This initial greater cost was, over time, cheaper to maintain and the features were less likely to erode.  Flynn's bunker style is pretty unique and is of a style that became very popular in the US, sort of prototypical bunkering with flashed faces and raised toplines, especially fronting parts of greens and cross bunkering.  The foreshortening of perspective and hiding landing areas is associated with Flynn, among others.  Flynn used a lot of offset fairways and greens and also false fronts in many of his designs.  Is this enough to differentiate him from others?  I think so.

[Cliff Hamm]

Should not bunker style, green contours,  positioning of greens (flat with fairway, elevated, etc.), etc.  be determined by the topography?

Of these, isn't bunker style the one thing that isn't necessarily a product of the land?

Agree...but should architects always use the same style that is easily recognizable, whether that be ragged, rounded, deep, shallow, clovers, fescue in them, etc?  It seems that one of the easiest ways to identify an arcitect is by the style of bunkering.  Is it a good thing to consistently use the same style?

[Mark_Fine]

My son likes to watch the show "Mythbusters".  Some of you may have seen it.  It's actually a fun show to watch.  On the one show, they were testing the myth that cheap vodka is not really any different than "brand" vodka.  Vodka is not supposed to have any taste so why would it be different.  Interestingly their "expert" tester easily identified the best vodkas from the others.  The other tasters on the panel struggled to determine any difference.  

To some extent don't you think this analogy fits with golf architecture.  Most people wouldn't know the difference between a Ross and a Thomas design (or even who the guys are) but there are some who do!

[ForkaB]

Mark

I did a lot of consulting work with Pepsi in the 80's.  One of their post-session party tricks was to fill shot glasses with Coke, Pepsi and 7-up, blindfold the tasters and then see who could identify which was which.  Nobody, even the "experts," could bat as high as .500.  An amazing number would think that 7-up was a cola.

As Freud once said, differentiation is often in the superego of the beholder.......

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Can anyone say why I felt immediately that Ridgewood was how I expected a Tillie course to look?  Yes, I knew it was one of his, but why did it feel and look 'right'.  

As many have said, bunker style is often peculiar to a particular designer.  The problem we have in the UK is that maintenance budgets and practices have removed these distinctive features.  We don't yet have a culture of course restorations, but maintaining bunkers in the original Mackenzie style would be a financial disincentive to having your course restored.  None the less, i do rather hanker after the restoration of the Colt bunkers on the 8th at St George's Hill.

[Mark_Fine]

Rich,
I don't disagree with you.  However, you must admit that if you studied someone like Donald Ross, you might have a little better appreciation for his courses and his design styles.  

Let me tap your Ross "expertise" on a course we are planning to work on.  

What do you think might have happened to this old Ross green?  



Does that back bunker look like something Ross would put in?  



The far majority of golfers that play here don't know the answers to these two questions even though they are obvious.  And most don't care.  

The more you study, the better chance you have to determine the 7-up from the cola.  At least that is my story and I'm sticking with it  

[T_MacWood]

Stanley Thompson has a unique style of bunkering with distinctive mounding. Tilly's Sahara bunker would be a give away. Alison's American style is recognisable. Rees Jones.

Colt never on the property?

[Mark_Fine]

Mark,
I am actually playing and photographing Ridgewood on Friday as well as Winged Foot West.  You are right about maintenance practices removing bunkers and other distinctive features.  This makes studying older courses that much more difficult (and interesting).  I like to show this evolution out at Cherry Hills.  Even Rich can tell that something was going on here  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

Is that Pocono Manor East above?

[Jack_Marr]

My son likes to watch the show "Mythbusters".  Some of you may have seen it.  It's actually a fun show to watch.  On the one show, they were testing the myth that cheap vodka is not really any different than "brand" vodka.  Vodka is not supposed to have any taste so why would it be different.  Interestingly their "expert" tester easily identified the best vodkas from the others.  The other tasters on the panel struggled to determine any difference.  

To some extent don't you think this analogy fits with golf architecture.  Most people wouldn't know the difference between a Ross and a Thomas design (or even who the guys are) but there are some who do!

It's the same with whisky - that's why the "experts" are very reluctant to do blind tastings. Now it's easy to distinguish between an Islay and a Lowland, but many whiskies survive only on reputation. People like to say they like it because it's considered good. The same goes for all interests, including golf.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
It is!  Work on that course should be starting most likely next spring.  It needs it but it has tremendous potential.  It's history is quite unique.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

I'm assuming you're aware of the Flynn connection?  

I'm also very interested in anything you can share about what you've unearthed on the design history.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Mark!

Even I can in fact see that something is going on in those CHCC pictures, but if you only showed me the 1937 one, I probably wouldn't even have thought of Flynn--partly because I'm almost completely ignorant of his work, but also because I don't think even Wayne Morrison could tell me why that was Flynn and not Ross or Raynor or even Coore and Crenshaw, without peeking, that is......

As for the two "Ross" pictures, I have never claimed any Ross expertise, just having the balls to step up and say something when an old thread was going south rapidly.  Nevertheless, I will say that as a parsimonious Scotsman, Ross probably wouldn't have built the protection berm/bunker on picture 2, nor have scooped out so much material on picture 1.  But, of course, I could be wrong.....

PS--identifying "not-Ross" is not the same as being able to identify "Ross."  No?

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
That is what makes it so interesting!  It has always been promoted as just a Ross course.  Sometime we'll go up there together.  

[Mark_Fine]

Rich,
Wayne could tell you that 1937 aerial could be Flynn because he knows about Flynn's work at Pine Valley as well as other courses where he did that style golf hole.  He and I also looked at the Cherry Hills plans together as well as a number of others.  That said, most people that play Cherry Hills today have no idea how much it has changed (particularly the bunkering).  They might play #17 as you see it in the current photo and think - boy this is a pretty dull hole, what was Flynn thinking?  
Research can be quite valuable.