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.


TEPaul

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #50 on: October 23, 2006, 03:19:03 PM »
"Tom,
Maybe that last question was a bit toungue in cheek, but I think it is worth exploring.
You have obviously been a significant proponent of maintenance related conversations on here, but I wonder if you, Ron, Tom MacWood or anyone else feels as I do that maintenance is as important (probably more important) as architecture when determining the "playability" of a golf course."

Sully:

I happen to think that very carefully applied maintenance practices on some architecture (generally very good architecture) can make maintenance more important than architecture in effecting and determing "playability". I call  it the "Ideal Maintenance Meld" and recently I saw the most extraordinary example of it to date----eg Oakmont.

I'm fairly sure Ron Prichard is aware of this but I'm not aware that Tom MacWood has ever been aware of that aspect. I've certainly never seen him mention it or talk about it on here. He seems to only care that some architecture is preserved or restored exactly as it once was even if it may not work well today. It doesn't appear that Tom MacWood cares in the slightest about playability or what clubs and memberships think about it.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2006, 03:23:13 PM by TEPaul »

wsmorrison

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #51 on: October 23, 2006, 03:19:50 PM »
Tom,

Yep, it just came from that nice chestal region.  Here's another example of why it is good to be king--woman ask to be ravaged.  Of course that was a regular ocurrence for all you lads at the debutante balls on Long Island, right?


TEPaul

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #52 on: October 23, 2006, 03:36:29 PM »
"Of course that was a regular ocurrence for all you lads at the debutante balls on Long Island, right?"

No way, I've always been far too sensitive a soul for that kind of thing. I've found that most all women have respected me for my supreme gentleness. But I do have an aesthetic appreciation for the basic curvilinear architectural "lines" of those things she appears to be holding in her hands.

« Last Edit: October 23, 2006, 03:40:00 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #53 on: October 23, 2006, 04:59:45 PM »
Wayne, you really are the most shiftless of peonish lackies. Look what you did to this important thread. In no time you took it from some really important architecturral issues to King Piss Boy and some set of jugs.

wsmorrison

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #54 on: October 23, 2006, 05:31:10 PM »
I agree, it is an important thread and I also agree that I diverted the topic.  I won't anymore...but if there was a diversion, juggies aren't a bad choice.  Now, back to your originally scheduled thread  ;)

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #55 on: October 23, 2006, 05:37:31 PM »
I didn't read all the posts, but it seems Tom's whole world philosophy applies here. Some of us like challenge and Ron's correct in providing us what we like. Others like easy golf and the social benefits, and others besides Ron provide it for them.

I just hope we are never in short supply of Rons.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Patrick_Mucci

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #56 on: October 23, 2006, 05:43:43 PM »



"Please do me a favor, and give some careful thought to your premise that a primary goal of golf architects who are engaged in restoration work should be to address a primary  concern of providing 'the greatest enjoyment for the most".

That, Tom will never be the basis of my work, until American players strenuously embrace the essence of golf as originated. And don't hold your breath on this ever happening.

Unfortunately, American golfers equate enjoyment with minimal challenge, no equitable penalty for their misplayed shots, and low scores.

 
I don't have time to chat away about this most disturbing personality of the "most", but I'm sure Tom Doak, Gil Hanse, Bill Coore, and the many other architects who participate on this forum can better describe how if you they were to concern themselves to any great extent with providing "the most enjoyment" to those folks who have little appreciation for the essential challenge and appropriate character of a great golf course, they would relegate themselves to producing, at best, only places to "bat around a golf ball".
[size=4x]

RON IS 100 % CORRECT

Please get back on topic.   ;D
[/COLOR][/SIZE]

TEPaul

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #57 on: October 23, 2006, 08:15:29 PM »
I almost sent this to Wayne so that he might give you a break and help carry on this conversation.  Almost, until I saw where his mind is at the moment - always a good second choice.
 
          Tom, I just read Pat Mucci's most recent comment regarding getting back on topic, and while I don't want to drag this on any more than necessary; my purpose as Pat recog-
nizes it; was to suggest that architects recognize there is a particular attitude which charac-
terizes far too many golfers, (most of them having learned all they know about golf since the onset of the Arnold Palmer Era). And we either agree with their perception, and grind out courses of contemporary character; or we resist this faulty influence, and protect or produce course of a classical nature.
 
           From my point of view there is no compromise. But what is required first is that the architects better educate themselves. Most should work as hard as the members who express themselves on this site.
 
           Jes II raised a question related to turf maintenance and how that factors into this discussion. He makes a good point, because this is a critical aspect,which has just as much of an impact on the character of a golf course as does it's architecture. And far too few architects are willing to wade into the reeducation skirmish. Dry, firm, hungry, and thirsty golf courses have a beauty that cannot be matched by overwatered, overnurtured, overly green golf courses. People here in this country must learn that it is far more important that the ground have "life", than that every blade of grass is alive.
 
             When it comes to the comments of Tom Macwood, I welcome his passion, and I listen to (read) his criticism.  But I do want him to understand I was aware of the Dallin Collection at the Hagley Museam when he was still in short pants. I was aware of it before the Museam even recognized what it possessed and properly cataloged the archives. I was the man who informed Ernie Ransome past President of Pine Valley Golf Club, that there was a collection of 24 early aerial photographs of his great golf course housed in Delaware.
 
              I also want Tom to understand there were photographs from the Dallin Collection, showing that the golf course at one time possessed well over 200 bunkers at some early time, when I first walked into the club in 1987.
 
              Now, Tom has every right to constantly express the "feeling" that this golf course should have been restored in that manner, but I must add he was not a part of any of the meetings and conversations that were conducted at Aronimink before a course of action was selected. The members of Aronimink Golf Club are bright and successful people who I deeply respect, and after awhile it becomes a bit tiresome reading what amounts to insults.
.
               Once again, The purpose of what I first suggested to you is that it is time for the men who practice and analyze golf architecture to get on with a proper education. There is no classroom which can surpass the great old classic courses we can find and study (both here and in the British Isles).  I am reminded of the time I hear Wynton Marsellis (sp?) play the Hayden Trumpet Concierto with the Houston Symphony Orchestra. Here was one of the present day great jazz artists clearly revealing "he was schooled in the classics". There is no excuse for the present day architect who fails to study the roots of golf, and then chooses to express himself in some half assed fashion.
 
                 I better stop here. You might want to edit this in my behalf. It's up to you
 
                                                                                 Ron


Good post (email) Ron. It definitely shows your passion for classic architecture that anyone who has ever heard you speak publicly about it could not possibly miss.

If you'd care to continue submitting thoughts on this thread how about some examples of what you might describe as the challenge of the classic course compared to some of the modern style stuff you're obviously not too fond of.

How about things like bunkers, their depths, their maintenance (sand surfaces, grass surround maintenance--eg balls hanging up in grassed down faces), fairway width (as a strategic philosophy), green surface firmness, green speed, trees on courses in a general sense, etc, etc.
 
                 
             
« Last Edit: October 23, 2006, 08:26:28 PM by TEPaul »

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #58 on: October 23, 2006, 08:23:01 PM »

it is far more important that the ground have "life", than that every blade of grass is alive.
                                                                                 Ron
       

This is a great line.  

James B
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

Mike_Cirba

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #59 on: October 23, 2006, 08:26:36 PM »
You know, this seems to be an important thread, and although I've been too busy to keep up (it's on Page 3 within the first 24 hours already!), I thought perhaps I'd pop on here, catch up, and then post something hopefully approaching eloquence and wisdom...perhaps adding some insight or originality mixed with a dollop of humor.

So, I opened to page 3 and scrolled down to see....Wayne's posting of a lovely Victorian woman exposing her curvilinear mounding.

So, I'm now speechless, and the rest of you will have to wait until I'm fully recovered before I'm able to impart any pearls of wisdom to this thread.

Thanks a LOT, WAYNE!!!


TEPaul

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #60 on: October 23, 2006, 09:12:52 PM »
Look, Mike, one must get golf architectural inspiration wherever one can find it and a really great looking set of exposed jugs ain't the worst place to find architectural and conceptual inspiration you know.

Hell, I even found some pychological conceptual golf architectural inspiration in King Piss Boy Mel Brook's face and expression as he observes those jugs.

My goal now is to make as many golfers as possible step on a certain tee for the first time and to get them to automatically duplicate King Piss Boy Mel Brook's expression in that photo above.

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #61 on: October 23, 2006, 10:16:15 PM »
In 3 pages is no one going to point out what how ridiculous premise is that most Americans want easy courses?

"Unfortunately, American golfers equate enjoyment with minimal challenge, no equitable penalty for their misplayed shots, and low scores."

That is utter nonsense.

It is almost equally as dumb as the premise that golf architects can't challenge the scratch player and build a course that golfers of all ability can enjoy.

Putting dues and membership availability aside for the purpose of this discussion, is their any doubt that "most Americans" would obviously play at the top courses like  Baltustrol, Oakmaont, Pine Valley, etc? Even members at these clubs who have no chance of making a par in "regulation" are still proud to play on these tough courses.

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #62 on: October 23, 2006, 10:55:13 PM »
Seth Raynor never studied in person the courses of the British Isles.

If I read Prichard correctly, Tom MacWood is closer to Prichard's world view than is Tom Paul. The fact that they disagree about the integrity of the Aronomink restoration is, to my mind, largely irrelevant. They both appear to be laboring to achieve a return to Ross's Aronomink.  Their disagreement is academic, not because Prichard is caving to the "realities" of that club's membership, which might be at odds with a true and sympathetic restoration.

Their debate is healthy. Prichard's views are refreshing, I only wonder how often that absolutist philosophy clashes with a membership's desires. Not knowing Prichard, I have to surmise that he's a wonderful educator and coopts memberships to his view by showing them that what they had is better than what they have in mind.

Tom MacWood's agitation is great and thought provoking. He might not be familiar with realities of what goes into a restoration, but who cares? He's free to espouse that view and his thoughts shouldn't be squelched or held up for scorn or subject to ad hominem attacks.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2006, 10:55:57 PM by SPDB »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #63 on: October 23, 2006, 11:27:59 PM »
SPDB,

Let's not forget that Raynor was tutored, mentored in depth by a genius who studied the courses of the British Isles, extensively, so perhaps his education was up to Ron's standard vis a vis osmosis.

Aronomink's members were faced with a choice.

Restore to Ross's drawings and notes or restore to the early photos ?

Certainly a difficult choice for any membership.

They chose to restore the golf course as Ross's detailed plans and notes called for, and certainly that can't be perceived as an imprudent decision.

I take exception to your view because Tom MacWood took Ron Prichard and the club to task for making that choice.

Given that the club and Prichard possessed Ross's detailed plans and field notes, how can anyone unequivically state that they acted imprudently ?

T_MacWood

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #64 on: October 24, 2006, 06:45:24 AM »
This is bizzare...the group communicating with someone through an intermediary.....kind of like a séance. Ron being the spirit out there evidently with poor computer reception...well maybe not poor reception, but poor transmission.

Ron
I don't recall you saying or suggesting: "The purpose of what I first suggested to you is that it is time for the men who practice and analyze golf architecture to get on with a proper education." I don't even know what that means. I would think any additional research documentation or information (which is what I offered) would help the men who are gett'n on get on a little better.

I don't want to rehash this entire thing but with all due respect...I understand for whatever reason the Hagley could not track down (or misfiled) their Aronimink aerials, but the Hagley is only one source. There are old magazines and newspapers one can look through to find vintage photos. There is a nice aerial in Shackelford's book...that photo is a major clue the field sketches were not followed, which is not unusual for Ross or any other architect. I've read restoration architects state more than once photographic evidence is what they strive to find because the plans can be misleading (especially preliminary field sketches).

As I said before to conclude based upon one earial photo from 1939 (clearly showing the 200 bunkers), field sketches (which show much fewer bunkers) and program that apparently matched the field sketches (which seems a little bizarrre considering what we now know) that the course was built based on the field sketches and than redesigned - which including making about 200 new bunkers - just a few years later in the heart of the Depression is a little questionable. Thats not enough information IMO to make a good decision. (And if I remember correctly I think the program was discovered after the decision) The former Super said on here sometime ago they had early photos of the course with multi-bunkers, I'm not sure where they were hiding during the decision process.

Whatever the case its water under the bridge and I agree with just about everything you wrote in your opening statement. I say we move on.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2006, 07:13:04 AM by Tom MacWood »

wsmorrison

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #65 on: October 24, 2006, 07:12:32 AM »
For the moment, allow me to put aside the rebuild to drawings versus rebuild to as built argument.  The golf course is great as it is and the membership loves it.  That should count for something.  The large Ross planned bunkers work so much better with the tree clearing and trimming that they are now in scale with the scale of the very large property.  Historial arguments aside, in my mind the course is better now than it ever has been.  I am not a member nor am I overly enamored with the routing design but it does have world-class greens and is an important golf course in our district and in American golf.  However, I think the golf course was improved and the maintenance costs are probably significantly less.  

It is a winning formula no matter where it was derived.  All the better that it was from Ross's own mind and put on the ground by an expert restoration architect, even if it wasn't built that way to begin with.  So what?  Avoid the hindsight perspective and put yourself in Ron's shoes.  The cover photograph was not all that conclusive anyway.  There were detailed drawings and they should have been considered no matter what.  This wasn't a Flynn project where he was on site much of the time and when he wasn't his lieutenants were and they had to stick to the Flynn plan.  This was Ross and his methods were a lot different.  Who knows, maybe there are a bunch of Ross designs out there where liberties were taken.  Get over it and enjoy it.  Darn it, Tom MacWood.  Get your Buckeye Butt to Philadelphia and see for yourself.  It is easy to snipe from afar, get over here for some face to face verbal sparring AFTER you've walked the grounds.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2006, 07:14:42 AM by Wayne Morrison »

T_MacWood

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #66 on: October 24, 2006, 07:17:50 AM »
Wayne
I'm over it and have been over it. I'm not the one who continues to bring it up. I've never disputed the course as redesigned is good and the membership loves it and everything else you say is true. Lets leave it at that.

wsmorrison

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #67 on: October 24, 2006, 07:28:12 AM »
OK, Tom.  Fair enough.  But come out to Philadelphia sometime.  For someone as interested as you in golf history, this is an aea you need to spend some time in.  Especially given the invitation you have from a certain club across the river  ;)

Mike_Cirba

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #68 on: October 24, 2006, 08:40:57 AM »
Tom MacWood,

I agree with Wayne.  You need to come over to visit with us but if Tom and Wayne start talking about taking you down to  South Philly to meet with "deez guyz" I'll try my best to intercede.  

You see what they did to Malone, don't you?

TEPaul

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #69 on: October 24, 2006, 08:49:00 AM »
"If I read Prichard correctly, Tom MacWood is closer to Prichard's world view than is Tom Paul. The fact that they disagree about the integrity of the Aronomink restoration is, to my mind, largely irrelevant. They both appear to be laboring to achieve a return to Ross's Aronomink.  Their disagreement is academic, not because Prichard is caving to the "realities" of that club's membership, which might be at odds with a true and sympathetic restoration."

SPDB;

Tom MacWood may be closer to Ron Prichard's 'world view' than I am. As well as I know Ron, I'm not sure I know what his "world view" on architecture in general is, but this thread seems to be showing some of his view. He certainly did say in one of these posts that he can get deeper into this stuff if the time allows.

However, if Tom MacWood's world view is closer to Ron Prichard than mine is, so what? That's sort of interesting to know perhaps, but what does it mean in a grander sense? Is this website attempting to create a consensus in golf architectural preference? I'm sure it is to some degree but I hope it isn't in some world-wide way and that may be where I disagree with Tom MacWood and perhaps Ron Prichard too.

My belief is there should be something in architecture out there for everyone for the simple reason there really are different tastes and preferences out there and golf architecture is healthier as an art form in my opinion if it represents those various tastes and preferences well. Plus that alone creates variety which I view as healthy in an artistic sense. I call this idea "The Big World" theory.

What I do not view as healthy is when one type or style begins to corrupt another one or when all styles are maintained in the same basic way. That happened far too much in America in the last half century, in my opinion. And it wasn't just the merging or melding of maintenance practices into a form of one-dimensionality in particularly America, it even got into the merging and melding of the different types and styles of architecture with prevalent redesigning.

My "Maintenance Meld" theory was arrived at for two basic reasons. 1/ To create designed maintenance practices, particularly on classic courses, that are more like they once were and would bring their inherent architectural intentions and options more into function than they had been in the last half of the 20th century, and; 2/ To create sharp distinctions between the various types and styles of architecture that had developed over the 20th century that golf courses really are different and that they need their own particular types of maintenance practices to play the way they were designed to be played which again is inherently different from one another. For instance, I do not believe a modern aerial style golf course needs to be maintained as firm and fast, particularly as firm green surfaces, as a classic era or style course does.

But the point on this website, I believe, is not to mindlessly create consensus of opinion and total agreement but to foster intelligent discussion on architecture and on golfers' preferences on it with various debates and arguments of point and counterpoint.

That to me is what's interesting and edifying and how this website will be most effective, even if it is clearly based in the classic architecture style and type. I was just speaking with Ran Morrissett on this very issue yesterday and he could not agree with this more.

But I don't think this thread is about Ron Prichard's entire world view---it looks to me as if he's saying he thinks more architects should simply familiarize themselves better with where the game of golf and its architecture origninated from and evolved from. And I think most of us know basically what that means.

An analogy to the art form of dance might be that there are numerous forms of dance but if one looks closely at most of the best in the various forms, for instance a Michael Jackson, they will find that most of them including him studied Fred Astaire very closely and it is even said that Fred Astaire was a regular interested observer of such programs as Soul Train.

Ron Prichard used the example on here of Winton Marsallis and classical music.
« Last Edit: October 24, 2006, 08:54:45 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #70 on: October 24, 2006, 10:34:30 AM »
Mike
Thanks for the advice. That is why when I come I will be bringing Ran Morrissett with me....if/when we get accosted I will turn to him and say "Tom, I think you should go with these good gentlemen."  

I'm still trying to figure out how to deal with any potential John Dupont incidents.

TEPaul

Re:An architect's opinion
« Reply #71 on: October 24, 2006, 10:48:24 AM »
Tom MacWood:

John Dupont lived about two miles down the road from me. A very strange dude that one. But they say once he was weaned off every conceivable combination of drugs or whatever that led him into world-class paranoia he has actually become something of a model prisoner.

Some of the stuff that guy did before getting put away they should write ten books about. For instance, he bought a tank, and a wardrobe of military duds and proceeded to drive his tank into a large pond on his estate damn nearly drowning himself.

The house where he shot that poor wrestler is about the spookest thing I've ever seen---painted all black and totally overgrown for the last 7-8 years. It should be a subject for photography.

His place has now been sold to developers meaning I guess he's present residence is fairly permanent.

So you don't need to worry about any John DuPont incident if you come to Philadelphia, the city of Brotherly Love. And you can dispense with cracks about this town too, if you know what I mean. I have a feeling you're probably weirder than most anyone around here anyway.

The architecture around here is really good, historic and interesting and not having been here shows a true gap in your architectural education. Would you like me to recommend some books on the subject of golf in this town so you can educate yourself? The next step would logically be to get out of your Ivory Tower and see some of the courses around here before criticizing their restoration projects and such with little understanding of them.

Reading is good, but in understanding golf architecture it's only a first step at best.  ;)