News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Tommy_Naccarato

Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« on: January 22, 2007, 11:35:11 AM »
The title of this thread is a simple question which I think I have the answer. What sayeth all of you? (just a simple yes or no will suffice)

Here are some more if you want to take a jab at them.

  • Was C.B. MacDonald? (Go ahead and answer for Hugh Wilson or William Flynn in this one since they are so closley connected. UGH! ;) )
  • Was A.W. Tillinghast a Luddite?
  • Was Donald Ross?
  • Was Alister MacKenzie?
  • Was George C. Thomas?
  • Is Bill Coore, Gil Hanse, Tom Doak and Mike DeVries? (Tom Doak, don't answer yet)
(Yes, this is a trick question I might answer)

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2007, 11:41:28 AM »
No - none of them were

I'd venture they all owned and used cars for one.

Tillinghast used lots of TNT as did Macdonald.

Ross used steamshovels in construction.

There is a beautiful picture of Mackenzie next to his brand new beautiful automobile in Geoff's book on Cypress Point.

Tom Doaks Ballyneal course is already fully mapped for skycaddie. He uses modern construction techniques as do Coore and Crenshaw.  Ben looked nice yesterday playing his titanium driver in Hawaii.  I assume he is not taking a sailboat back and forth to the mainland.

By the way Tommy - how is that brand new Taylormade hybrid club you just obtained to substitute for your 3 iron working out?  You were so excited about it when we spoke yesterday.

I wish you all would try to live like a Luddite for just one day and come back and tell us of your experience.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2007, 11:43:27 AM by Geoffrey Childs »

Eric Franzen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2007, 11:57:58 AM »
There is a beautiful picture of Mackenzie next to his brand new beautiful automobile in Geoff's book on Cypress Point.


I love those pictures. The good doctor parks his DeSoto all over the place while playing Cypress Point Club with his wife Hilda and her friend.   Shackelford's book clearly shows that the course never would have turned out the way it did if MacKenzie actually would have been a luddite.

Experience is continually teaching us cheaper and better methods of doing construction work. It is needless to say that the contouring of greens, tees, hillocks, hollows, bunkers and so on can all be done with tractors and scrapers cheaper than hand labour or even horses and scrapers.
- from "Economy in Golf Course Construction" - The Spirit of St Andrews.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2007, 12:28:22 PM by Eric Franzen »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2007, 01:02:36 PM »
Ross makes similar comments about the bulldozer in Golf Has Never Failed Me.

I say they weren't Luddites, but would like someone to post a def. of how its used in this context. But, presuming its someone who didn't want to adapt to new technology, I have a premise -

All the old guys had a vested interest in new clubs and balls making the game more affordable, easier, and more fun.  I think they would be all over titanium drivers, etc. since it would have enhanced their golf design businesses.  The most logical exceptions would be CBMac and Thomas, who didn't accept fees for their work.

If we are currently hoping to grow the game by a few %, they must have really felt the need to grow the game from nearly ground zero - just a few courses/golfers when they started their design careers to the thousands when they ended.  And golf was so tough those days, I am pretty sure they endorsed improvements of all levels, at least since their designs were aimed at making golf more playable by the masses in contrast to the victorian designs of earlier eras.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2007, 01:35:43 PM »
Based on the definition of a "luddite" on Wikipedia I would say none as well.

Do we want to have a revised definition for this thread?
« Last Edit: January 22, 2007, 01:36:17 PM by Kalen Braley »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2007, 01:42:57 PM »
Karen,

Here is that definition:

The Luddites were a social movement of English textile workers in the early 1800s who protested — often by destroying textile machines — against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt threatened their jobs. The movement, which began in 1811, was named after a mythical leader, Ned Ludd.  For a short time the movement was so strong that it clashed in battles with the British Army. Measures taken by the government included a mass trial at York in 1813 that resulted in many death penalties and transportations (deportation to a penal colony).

The English historical movement has to be seen in its context of the harsh economic climate due to the Napoleonic Wars; but since then, the term Luddite has been used to describe anyone opposed to technological progress and technological change. For the modern movement of opposition to technology, see neo-luddism.

Their principal objection was to the introduction of new wide-framed looms that could be operated by cheap, relatively unskilled labour, resulting in the loss of jobs for many textile workers. Similar objections have risen throughout history, for example with the introduction of robots to assembly lines.


I haven't seen enough of Max B's writing (was he the original Killer B?) to know if he was one or not.  BTW, from this def., Bill Coore, Gil Hanse, Tom Doak and Mike DeVries could, at best, be Neo Luddites.

What a great name for the next design fad, though. I am thinking of changing my company name to Neo Luddite Designs, and going back to stone chiesels and rock tablets to produce my drawings......

« Last Edit: January 22, 2007, 01:49:12 PM by Jeff_Brauer »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2007, 01:50:35 PM »
Karen,

Here is that definition:

The Luddites were a social movement of English textile workers in the early 1800s who protested — often by destroying textile machines — against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt threatened their jobs. The movement, which began in 1811, was named after a mythical leader, Ned Ludd.  For a short time the movement was so strong that it clashed in battles with the British Army. Measures taken by the government included a mass trial at York in 1813 that resulted in many death penalties and transportations (deportation to a penal colony).

The English historical movement has to be seen in its context of the harsh economic climate due to the Napoleonic Wars; but since then, the term Luddite has been used to describe anyone opposed to technological progress and technological change. For the modern movement of opposition to technology, see neo-luddism.

Their principal objection was to the introduction of new wide-framed looms that could be operated by cheap, relatively unskilled labour, resulting in the loss of jobs for many textile workers. Similar objections have risen throughout history, for example with the introduction of robots to assembly lines.


I haven't seen enough of Max B's writing (was he the original Killer B?) to know if he was one or not.



Hi Jeff,

Thanks for that.  I did read those parts on Wikipedia as mentioned.

I was curious if we wanted to have a more narrow definition as it applies to golf and even more specifically golf course architecture.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2007, 02:14:37 PM »
Kalen,

What I wonder about, whether for 1800's textile workers or modern golfers/gca's is where to draw the line on what to be against.  For the textile workers I guess it was easy - when someone elses job is on the line its progress, but when your job is on the line, its protest baby, protest!

Progress in all fields is constant, perhaps with a few periods of rapid innovation.  I don't see how golfers are directly adversely affected by new golf tech as long as everyone has it, at least to some degree.  Is a Ping G2 Driver okay, but not a G5 or Rapture, for example?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2007, 02:19:51 PM »
Kalen,

What I wonder about, whether for 1800's textile workers or modern golfers/gca's is where to draw the line on what to be against.  For the textile workers I guess it was easy - when someone elses job is on the line its progress, but when your job is on the line, its protest baby, protest!

Progress in all fields is constant, perhaps with a few periods of rapid innovation.  I don't see how golfers are directly adversely affected by new golf tech as long as everyone has it, at least to some degree.  Is a Ping G2 Driver okay, but not a G5 or Rapture, for example?

Jeff

I'm fully with you on that point.

I'm really surprised that no one has yet brought up the one single thing that I really object to about all this and that is the added cost to keep up with the Joneses.  Shafts can now cost $1000 and equipment prices are sometimes just crazy.  Letting me play a course at 6800 yards with my titanium is a shame when I would have as much fun from 6200 with lesser equipment and land costs and renovations would not be necessary added cost to the game.  Why didn't the Luddites bring that up  first?

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2007, 02:21:05 PM »
Bill Coore sounded like a luddite-junior when he described how he and Ben eschew the use of computer when designing.  

Nothing wrong with luddites, though.  :)

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2007, 02:31:09 PM »
Nice points Jeff.  Ludditism is still alive and well today when your job is on the line, no doubt about it.

I guess I was thinking more about a timeline to draw the line in the sand.  Perhaps Pre-1930??

Who are the losers of the modern game, that is a good question..


TEPaul

Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2007, 02:46:30 PM »
Were they Luddites??

Why is it that by at least the second page of this thread I think we'll be hearing, AGAIN, about the influence of the Arts and Crafts movement on golf course architecture and golf architects of the Golden Age?

Geoffrey Childs

Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2007, 02:49:27 PM »
Who are the losers of the modern game, that is a good question..

Those without much $$$$$$$$$

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2007, 03:22:31 PM »
Who are the losers of the modern game, that is a good question..

Those without much $$$$$$$$$

We could argue that the sky caddy, etc. are expensive now, for the "early adopters" but will come down in time, like any tech stuff.  

For that matter, the $1000 shafts only help those of us with mere mortal swing speeds by five yards at the most, so its hard to imagine skill losing too often to new tech. I think we fear it would happen much more than it would actually happen.  Tiger could beat me playing with hickories.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2007, 04:29:01 PM »
Who are the losers of the modern game, that is a good question..

Those without much $$$$$$$$$

I don't know if I would agree with this.

For most of golf's history it really was only open to the truly rich and elite.  With the advent of munis and daily fees combined with buying cheap used clubs, its miles more accessible to those without money than it has ever been!!!

Sure the UK boys may have a beef because green fees have increased a fair bit, but from what I've read thats only on the tracks that get a lot of play from visitors.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2007, 07:21:48 AM »
Can I answer yet Tommy?  Or do I have to wait for a signal fire?

I don't mind using modern equipment to build golf courses, and I don't mind using modern technology to communicate, as you can tell from this site.  It's just that I don't think technology can replace spending quality time on site, or that anyone can really design a great course entirely on a computer.  I know everyone but me and Bill uses CAD, but of the top 100 courses I've seen, NONE of them were really designed on CAD.

It's also interesting to note that so far, what are considered to be the three best courses I've done (Pacific Dunes, Cape Kidnappers, and Barnbougle) were built without anyone drawing a set of plans ... we just did a routing plan and then went out and got to work.  At Barnbougle we never even drew a finished routing plan, because I was afraid Greg might just take it and run out of desperation.

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #16 on: January 23, 2007, 07:45:44 AM »
Tom,
True, but weren't those three amazingly spectacular pieces of land?

And, you're no luddite!   I don't think luddites would be posting at websites or using e-mail.

TEPaul

Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #17 on: January 23, 2007, 07:55:16 AM »
I don't know if this would be Ludditism but there is one unescapable fact that many of the best architects of the Golden Age mentioned and wrote about, and that was economic efficiencies in golf and architecture.

One can't miss what they wrote in that vein.

Did that imply not using the latest and best machinery and mechanisms? Probably not---it probably implied using them for economic efficiency's sake.

The architects back then who wrote about economic efficiencies in golf and architecture included Hugh Wilson, George Thomas, Max Behr, Alister Mackenzie, William Flynn and numerous others.

The only one I can recall who actually seemed to brag about how expensive some of the courses he did were was C.B. Macdonald.

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #18 on: January 23, 2007, 12:10:59 PM »
Tom Doak,
Thanks, that was exactly my point.

My point is that they used what they had to sensibly. Just like you Gil, Bill, Mike DeVries and others have done. If certain things benefited you and they could be utilized without breaking the bank, I'm sure you and everyone else would be open to using them. That doesn't make you a Luddite, even though a lot of architects would love to call you guys that (Out of jealousy to their clients who happen to mention your names. I've in fact seen it happen.)

Max Behr and all of the others were much the same. Although, and I will post it later, the article I have from the LA Times where Max Behr was still playing a Floater in 1941, and still out-driving everybody...... I'm sure his black surrey with the fringe on top was just fine sitting in the parking lot!  ;)

John_Cullum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Was Max Behr a Luddite?
« Reply #19 on: January 23, 2007, 12:50:06 PM »
Were they Luddites??

Why is it that by at least the second page of this thread I think we'll be hearing, AGAIN, about the influence of the Arts and Crafts movement on golf course architecture and golf architects of the Golden Age?

TE

Anytime you get insomnia, you can click over on the IN MY OPINION page for three volumes of uninterrupted A&C Theory.
"We finally beat Medicare. "

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back