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:Ross formula for greens?
« Reply #25 on: February 04, 2007, 05:10:31 PM »
This post is a indirect and direct communication that came my way from Ron Prichard and Mike McGuire.

Ron Prichard said:


             "There were several responses to Tim Liddy which were correct. Anyone involved with the design of over 400 courses, would of course display some repetition of characteristics in his green's design, (and although this might fly over the heads of some people), that would include the putting surfaces.
           In the efforts I have made to carefully study the great old golf courses, (which includes many built here in America prior to World War II), I have not found any work which compares to that of Donald Ross, (although we must remember there was an even greater architect who created much of what we see at St. Andrews and a few other old links). I don't believe I've ever seen a close duplication of any golf hole, or any "Green", on a Ross course.
          I leave it to others to judge then where he fits in the ranks of Master Architects; and I have the deepest admiration for MacDonald, Raynor, and who would not recognize the skill of Tillinghast, (if he visited Winged
 Foot).
    Mike, there is a great quotation from a book written by Humphrey Repton, "Landscape Architecture", written in 1797 which should be memorized by ever wannabe, or active, golf architect:

         ".....True taste, in every art, consists more in adapting tried expedients to peculiar circumstance than in that inordinate thirst for novelty, the characteristic of uncultivated minds, which from the facility of inventing wild theories, without experience, are apt to suppose that taste  is displayed by novelty, genius by innovation, and that every change must necessarily tend to improvement."
Ron Quixote

When Ron was asked to elaborate on his references to Ross, Ross greens, "mininalism" and Repton's quotation he said;


       "What's most important is that even the self labelled "minimalists", must carefully study the great old early golf courses, perhaps for years, so that they can "honestly" apply the lessons learned. I just don't have enough time to see what everyone is creating, but most of what I see appears to emphasize outrageous bunkering, waterfalls, or some other characteristics developed for a photo opportunity. It's the race for the "signature hole" - not substance.
         I believe there are some architects who are sincerely trying, but what I'm talking about requires time, to study - and learn, and then personal honesty.
          I knew an architect who was a best a land sculptor, and I had at best, very little respect for his skill as a golf architect. I remember asking him one day, "How much of an effort do you make to study Ross, Tillinghast, Mackenzie, and other early classical architects, and use what you learn". He told me he didn't, "pay any attention to them. His mentors were: Arp, Brancussi, and Henri Moore" That was what I expected, and about all I could bear."

                   



« Last Edit: February 04, 2007, 05:12:30 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Ross formula for greens?
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2007, 12:42:24 PM »
Ron Prichard:

Interesting choice of artists or disciplines you cite in that post above.

Could you elaborate a bit more about what you mean by not particularly respecting a golf architect you knew who said he was more influenced by Arp, Brancussi or Henri Moore rather than Ross, Tillinghast or Mackenzie?

Do you feel using or imbuing into golf architecture other artistic disciplines is a bad idea, and if so what are some of your reasons?

(If this subject looks like it needs another thread, I'll start one, and I know it seems sort of odd me asking you questions and then you answering them back through me onto the site but whatever it takes).

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Ross formula for greens?
« Reply #27 on: February 05, 2007, 09:57:24 PM »
 ".....True taste, in every art, consists more in adapting tried expedients to peculiar circumstance than in that inordinant thirst for novelty, the characteristic of uncultivated minds, which from the facility of inventing wild theories, without experience, are apt to suppose that taste is displayed by novelty, genius by innovation, and that every change must necessarily tend to improvement."

That sure is a great quote Ron.

Is this where some modern designs differ from their predecessors, vis a vis the availability of modern earth moving equipment and large budgets ?

Mike McGuire

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Ross formula for greens?
« Reply #28 on: February 05, 2007, 10:10:10 PM »
Ron Prichard:

Interesting choice of artists or disciplines you cite in that post above.

Could you elaborate a bit more about what you mean by not particularly respecting a golf architect you knew who said he was more influenced by Arp, Brancussi or Henri Moore rather than Ross, Tillinghast or Mackenzie?

Do you feel using or imbuing into golf architecture other artistic disciplines is a bad idea, and if so what are some of your reasons?

(If this subject looks like it needs another thread, I'll start one, and I know it seems sort of odd me asking you questions and then you answering them back through me onto the site but whatever it takes).

In a sense, this question touches upon whether the Arts and Crafts Movement had a more substantial influence upon a small group of rather modestly educated young men born into families of extremely limited means, than simply their growing up on; and playing, some of the world's greatest old classic kinks courses.
 
My reaction to what I heard regarding the influence of three great sculptor's on the work of the architect I referred to, was not judgement that one shouldn't study and appreciate all forms of expression, (in art, music, and literature), but recognition that the classic foundations of golf architecture were being snubbed.  This "attitude" showed in his work, and in my opinion that was unfortunate - for golf, -and for his clients.
 
I happen to believe it is an absolute necessity that anyone who practices golf architecture should visit and carefully study the great old golf courses, (overseas, and here in America), which are the foundation of the game. I have worked for men who chose to ignore this, and saw the results in their work.  I first went to Scotland when most of toay's architects were in short pants, and there is still so much more I need to learn, places I need to study more carefully. I can't go there enough.
 
Perhaps it is clear, I make no effort to be "politically correct".  My purpose in the very small part I play in the world of golf, is to prevent the loss of great old golf courses, and the continuing unfortunate evolution in the playing equipment.  I fully understand how few will listen
to me, and I have other activities which I find very rewarding in life, but it's all quite frankly a matter of integrity. I cannot stomach the hype and horse manure that I see and smell in the world of golf, and so I will not be part of it.  Andy Warhol was a world class self promoter; Jackson Pollock was a genius. One made more money during his life; the other made a major impact on the art world.
 
There are people who will contend that what I am suggesting is only a point of view, and will spell out an alternative view, just as I read the Barry Bonds apologists who found every way possible to defend his "knowing" use of performance enhancement substances. But my contention is, as I mentioned above; what matters is living, (and working), with integrity.
 
Ron Prichard

TEPaul

Re:Ross formula for greens?
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2007, 10:57:38 AM »
Pat:

That Repton quote is in Macdonald's book---it's just a little longer in "Scotland's Gift Golf".

TEPaul

Re:Ross formula for greens?
« Reply #30 on: February 06, 2007, 11:30:53 AM »
Jeeeesus, that post above is pure unadulterated Ron Prichard.

That is some beautiful stuff, passionate as hell---it shows Ron Prichard's passion about a particular point of view. I saw that the first time I met him even if the subject was pretty different---but it sure did relate to golf.

Nevertheless, there are many questions I have about what he said above, and the primary one is what is this subject and issue about attempting to bring other disciplines, other art forms, other "art" principles into golf course architecture?

Does he believe in that philosophically or not at all?

If he does believe it philosophically then where does he draw the line? What art forms, what disciplines and what artists? What "art" principles?

In my mind, this is a seriously important and fundamental subject philosophically. But it's more than just philosophical or theoretical now. The fact is modern architecture---eg architecture in the latter half of the 20th century did bring all kinds of different expressions and art disciplines and "art" priniciples into golf course architecture. Obviously the greatest application of another art discipline was and is landscape architecture and its various "art" principles and artistic expressions.

I sure do know now that Ron Prichard must not think that the artistic expression of the type of Arp, Brancussi and Henri Moore really belongs in golf architecture.

But where does he draw the line? Or does he even have a "line"? If not, to him, golf course architecture, in his mind, must just be remarkably unique as an artistic discipline.

But why is that?

Is it because, as Max Behr so presciently said, that unlike other artists and their disciplines and particularly their "mediums", that the golf course architect's "medium" is just so very different because it is, in fact, unlike all the others, the earth itself, and that the golf course architect only 'has freedom to fancy if he understands it and respects it."  

Is it that the nuances and limitations of the golf architect's "medium" which is the earth itself basically always must defer to and somehow conform to the forces of Nature and the look of Nature, and that there really shouldn't be any reason to artistically "fancy" beyond that?

And there is no question at all in my mind, none, that understanding what this really means and what it really takes sure does take a ton of observation and study!
« Last Edit: February 06, 2007, 11:36:19 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re:Ross formula for greens?
« Reply #31 on: February 06, 2007, 11:43:21 AM »
But even after all that there are so many other questions that remain, not the least of which is---what is it that others want? Should that matter to the artistic golf architect? Did that matter to Jackson Pollock? Did it matter to Ross? And what do we do about the fact that golf architecture, unlike so many other art forms and disciplines, is just not something to only look at and enjoy only that way, like a Jackson Pollock painting?

TEPaul

Re:Ross formula for greens?
« Reply #32 on: February 08, 2007, 09:24:32 PM »
Let's say you have some really good Ross green plans showing how to construct the green contours on a course and you're fairly sure the greens were built to his drawing specs. Would you go back and analyze the greens today and if they were pretty different green surface contours would you consider restoring the green contours to Ross's original drawings?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back