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.


JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #50 on: September 26, 2007, 03:20:53 PM »

Tilly was into any and everything golf related and his writings were both a source of pleasure and revenue for himself. That is why your, "Suspicion, of course, is that everything any of them wrote was, more or less directly, in the service of "marketing" their services..." is incorrect; at least in Tilly's case.



Great post...this last thought grabbed me though...just because he did not design his first course for a dozen years does not exclude Tilly from writing with the thought that it may put his name in front of someone that might let him do just that...

How would you compare and contrast Tilly's earliest writings with the Confidential Guide by Tom Doak?

That's exactly what I had in mind, JES II, with the parenthetical "more or less directly." Thank you for putting it so succinctly.


Brevity is my thang...does that make me a genius in Shakespeare's mind???

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #51 on: September 26, 2007, 03:22:35 PM »
How dare I replace "wit" with "genius"...I'd certainly prefer wit[/i]...

John Kavanaugh

Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #52 on: September 26, 2007, 03:30:23 PM »
That's all well and good, but I took you at your word that the move from 6900 to 7200 benefited 90% of the membership/prospective membership and Cabell challenged that...how would you respond to him?

People who should join courses and people who do join courses are two different things.  Crooked Stick is next to Wolf Run and can and does provide a perfect experience for the woman or less skilled player.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #53 on: September 26, 2007, 03:37:16 PM »
Similar to people who drive on public roads and people who should drive on public roads?

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #54 on: September 26, 2007, 04:18:40 PM »
JK is right--Wolf Run was too short at 6900.

I had the pleasure of playing with John and two buddies yesterday and Wolf Run is a shadow of its former self.  Still a very solid and good test but it needed the extra 300 yards.

I've been a(n) (honorary) member there since 1991 and can remember when that was one of the hardest courses I'd ever been on.  

The rough is much wispier and has been both thinned out and cut back from right around the edges of "in play" areas.  I like that a lot but as an example I might have hit 5 fairways all day and still shot one under par.  In the old days I would have easily shot 80.

In the afternoon we played an alternate shot format and the back tees were the way to go.  The only hole that might be too long would be #8.  In the AM from 435 and into a decent breeze I hit a really good drive and carried the crossing creek by maybe 35-40 yards.  At 460 from the tips I really don't know how playable the hole is for anyone except a pro.  I'm not silly long but I can hit it out there pretty decent.

Anyway, the fairays were soft and wet and I was very surprised at how much shorter the course still seemed to play.  

I understand the sadness of losing the old atmosphere but you gotta do what you gotta do to survive and without the changes there may not have been any Wolf Run to enjoy.

BTW--difficulty is kinda relative.  the 3 handicap in the group shot 84 and the 11 shot a 94.  But, JK is right that it wasn't the length that killed them.

John Kavanaugh

Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #55 on: September 26, 2007, 04:32:05 PM »
I have told my reality friends that I like the new tees and rough better than before.  I believe the architecture has been improved.  When guys like me start flying fairway bunkers you need more length and new tees make more sense than moving the bunkers.

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #56 on: September 26, 2007, 04:59:32 PM »
". . .too short at 6900."


 Why do I even live?
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of one’s life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

Norbert P

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #57 on: September 26, 2007, 05:00:52 PM »
"Width and Strategy and Options and Angles are all just code-language synonyms for "easy"."



Why do I even live?
"Golf is only meant to be a small part of one’s life, centering around health, relaxation and having fun with friends/family." R"C"M

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #58 on: September 26, 2007, 05:14:21 PM »
Jeff, well then IMHO, Phil just kicked your ass.  

I'm not intellectual enough to go to the quotes as Phil can, but I know the writings left behind by all those ODGs and the writers of the time that I've read, point more in the direction of deep consideration they gave for all the dramatic contours they incorporated into their green designs, and LZs, where the shots and angles were directly correlated to the contours found or constructed, and not haphazard happenstance.  

RJ,

I mean no disrespect to you, Phil, or anyone on a thread sort of set up to make provocative comments.  That said, I don't feel Phil kicked my ass with any comment, and I kind of resent you saying it.

Anyone can pull a pithy quote from  someone else out, post it, and feel smug in their "intellectualism."  But, how intellectual is it to let some dead guy do your talking for you and how does posting a quote demonstrate your understanding of a design concept?  I equate it to a cover band claiming they are as good a songwriters as the Beatles because they can sing their songs.  But are they?

At least I tried to rephrase the saying to demonstrate my understanding of it.  You and Phil simply demonstrate my point in taking quotes of Tillie and giving them some mystical qualities in your own mind that are greater than what they really are, or IMHO, were meant to be.  Thanks for proving my point! ;D

Now, having said that, I don't think they put no consideration into design, nor that they weren't great designers. I just still believe that it was far less than what their fans think it is.  
And, while the point is certainly up for discussion, we can't argue based on this series of posts that this is my provocative POV that would elicit a strong response, as asked for by JK.

PS to Phil - Thanks for those quotes. I do enjoy reading them and trying to devine architectural nuggets.  But, I also believe all gca's are marketing all the time.  Perhaps Tillie wrote early, as suggested, thinking it would be great marketing for his future career.  It's clear he liked to write, as you point out.  Its also possible he wrote to clear his mind or clarify his concepts in his own mind.  All are valid points.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #59 on: September 26, 2007, 05:32:28 PM »
Jeff,
You need to get a set of original green drawings from any of the better Ross courses. Augusta CC would be a good choice.
Having the accompanying hole drawing would would be good as it shows the approach shot values and why he design some of the green contours.
Of course when viewing them you can't impose 2007 golf shots on them.

For those of you that might want to see a repro of an original Ross green drawing, hop over to the thread on Donald Ross tee shirts.....you can not only see a plan, but you can get to wear one too!
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #60 on: September 26, 2007, 05:40:32 PM »
". . .too short at 6900."


 Why do I even live?

It bothers me too to say that.  6900 used to be a fine back tee yardage until all the "improvements" in technology came along and allowed a bunch of guys to start hitting the ball way too far on a consistent basis.

the game has changed--bombs away and strategy be damned :(  

Sorry but 6900 for a good club player isn't what it used to be.

Bill Shamleffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #61 on: September 26, 2007, 05:52:05 PM »
I like trees.

I prefer Winged Foot's tree lined holes over Oakmont's wide open course.

I do agree that Oakmont was likely originally intended to look as it now does, and that the current tree-less Oakmont is how Oakmont should be.

However, I would rather my home course have trees of abundance such as found at Winged Foot, rather than being tree less such as now found at Oakmont.  Neither of these course are links courses.  I prefer my inland non-links courses (is that redundant) to include trees as one of the obstacles that will affect my strategy and my options.

Go back and look at the St. Louis C.C. photos.  The trees play an integral part of that course.

Of course, I also prefer the trees to be native to that local.
“The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet.”  Damon Runyon

Chris Cupit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #62 on: September 26, 2007, 05:57:19 PM »
The best thing Winged Foot ever did was cut down about a thousand of those damn committee planted trees!

Old pictures of Winged Foot show a far more open course.  while trees were no doubt planned for but not to the claustophobic extent that occured by the mid 1990's.

Trees are fine but too much of a good thing can ruin everything.


Phil_the_Author

Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #63 on: September 26, 2007, 06:56:02 PM »
Jes,

You asked, "Great post...this last thought grabbed me though...just because he did not design his first course for a dozen years does not exclude Tilly from writing with the thought that it may put his name in front of someone that might let him do just that... How would you compare and contrast Tilly's earliest writings with the Confidential Guide by Tom Doak?"

It's a good question and again illustrates what I meant when I said that most people have problems understanding the past historically as they tend to view it from current perspectives.

When Tom wrote the Confidential Guide, he had already gone to school with the express purpose of becoming a golf course architect. He visited and played numerous courses both for the joy of the game and as a learning experience to aid him toward his goal of designing. That he had a passion for writing was separate to his desire to design, yet he found an outlet for it in writing about what he was most interested in.

Tilly, on the other hand, was quite the opposite. When he began to write about golf in the late 1890's, the idea of being a golf course architect as a profession was unheard of and not something that he gave consideration to. Tilly visited Scotland in 1895, 1898 & 1901 with the express purpose of bettering himself as a player. He was convinced that he was a world-class player and his greatest desire was to win a USGA championship. He competed on very high levels, but the reality was that he was at best a second-tier talent.  

In addition, those who desiged golf courses at the turn of the century in America, did a relatively uninspired job for the most part. That is one of the reasons why Macdonald's NGLA was greeted so sensationally. Here was a work of art as well as a challenging golf course.

Tilly & his friends, what we refer to as the Philadelphia School of Design, were nothing more than a bunch of friends who played a lot of golf together. They had a passion for the game and with a growing realization that golf courses could be designed and built to both challenge and please they would often discuss their different philosophies of how they would design if they could.

When Tilly got the commission to design Shawnee in 1909, it was given to him by his close friend C.C. Worthington with whom he spent many hours playing golf and speaking about the game. He was 34 years old and working for his father's rubber goods company part-time while he spent ,most of his time playing and practicing golf.

Tilly's writings then were not done to bring him dsign commissions, but rather were done as a natural byproduct of his passion for playing the game. This can be seen as the content of most of his writings in these early years dealt almost exclusively with tournament results, personal gossip and poetry. not the type of golf writing that would inspire someone to say, "Here's a person I want to design my course."

On the other hand, Tom's Confidential Guide established him early as a young man with a keen mind and eye to understanding golf course design.

Jeff, please appreciate that the "kicked your ass" phrase was not uttered by me.

Since the idea of advertising of design services back in the "Golden Age" has been beaten around, I think it is important to appreciate just how Tilly did advertise his availability to design professionally.

After Shawnee opened, and it did so to very fine reviews, within 3 years Tilly had gotten a number of commissions from Pennsylvania to San Antonio, Texas.

As a result he began to purchase advertising space in the golf journals of the day. As course design had now exploded nearly overnight, a number of early architects chose this path to market themselves.

His first advertisements were simple, yet within a short time he was advertising that he could provide full course designs on paper for those that desired something that simple, specifications, plans and models for greens as a separate product and even "Lilliputt Links", a product that he patented and trademarked as small courses on small properties.

As his work gained in respect and his fame as a designer grew, he began including sobriquets in his advertisements; thus he referred to himself not as the designer, but as the "Creator of Baltusrol." Next came listings of his designs and current work and even which courses were now being used to host national championships. There is no question that Tilly understood the importance of marketing his services.

At the same time his magazine writings drastically decreased as a result of a quite large design schedule. It would take the Depression and few design commissions to see Tilly once more writing a great deal as both the Editor of Golf Illustrated and later for the Pacific Coast Golfer.

Rick Shefchik

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #64 on: September 26, 2007, 07:27:23 PM »
Jeff,

If the ODG's greens were mostly about drainage, I'd be interested to know why the #8 green at Cypress Point, which is perched near the top of a knoll, has four separate plateaus (lower front, middle center, upper left and upper right), while #16, which sits on a fairly flat piece of land, is about as flat a green as you can find.

I'm not saying your theory is wrong, but these two greens certainly strike me as an exception. #8 is a fun little hole of no extraordinary architectural significance, but the green is spectacular in its movement and personality, whereas #16 doesn't need a memorable green to be one of the most dramatic holes in the world.

I don't know whether any subsequent work has been done to either green since Mackenzie designed the course, but the difference between these two greens can't be just about drainage.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2007, 07:31:58 PM by Rick Shefchik »
"Golf is 20 percent mechanics and technique. The other 80 percent is philosophy, humor, tragedy, romance, melodrama, companionship, camaraderie, cussedness and conversation." - Grantland Rice

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #65 on: September 26, 2007, 07:46:08 PM »
I have a question for Jeff about his assertion (or is it an implication?) that the ODG's get too much credit.
The sentiment implies today's archies are so much better because they have so much more to think about and work around. It also implies the modern guys do it exponentially better.

If that were true, why does one of the most prolific modern guys have to re-do so many of his designs?
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #66 on: September 26, 2007, 08:12:32 PM »
Rick,

Fair question and you are right.  Of course there were different green designs out there, and the good doc was famous for what he termed "freak greens" of unusual contour.

I was really thinking about the more garden variety greens out there by the Golden Age guys and the fact that every little nuance is sometimes credited to the designer when in fact, settling over the years, later renovations / topdressings / resurfacings, caused the contours we see.  Or, for that matter, just the fact that they were graded at 6% and are now too fast caused the difficulty, rather than deep design thought.

Really, how many greens of Ross really stand out?  Just taking Pinehurst No. 2 as an example, all kind of follow the same pattern, no?  9 may stand out as a 2 tier affair, but none is as unique as a Mac green like you describe, even if taken together, they make a great set of greens!  Ditto with the Tillie greens at WF, etc.

Adam,

I don't agree with your logical extensions.  Just because some gca fans give, IMHO, too much credit for certain aspects of the Golden Age designs doesn't imply that I think modern gca's are better.  Nor do I think the fact that one modern gca has a mulligan problem implies that we are worse.

As a matter of fact, I do think the broad spectrum of architecture is better today - i.e., the 20th ranked modern gca is far better than the 20th ranked (if there was one!) gca of the golden age.  The top designs of any era match up well, IMHO.  And it has nothing to do with more to work around, better or worse sites, etc.  Good architecture is good architecture, regardless of era.

The fact that so many responses here are "era comparitive" rather than discussing actual designs suggests to me that some have too much mental energy invested in brands rather than design itself.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #67 on: September 27, 2007, 10:32:05 AM »
As a matter of fact, I do think the broad spectrum of architecture is better today - i.e., the 20th ranked modern gca is far better than the 20th ranked (if there was one!) gca of the golden age.  The top designs of any era match up well, IMHO.  And it has nothing to do with more to work around, better or worse sites, etc.  Good architecture is good architecture, regardless of era.

Jeff:

Here are 20-plus golden-age architects. You choose the one who you think was 20th best, and select his best work, and then choose the 20th-best modern architect, and his best work, and compare:

Tillinghast, Mackenzie, Ross, Thomas/Bell, Flynn, Langford/Moreau, Banks, Macdonald, Raynor, Colt, Alison, Emmet, Park, Travis, Strong, Leeds, Fowler, Fownes, Crump, Egan, Hugh Wilson, Thompson, Stiles/Van Kleek, Simpson, Maxwell, Braid.


John Kavanaugh

Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #68 on: September 27, 2007, 10:47:26 AM »
As a matter of fact, I do think the broad spectrum of architecture is better today - i.e., the 20th ranked modern gca is far better than the 20th ranked (if there was one!) gca of the golden age.  The top designs of any era match up well, IMHO.  And it has nothing to do with more to work around, better or worse sites, etc.  Good architecture is good architecture, regardless of era.

Jeff:

Here are 20-plus golden-age architects. You choose the one who you think was 20th best, and select his best work, and then choose the 20th-best modern architect, and his best work, and compare:

Tillinghast, Mackenzie, Ross, Thomas/Bell, Flynn, Langford/Moreau, Banks, Macdonald, Raynor, Colt, Alison, Emmet, Park, Travis, Strong, Leeds, Fowler, Fownes, Crump, Egan, Hugh Wilson, Thompson, Stiles/Van Kleek, Simpson, Maxwell, Braid.


 

I will say that DeVries Kingsley Club is better than Stiles Taconic.  So there.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2007, 10:48:33 AM by John Kavanaugh »

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #69 on: September 27, 2007, 10:52:17 AM »
John:

I assume, then, that you'd put DeVries as the 20th best modern architect. Who are the 19 better ones?

John Kavanaugh

Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #70 on: September 27, 2007, 11:01:18 AM »
Here is a map...get yourself some darts.  http://www.asgca.org/members/index.cfm  I think anyone who I put in the top twenty should stop and reconsider what they want to do with my ass.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2007, 11:02:44 AM by John Kavanaugh »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #71 on: September 27, 2007, 11:16:11 AM »
Jeff, I didn't mean to insult you.  My comment was in the spirit of a thread of brazenly provocative statements.   Maybe I'm not as good at it as JK.  I'd prefer you think of it as a hockey analogy, and while you are playing the game, you did, in my opinion, get hipchecked into the boards on that run, by Phil!  Maybe after a short blow, you can come out and deek him on your next shift.   ;D

But, to the point, I really think I've detected an almost a standard defensive attitude in your on-going theme of trying to "myth bust" the ODGs contributions, and their attention to detail.  When you say that many of the contours and nuances now examined by  ODG-o-philes are more likely just greens soil and FW settling, I think you minimise what was always there and observed and found in writings contemporary to their hayday.  The 6% slope stuff you now scorn as not relavant to modern conditions and speed, are simply not looking at the genius they were in their time when they were not beyond the pale of great design due to turf maintenance and qrowth abilities.  I think Phil has the upper hand here in the discussion simply because he has the better handle on historical context, and he seems to have nothing to defend in terms of a practicing archie business and modern design and construction techniques that are too often simply declared superior, when often they are only technically superior, not superior in an intellectual sense of being more well crafted or thought out, IMHO.  
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Peter Pallotta

Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #72 on: September 27, 2007, 11:23:42 AM »
If I'm understanding Jeff B right, I think he's making a very good point.  But I don't want to put words in his mouth, so what follows is my point, not his.

I think in reading the writings of the great old writers-architects, we can too easily fall into the trap of giving an isolated quote too much meaning, or even the incorrect meaning, i.e. of believing that the quote serves as a handy and accurate snapshot of that architect's overall philosophy, and then later finding that it's not the case.

I know I've fallen into that trap many times, reading one striking comment by Behr or Macdonald and drawing conclusions that prove, upon reading further, unfounded.  Those who know more than me (and that's a lot of people), won't likely fall into that same trap; but from what I can tell, much of what the ODGs wrote is buried in journals and periodicals that are now hard to find, so it's no shame to admit we don't know everything.  

I think it's too easy to forget/ignore/be unaware of the larger context of an isolated quote: e.g. its place in the architect's long-term development, or its function as an (often implicit) rebuttal of some other philosophy or on-going argument, the nuance and details of which we're not fully aware.

I have learned and still have a lot to learn from Geoff Shackelford, but I don't think the short quotes from the ODGs he often includes on his site are a good thing.  Even if I can trust that Geoff is picking quotes that truly reflect a given architect-writer's overall philosophy (and I think I can, but am not sure), reducing that philosophy to a sound bite without any context or nuance is not the best way, I don't think, to evangelize; not in the long run at least.

Such quotes serves for those who know/agree as no more than a pithy reminder of what they already know and agree with; but for everyone else they simply lower the level of discussion and debate to worn-out jargon and simplistic thinking, and that can't be good for a long-term conversion in thinking and practical application.

Peter

Phil_the_Author

Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #73 on: September 27, 2007, 11:42:18 AM »
Peter,

You raise a very good point when you state that, "Much of what the ODGs wrote is buried in journals and periodicals that are now hard to find..."

That is why the Tillinghast Association has turned their website into a virtual archive and research center. Already we have placed copies of a large volume of Tilly's writings on the site with the goal of shortly having everything that he ever wrote in one place so that anyone with internet access can examine, study and appreciate his work.

Visit the site and take a look. you'll find that the quotes I used were not taken out of context but actually do reflect a definite design philosophy that he adhered to.

Just as some do use a quick quote from an ODG to back up an idea in an inappropriate fashion, many today are too quick to simply take the stand that since we are in the here and now the here and now is better and the architects are superior. That too is false reasoning.

Balance must be struck when studying history and also considering current actions for their relative place in history.

RJ, as much as I appreciate the compliments, for the sake of accuracy I must let you know that I have now consulted with several courses considering renovations and/or restorations to their courses. This has taken both the form of historical research and on-the-ground advive of proposed work. So in that sense, I am performing very minimal architectural services, though not in the sense of what you wrote, "terms of a practicing archie business and modern design and construction techniques."

 

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:You are either brazenly provocative or astonishingly uneducated..
« Reply #74 on: September 27, 2007, 11:45:37 AM »
Jeff,

If you take the contract for a gof course, you take it for the entire course...if serendipity strikes and you leave, untouched, a little mound out there somewhere that makes someone think that is the best little mound in all of golf and helps to make that hole the best hole in all of golf, you get the credit for it...we cannot sit here today and blow it off as simply as..."he couldn't possibly have thought about that little mound way back then, he was only on the property 5 times..."



Phillip,

Thanks for that reply, but what I think you are missing in the comparison of Tily at the turn of the century versus Daok with TCG is Doak's explanation of his intentions with that book. I am under the impression he wanted very limited distribution to a close circle of friends. Not exactly mass production to grab the golf worlds attention. I would equate that publication to this paragraph from your last post..."Tilly & his friends, what we refer to as the Philadelphia School of Design, were nothing more than a bunch of friends who played a lot of golf together. They had a passion for the game and with a growing realization that golf courses could be designed and built to both challenge and please they would often discuss their different philosophies of how they would design if they could.[/i]


EDIT: since we crossed in cyberspace...that quote is from your second to last post...
« Last Edit: September 27, 2007, 11:46:21 AM by JES II »