"You can't deny that the long rectangular trench bunkers on
# 3 and # 7, the rectangular cross bunkers on
# 10 and # 15, along with the large square bunkers on # 9 and # 11 are perfect examples of "geometric" architecture."
Patrick:
I both can deny it and I do deny it, at least to a very large degree in the context of the evolution in styles in golf architecture in combination with the common and commonsensical use of those terms (particularly contemporaneously).
Apparently you seem to be laboring under the impression that golf course architecture of that early time of GCGC, since it does have some sunken bunkers and such that are rectilinear in shape, is a perfect or even mildly representative example of "geometric" architecture and what was meant by that and that term around the turn of the century.
I do not believe that and I do not subscribe to such a simple theory and belief.
I would describe the look of some of the sunken bunkers of GCGC and other features in architecture of the late 19th century the way those features were described back then and later. The term "steeplechase" architecture and style was commonly and correctly used in my opinion.
Are there rectilinear lines used in the water and sand jumps of steeplechasing? Of course there are and much of those golf architecture features of that time were a replication of that if not often an actual "borrowing" of preexisting steeplechase jump features.
But what was termed "geometric" architecture around the turn of the century and in the first decade of the 20th century was more than that---much more. Those courses and that style almost invariably used ALL or most of the generally used shapes and forms found in geometry---eg cubes and cones and pentagons and pyramidical shapes and so forth. And all those geometric shapes were used in combination on those geometric courses and most all of them were remarkably cleaned line and exact for earthen and grass forms.
A very representative example of true "geometric" golf architecture in the context of what I said above is the photograph Wayne posted in post #22.
The National School was not that and it only basically got into the rectilinear type line because, in my opinion, that is much of what was found in the Scottish linksland with MAN MADE features on those courses at that early time. One sees almost none of all the other shapes and forms in geometry in the old linksland man-made architecture as one does see in true examples of what was known back then as "geometric" architecture.
I don't think anything artistic at all was intended with those early man-made linksland features---they were generally just functional to support something and/or to prevent it from falling apart.
But the "geometric" era of architecture WAS an early attempt at art and artistry in architecture. It's just that it used as its model geometry and most all of geometry's shapes and forms in combination which is not the shapes and forms found much at all in naturally occuring land and its forms.
So, no, I believe even if some of the bunkers of GCGC were rectilinear I do not see that they were attempts at dedicated geometrics as the "geometric" era and style in architecture most definitely was!
So, once again, you are either just wrong, in my opinion, or unnecessarily general or simplistic in what you're saying and maintaining.
If you are EVER going to truly learn anything about golf architecture and its history and evolution, Patrick, you're just going to have to learn to pay closer attention to what I say and how I say it. There is basically no other way. In this realm I am your mentor and your master and you need to come to terms with that important fact of life and that important fact of learning!
