News:

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


Scott Stambaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #25 on: February 19, 2008, 11:18:28 PM »
My only experience with this was while I was at MPCC.  When Rees Jones finished the restoration of the Dunes, the plan was that he was going to do a complete redo of the Shore- the club would then have his restoration work on the Dunes as well as an original on the Shore.

Rees' routing for the Shore was very, very different from what Strantz created.  This on a site that is somewhat restrictive- an out/in routing and a shelter needing to be somewhere in the middle.

I'm not certain of the details of what transpired in between the development of Rees' plan to when Strantz was hired (I left the day the ribbon was cut for the grand reopening of the Dunes.)  I'm sure it's been discussed here before anyway.

I do know that Rees' vision of the Shore was pretty amazing.  But, to come back and see what Strantz created was equally amazing.  The two were nothing alike.

SS

TEPaul

Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #26 on: February 20, 2008, 08:20:22 AM »
"TEPaul
Sorry I must be getting confused, I though you said;
 
“ Put some of those old linksman architects on a flat and square piece of property and what'd be produced probably wouldn't be memorable”.


Melvyn:

I did say that. It's pretty hard to put anyone of any era on a flat square piece of land that has almost nothing in interesting natural features and have them produce a really great golf course.

Earlier you seemed to say that someone who recently used a flat piece of land over-shaped it and the result was something that you felt didn't really fit in to the topographical atmosphere around there.

The point is it's tough for any architect to create miracles on a flat featureless piece of property and blend it into a flat atmosphere. I hope you're not trying to say those old 19th century architects knew how to do it well but today's architects don't.

If you want an example of really great golf architecture on a fairly flat landform one always needs to point to Riviera's 10th hole, but that's just one hole.

In my mind the early 19th century architects probably did as well as they could have with what they had to work with and what they knew about golf course architecture which was clearly an early art form that was not very well developed in the 19th century, particularly on sites out of the immediate linksland that just weren't well suited for architecture and golf.

I'm not sure what you meant to say about what Tom Simpson said about early architects and their results. Simpson was certainly no slouch as an architect and an architecture critic.

As far as the work of Old Tom Morris (the one you seem most concerned about and I think any of us can understand why that would be) I think, like any other architect of that time (or any time), a lot of the reality in critiquing anything he did is to look at the amount of time and opportunity he had to work with something. Obviously if the man laid out some course in a day or two and that was all he did there noone can expect him to work miracles on it. How could he if he wasn't around more than that? This is precisely what Cornish and Whitten said about him or in defense of him and I think they are exactly right.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2008, 08:36:58 AM by TEPaul »

Joshua Pettit

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #27 on: February 20, 2008, 09:00:34 AM »
It would be interesting to analyze the difference between Raynor’s and MacKenzie’s routing plan for Cypress Point.  I heard a rumor that someone claimed to have found a drawing of Raynor’s plan, but I’m not entirely sure if that’s been verified or not.  However I do know from photographic evidence that Raynor had planned to use the rock behind the current 18th tee as a tee box, and Mackenzie did as well.  Whether or not MacKenzie got that idea from Raynor is unclear.  Regardless, its a shame that it was never built. 

Imagine not knowing the outcome of Cypress Point, put yourself in 1926, just before Raynor died. STRICTLY based on their previous work, who would you rather have design CPC?

"The greatest and fairest of things are done by nature, and the lesser by art."

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #28 on: February 20, 2008, 12:27:50 PM »
Tom

No, I’m not saying that the earlier designers are better that their modern counterparts.

As for Simpson, a major critic of the 19th Century Designer, yet he named many courses and greens that he enjoyed which were the work of Old Tom and others. Cruden Bay, a couple holes from Royal Devon, Prestwick and
St Andrews to name a few.

This idea that the early designers were a one day wonder is not totally true – yes some courses had been initially set out in a day – but that was not the end of the story. I do not think that enough research has been done to justify that conclusion. The attitude of some appears to be that we don’t know, so let’s put our own opinion forward based upon our interpretation of an newspaper article. Then intimidate those that challenge us.

Before you ask, No, I have not received that impression from any at GCA.

I don’t think we are disagreeing with each other, probably my Queen’s dyslexic English with twang of Scotch (as its after 5pm here) that may be causing the problem.

I think it’s time to revert back to the original thread, which was about errrmm! Bill  - was it about your bar stool?

 

Ian Andrew

Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2008, 02:36:25 PM »
As a favour to Tom MacWood - who wrote this reply and asked for it to be posted:

A) Old Tom did not design the Old Course
B) Wethered & Simpson did not include a hole from Cruden Bay in their ideal course discussion
C) In another chapter W&S did analyze a hole from CB, a hole designed by Fowler & Simpson
D) OTM did not design Cruden Bay; CB was originally designed by Archie Simpson
E) The two holes from Westward Ho! included in their ideal course were designed by Fowler
F) W&S included the Alps at Prestwick because they believed an ideal course should at least one bad hole
G) Wethered & Simpson were not the only critics of 19thC golf
architecture: Hutchinson, Colt, MacKenzie, Alison, Darwin, Fowler, Campbell, etc. etc. Just about every important voice of that era jumped on that bandwagon. I really enjoy Sir Guy Campbell's insight into the era ~ he called it the Naughty Nineties

Other than those few points I have absolutely no issue with anything MM wrote.

Tom MacWood
« Last Edit: February 20, 2008, 02:38:32 PM by Ian Andrew »

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2008, 07:19:21 PM »
Ian

As you know, I do not rate much of what Tom has to say on Old Tom.

The arrogance of the man is just unbelievable. He only accepts his interpretation of contemporaneous newspaper articles and tries hard to undermine and discredit those who dare to voice another opinion.

I will not be entering into any discussion with him or through you, with him. His comment as to why Old Tom was at Lahinch is typical of what I have come to expect.

‘Since OTM was travelling with his daughter and granddaughter one gets the impression this may have been a pleasure trip’.
Not seen any contemporaneous article in Golf to confirm this statement, just the usual conjecture by MacWood - which is of course acceptable as it is by 'MacWood'

As for Cruden Bay - Old Tom was involved.

I’m not going to waste any more time on responding to Tom MacWood  –
I will end as per my last letter on your Caddy Shack.

PS My final words should finish with a quote. I believe you are an historian, a good Historian? – I quote,  “I’m not sure I’d go there”.   


Ian Andrew

Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #31 on: February 21, 2008, 02:44:48 PM »
Melvyn,

Funny enough I enjoy the pair of you and don't know who is right or wrong since both of you quote different and often contradicting sources. Likely the truth lies somewhere in the middle but it made for some great reading for a while.

The only reason I removed the debate from the blog is that a place like this is a better place for a good debate because there are many on here who can add to it. I wish Tom would come back on and share his postings - but I'm quite sure he won't.

I post when friends want me to as a favour and Tom wanted that posted very badly.

The main thing I realize about Old Tom is a haven't a clue what should or should not be accreditted to him. I certainly wish you luck in figuring that all out  -  it was very complex for us with Thompson and at least we had a steady dtream of periodicals and articles to turn to.

Best of luck,

Ian

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #32 on: February 21, 2008, 03:15:35 PM »
Ian

The thing I like about GCA.com is the way everyone’s opinion is respected. 

I believe that we all have the right of free thought and the freedom to express it. By all means let’s discuss a point, but for a true discussion to take place we all have to have some sort of open mind otherwise what is the point.

I still don’t have all the answers; I am still searching; I am interested in the opinion of others – it’s a quick way to learn and appreciate the qualities of human friendship. When I feel others are unwilling/unable to learn or have a closed mind, then I see no point in continuing a conversation - it all becomes totally pointless.

By reading your threads, clearly you do not have a closed mind.

My research will continue and I will make very effort to keep an open mind.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #33 on: February 21, 2008, 03:27:48 PM »
As a favour to Tom MacWood - who wrote this reply and asked for it to be posted:

A) Old Tom did not design the Old Course
IMO Old Tom designed the Old course. I feel that his routing in 1870 was significantly different to the course before. I agree some holes did not dramatically alter but I think there is enough of what 'he did' to give him the credit over 'unknown'. Holes 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 17 were quite new holes, whilst the widening of the whins of the front nine made 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 very different. Only 12 is the same hole pre 1870 and 18 is pretty much the same.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Greg Krueger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #34 on: February 21, 2008, 03:44:35 PM »
Ian, Did'nt Old Tom design 18 green?

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #35 on: February 21, 2008, 05:07:38 PM »
Adrain & Greg

Old Tom did not design the Old Course at St Andrews - but
he did modify it between the mid 1860's to early 1900's.
Many Green, Fairways, Bunkers and Tees received attention
over those 40 years.

Ian Andrew

Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #36 on: February 21, 2008, 10:12:46 PM »
According to Gordon McKie - the head greenkeeper - the holes used to begin from the high point in behind the clubhouse and they were removed when the clubhouse was built. He seemed to indicte that the 18th green is in the same location as it was prior to the clubhouse being built.

Now, I don't know if that's conjecture by him or the links trust or known fact - but that's what was said during the presentation.


Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #37 on: February 22, 2008, 02:46:19 AM »
Adrain & Greg

Old Tom did not design the Old Course at St Andrews - but
he did modify it between the mid 1860's to early 1900's.
Many Green, Fairways, Bunkers and Tees received attention
over those 40 years.
The 18 holes from 1870 is largely a new routing. Only the 12th is played over the exact same ground, most other holes had new fairways to the right. IMO the major work that went on between 1868-1875 was down to Tom. The area that is always sketchy to me is 9 and 10. I think todays routing may have always been, it is after all left handed routing.
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #38 on: February 22, 2008, 04:02:44 AM »
The answer depends on the land. 

If you've got 150-200 acres AND a set clubhouse location and a fair number of natural features, you are probably going to find that different designers' plans have some of the same holes, or backward versions of the same thing.  (Although the Nicklaus Design plan for Sebonack was very much different from my first attempt, even in areas where I thought there was one obvious thing to do.  So in the end, it all depends on what you are seeking to paste in there.)

If you've got 400 acres of land and no clubhouse site, then it would be a miracle for three different designers to wind up with more than a couple of common holes.

Tom,

I understand you and Michael Clayton prepared a draft routing of 36 holes when The National Golf Club here in Australia was looking at courses #2 and #3 which were eventually awarded to 2 different firms (Peter Thompson & Greg Norman). How much do their finished course routings differ from what you guys penned?

Matthew
« Last Edit: February 22, 2008, 04:36:10 PM by Matthew Mollica »
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #39 on: February 22, 2008, 06:26:27 AM »

Old Tom made many modifications to The Old Course from 1865 to 1904. Before Old Tom, perhaps with the exception of Allan Robertson the Old Course had evolved over the years. But major changes occurred under Old Tom, by rights he modified the course, however if you modify something, then you have change the original design concept – which can be interoperated as a new design - therefore saying Old Tom designed the Old Course would not be incorrect, however I prefer to say he modified the course on many occasions over the years.

Ian is right to mention the earlier holes; from memory, I believe that the course had only 10-12 holes in the 18th Century. My father mentioned that a couple of holes had been located either on the site of R&A Club House or behind it leading up to the Martyrs’ Monument – today the area is call The Scores (see attached photo – note Monument between R&A Club House & Hamilton Hall - the red building to RH side) – although near but not quite on the same position as Ian mentioned. The 1st and 18th Greens are new greens created by Old Tom. Land was reclaimed from the sea (West Sands) and I understand that Old Tom built the 1st Green on this reclaimed land around 1870. The road which runs behind the R&A Club House – the section that starts at the end of the Golf Museum through to the West Sands is all reclaimed from the sea.

As for whins, heathers and dune grass etc, this was removed to improve the course, however some say that this was not by Old Tom but by nature -interesting that only areas around the Old Course seem to have died back, leaving others adjacent areas in reasonable health. Interesting point, perhaps someone up there likes golfers?

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #40 on: October 18, 2009, 12:56:13 AM »
The competing Ross and Flynn routings for York GC are fascinating.

As far as I can tell both were given a fixed clubhouse location. Entry roads were set.

Their routings could not have been more different. The locations of the first and last holes on each nine were pretty much set by the clubhouse location. But other than that, where Ross routed a hole e/w, Flynn wanted a hole running n/s. And so it went across the property.

My guess is that Flynn's course would have been much harder and, perhaps, more interesting.

If what happened at York is any guide, geography is not destiny.

Bob

Bob, if I had to guess, I'd bet the Ross routing attacked elevation changes head on with holes going up and down, while the Flynn routing hit elevation at angles to create some tilt to fairways and the holes generally.  

Ed
« Last Edit: October 18, 2009, 12:22:58 PM by Ed Oden »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #41 on: October 18, 2009, 10:26:26 AM »
I never saw Matthew Mollica's question last year.  Don't even know if he is still around here!

But the answer to his question about the National in Australia is that there was very little of our 36-hole routing which worked out the same on the Norman & Thomson courses.  The first couple of holes on the Ocean course were in the same corridors; the last three holes of the Moonah course were pretty much identical (because that's the most severe part of the property, I would guess most of the routings were similar there); and I think there were a couple of holes at the bottom of the Moonah that were also the same.

Carl Rogers

Re: Same property, multiple architects, how much would the routings differ?
« Reply #42 on: October 18, 2009, 11:11:33 AM »
Tom & et al,

A big picture question:

Isn't one option for the flat featureless site that some of you have opted for might be the desire to create a large scale landscape context that might be regionally relevant (Heathlands and Rawls Course)?  If this option was chosen then many routings might be possible because the architect(s) has (have) made the conceptual leap to move a lot of dirt to create context where there was none.

A second option would be: an example that represents an acceptance of the flatish site.  In this solution, the architect might create very subtle ground movement?  Common Ground?  Riverfront? (I am sure there are many more examples by many of you I am not aware of).

Am I correct to assume that the first option probably cost more, but might require a lot of careful judgement and calculation to pull it off.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2009, 12:38:14 PM by Carl Rogers »

Ed Oden

  • Karma: +0/-0
I thought I would post Wayne Morrison's overlay of the Ross and Flynn routings for CC of York since that situation was mentioned in this thread...


Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back