News:

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


Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
From what I know, the "dark ages" of GCA were pretty darn bad.  If I remember my history correctly, the dark ages were from 1960-1980 - give or take a few years, of course.

Regardless of the years, what was it that generated such work?  What changed to bring us to a second golden age today?

And, what happened to bring about today's era?  Was Pete Dye the catalyst?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2008, 10:30:26 PM by Dan Herrmann »

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why where the dark ages of GCA so bad?
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2008, 09:54:34 PM »
Money
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Why where the dark ages of GCA so bad?
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2008, 09:57:41 PM »
Dan, I think there are two things at work.

First off, those years coincide with a shift in golf from a sport for the privileged to including the masses.  Most of the courses built were daily fee and I don't know that was the case before.  

The other thing I've noticed is that the accomplishment seemed to be merely completing a course.  Using Disney World as an example...

Walt wanted EVERYTHING to be completed for the grand opening around 1970.  The golf courses were done quickly and they look like it.  I don't know if Lake Buena Vista was there originally, but Palm and Magnolia were.  Fast forward about 20 years or so and the Bonnett Creek courses, Osprey Ridge and Eagle Pines, were intended to be high-end.

An arms race mentality took over and there was an effort with each new course to be better than everything else in their market.  As golfers saw this they also took more appreciation in the course they played, thus fueling the trend.

TEPaul

Dan:

I think the era you refer to as "the dark ages" (1960-1980) was simply a result of a cycle, and probably an inevitable one in light of the way what came before it was looked at back then. There was a lot going on after WW2----new technologies in golf equipment, construction, agronomy and maintenance practices (irrigation systems).

America, in a real way was into a new awakening after a number of decades of combined depression and war years and they were ready for some real innovations and changes.

They got that in spades in golf architecture in those years you mentioned 1960-1980.

But like with most things here they tend to wear out in popularity and we cycle again. I think that's the ethos of the United States----eg we're proud of innovation, of change----in a real way change is our middle name. We tend to move forward fast and innovatively but that generally is followed by a time of slowing down and looking back at what we left behind. It seems to breed a greater appreciation of some of the things that preceded our present styles more than they had ever been appreciated before.

I think this is what has happened with golf architecture in America to some extent and that's why we're into something of a renaissance to a former era and its styles now.

John Kavanaugh

Dan,

The only reason you think the courses built from 60-80 are bad is because some bad golfer told you they are.  I'm gonna give Golfweek a world of credit here by saying that when they gave the bad golfer a voice architecture started to cater more to the common man.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
The ability to move massive amounts of earth easily made things more artifical.

The disconnect between what architects were designing on paper and what irrigation contractors were putting in the field. Many regions of the country had an irrigation contractor who pretty much got most of the business, and those contractors were generally not able to provide systems for wide corridors, if that was what the architect designed. So what you ended up with from that era is narrow fairways with a lot of unirrigated rough between the fairway and the bunkering.

A movement away from labor intensive hand mowing to labor saving equipment took some subtlty out of design.

The zeitgeist was more progressive and less appreciative of older things.

Marilyn Monroe had a HUGE effect on golf course architecture, particularly with mounding and curvilinear design.




Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
John, I'll give you an example of what I'm thinking about.

River Oaks GC in Grand Island, NY (just south of Niagara Falls).  It was built by VonHagge in the early 1970's.  I remember the LPGA used to play there.  The course was extremely well regarded at the time.

I played there last year (it had been 15 years since I last played it).  It was the antithesis of natural.  Fairways were mounded left and right with HUGE man-made constructs.  They moved so much dirt they built a huge man-made lake from the place the dirt originally was.   The greens were all huge.

This was thought of at the time as one of the best examples of modern architecture.  Personally, I think the stuff being built today is a lot better.

But I am happy to say that I had a lot of fun playing that course last year. 

I'm relly not trying to be disrespectful of everything built in that period.   I just think the art suffered at that time, sandwiched between what I see as GCA Golden Era I and GCA Golden Era II.

(Thanks for the Golfweek info...  I get it every week, but sometimes miss an imporant article)


John Kavanaugh

It is important to embrace all architecture, art and music from the 60's and 70's for what it is...ugly to our modern eye but loads of fun.  When I go back and play courses from my youth like Otter Creek or Hulman Links I find them much more strategic and interesting than back in the day.  If modern equipment has done anything it has brought these courses into the modern age very well.  What is not to love about courses like Bellerive, Hazeltine, NCR, Champions (like a month or two matters), Firestone...etc., etc.

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
John - I never claimed they weren't fun!

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
I agree with John.

No one from this era has more detractors than Robert Bruce Harris, and some of his golf courses are a lot of fun to play. The way he hid the putting surfaces with those high flashed bunkers was kind of interesting, and his agronomic formula for building greens produced some really great putting conditions.

John Kavanaugh

John - I never claimed they weren't fun!

Then how can you label them bad?  If you had not read somewhere that they are ugly do you think you would have figured it out on your own.  When I stand on the patio at Bellerive it all looks beautiful to me.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
When designers started designing out rub of the green gca took the wrong road.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2008, 10:01:40 AM by Adam Clayman »
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
It's all a matter of taste, I guess.

When I visit the Philadelphia Museum of Art, I just like what I like.  When you get down to it, it really is subjective isn't it...

(PS - I was trying to start a purely GCA-related thread or two in the interest of not having everything be "OT"  :) )

John Kavanaugh

It's all a matter of taste, I guess.

When I visit the Philadelphia Museum of Art, I just like what I like.  When you get down to it, it really is subjective isn't it...

(PS - I was trying to start a purely GCA-related thread or two in the interest of not having everything be "OT"  :) )

I think it is a great thread.  I know that last time I played Hulman Links I was shocked at how much I liked the course.  Give minimalistic naturalization a few more years of repetition and the 60's-80's will find more love as this young crop of power hitters flunk out of dental school and become golf writers themselves.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2008, 09:42:27 AM by John Kavanaugh »

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Certainly the penal nature of Flynn's influence has been widely copied.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Jim Colton

So, if this stuff goes in cycles, will we eventually see a return to the style of courses built in 60's-80's?  Will the minimalist style so en vogue now get played out to an extent where we clamor for more Palm and Magnolia's?

John Kavanaugh

So, if this stuff goes in cycles, will we eventually see a return to the style of courses built in 60's-80's?  Will the minimalist style so en vogue now get played out to an extent where we clamor for more Palm and Magnolia's?

We already have...Sebonack, Erin Hills and Chambers Bay are all wolves in sheep's clothing.

Peter Pallotta

Dan - that's easy:

The dark age reflected and represented a devolution of RTJ's precise, rigid and mathematical (if misguided) model of golf course design and construction into an amorphous muddle of less rigorous, skillful and principled design theory and construction, which devolution was aided and abetted by an unfortunate combination of the game's growing popularity (and subsequent employment opportunities for would-be golf course architects) coupled with an almost total lack of the critical theory and analysis one usually associates with a mature art-form, said lack of critical theory and analysis being the least-noted but perhaps most important aspect of RTJ's legacy, i.e. that a singular and intense focus on self-promotion and marketing (of the business) replaced any discussion, debate and analysis (of the art form).

Peter     

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jim,

I doubt that the cycle will return to the huge flashed sand bunkers of that era because everyone pretty much understands today that it is very costly to keep those bunkers well drained and acceptable from today's playing standards.

However, some of the mowing patterns on fairways and surrounds of that era could return if gas keeps going up.

In my crystal ball the next generation of tees might take on something like what they did at Sebonak. (spelling?) Those tees strike me as being really practical.

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Peter,

The thing to keep inmind about RTJ or for that matter nay architect is they all have a responsibility to themselves and thier partners to develop a style that is their and distinguishable from what other architects are doing.

Even in a renaissance period where the there is as much restoration work happening as there is new work, the various architects all have some different quality and style to their work, or so it seems.

Anyways I think we tend to vilify some of the architects from this era unfairly. It has always been a big risk to be in this business, and very gutsy when you think about it. I know I wouldn't want to venture into golf course architecture.

But I guess that doesn't mean we can't be critical of the work.

Peter Pallotta

Bradley - thanks, and that's more than fair. The elevated language and cocky attitude of my post was meant to suggest that it was actually all guess-work on my part. I don't mean to villify RTJ or the courses from the dark-age (for the reasons you mentioned) -- though to be honest I do think there may be something to be said for the "devolution" idea...

Peter 

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
It's important to remember the single most important thing that disinguuishes the Dark Ages from the Golden Age that preceded it and the eras that followed it (whatever name they finally acquire) .

That's money. Central to RTJ's pitch to hundreds of clubs in the 50's, 60's and through parts of the 70's was that he could build good courses cheaply, quickly and they would be cheap to maintain.

I'm old enough to remember the 50's and 60's. People had not forgotten the shocks of the Depression and WWII. My mother and father still haven't. Golf courses were closing up left and right until sometime in the early 60's when, for the first time since 1930, more golf courses were built than closed.

There were no budgets for fancy shaping, filligree bunker edges, beautiful framing, landscaping, etc. And given the temper of the times, an emphasis on difficulty. Manly men courses and the whole bit. It doesn't take an architect overflowing with talent to do hard.

I actually like a lot of Dark Ages courses. There are some good RTJ and Dick Wilson courses. But not many. I do think it was a stretch of bad road for gca in the US. But I'm not sure it was entirely the fault of RTJ and his colleagues.

Bob

    

  

Dan Herrmann

  • Karma: +0/-0
Peter - congratulations!

Post 18 is the lengthiest sentence I've ever read that makes sense!

BCosby,
I love the money premise that you and David Elvins bring up.  You're right - money was a big factor.  No - it was THE big factor.

As far as RTJ goes, the US Womens Open at Interlachen shows something very interesting: the difference between Ross' green complexes and RTJ's complexes.  Does anybody today actually think that the RTJ work made Interlachen better?  I've also read somewhere that Aronomink is still trying to get the Ross back into their cost, post RTJ renovations.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2008, 11:27:52 AM by Dan Herrmann »

Melvyn Morrow

I don’t believe that the 1960’s to -80’s was a Dark Age for Golf. Yes, IMHO certain changes happened which helped develop golf in the USA i.e. the introduction and development of carts – most know my feeling regards these Chariots from Hell – but I accept the argument that they helped site courses in various locations and to cope with severe climate conditions.

As for a new Golden Age, I again do not agree. Perhaps it may be possible to claim that the game in the USA has been going through a period of expansion but I don’t believe it can be called a Golden Age.  I believe this was the period when the ’No Walking Courses’ were introduced – that alone IMO would destroy the right to call it a Golden Age for Golf.  Having said that, it does not mean that interesting and challenging course have not been designed and built over the last 25 years.

I believe it has been a prosperous period starting in the 1950/60’s increasing momentum up to the current period. Certainly more understanding and knowledge has been acquired but that I am afraid
does not guarantee or constitute a Golden Age.


PCCraig

  • Karma: +0/-0
John K--

When did you play Bellerive? What did you think of the renovations?
H.P.S.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back