[Dan Herrmann]

Tom - I actually have a book written by Hutchinson at about that time.  I'll need to see if there are any mentions there.

[TEPaul]

Dan:

I'll tell you what I would like to see---a ship passenger manifest showing when Hutchinson came over here in 1910. Macdonald said he was aboard Lord Brassey's yacht. Could he have crossed the Atlantic on Lord Brassey's yacht and if he did would that show up on that ship's passenger manifest? I would like to see a ship passenger manifest listing for Hutchinson in 1910 to see how comprehensive these ship passenger manifests really are. We sure do know Hutchinson didn't fly over here in 1910.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
If you read the book Dan is referring to, you would find the clue to the HGH manifest mystery. I would love to tell you the answer, but as you know I made a pledge.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - yes, the question of how the influence of a given architect or golf course "manifested itself" in the work of others, on the ground, is the fundamental one. It also appears to be nearly unanswerable, doesn't it?

What I mean is, I think the craft of golf course architecture can be (and seemingly was) shared and taught and learned by the early practitioners of American design; but the art and ethos of golf course architecture is a more personal -- and thus mysterious and complicated -- component, and it's this art and ethos that makes each of the old great courses unique, and a story onto itself: NGLA, Myopia, Pine Valley, Merion, Oakmont. 

How do we determine with any confidence (and in anything but a subjective sense) how the art and ethos of one architect "manifested itself" in the work of another, especially in the (frequent) absence of compelling or definitive historical records/documents?

What makes NGLA unique in this regard is the Mr. Macdonald was so clear and articulate (and publicly so) about what his influences were. But isn't this the exception that proves the rule? 

Peter

[DMoriarty]

Patrick - yes, the question of how the influence of a given architect or golf course "manifested itself" in the work of others, on the ground, is the fundamental one. It also appears to be nearly unanswerable, doesn't it?

What I mean is, I think the craft of golf course architecture can be (and seemingly was) shared and taught and learned by the early practitioners of American design; but the art and ethos of golf course architecture is a more personal -- and thus mysterious and complicated -- component, and it's this art and ethos that makes each of the old great courses unique, and a story onto itself: NGLA, Myopia, Pine Valley, Merion, Oakmont. 

How do we determine with any confidence (and in anything but a subjective sense) how the art and ethos of one architect "manifested itself" in the work of another, especially in the (frequent) absence of compelling or definitive historical records/documents?

What makes NGLA unique in this regard is the Mr. Macdonald was so clear and articulate (and publicly so) about what his influences were. But isn't this the exception that proves the rule? 

Peter

Peter,

Determine influences is difficult but not impossible.   Here is an incomplete list of factors that one might consider when trying to determine whether one designer influenced another:

First, as you mention with Macdonald, some designers tell us who influenced them.   

Second, one can look for contact or exposure to certain courses.   While  this will not entirely answer the question but will at least indicate whether one designer (or builder) could have influenced another.   

Third, one can look for the imitation of design (or construction) characteristics.

Fourth, one can look at the timing of major changes in direction of design style or design characteristics, and compare that to previous.

You mention that Macdonald told us who influenced him, but he also provided us with many hints as to who he influenced, especially if we look at his work in the context of what else was going on at the time.   For example, he preached and implemented certain basic strategic principles in a place where those basic strategic principles were not the norm, and low-and-behold courses started popping up all over which implemented those same principles. 

The trouble with understanding Macdonald's influence is that he (and NGLA) may have been too influential.   Almost all of what existed before Macdonald built NGLA was wiped off the map or radically altered after NGLA, in part because of Macdonald and NGLA.   This makes it somewhat difficult for us to look at how Macdonald changed the golf landscape (literally) because what was there before no longer exists. 

This is why I always emphasize that in order to understand these early Golden Age courses we must try to come to grips with what was there before.   NGLA was revolutionary for American golf like no other course before or since.     

______________________________________________________

[TEPaul]

"What makes NGLA unique in this regard is the Mr. Macdonald was so clear and articulate (and publicly so) about what his influences were. But isn't this the exception that proves the rule?"


Peter:

What makes NGLA truly unique probably is what the influences were on Macdonald to build it and which he was pretty clear and articulate about.

However, it seems to me most are not particularly aware of what some of those influences on him really were. They are all contained in an article he claims he penned himself in 1906 in Outing magazine and is reprinted in his "Scotland's Gift Golf" which he published in 1928.

What is most interesting to me to consider about this article and apparently the influences on him regarding golf and architecture don't seem to be only what he may've personally liked, even if he did mention some of that.

In many ways, when it came to his outlook on and approach to golf and golf architecture, certainly as to what he called "ideal", Macdonald really was a "poll-taker", an “opinion-taker” and a "consensus builder" in the context of the "time-tested" respect various holes and courses enjoyed.   

It should be noted that those various holes (at NGLA and elsewhere) that became what're known as his named "template" holes were not exactly what he personally may've chosen.

The more personal subjective aspect of what may've appealed to Macdonald architecturally are contained in various features he borrowed from holes abroad that were merely parts of holes that he used sometimes in combination on holes he conceived that were not whole hole templates. Some of these features he identified in his article but perhaps most he did not. He did say, though, that most all of them were contained in the numerous drawings and sketches he made abroad over a period of a few years and a few trips.

The other thing that may've even been the greatest influence on him of all with architecture is an aspect that is not even necessarily physical in a particularly identifiable sense. This one might be called the aspect of "beneficial controversy"----eg something in architecture that is hotly contested over time is something approaching an architectural ideal.

On the other hand, if we really do look back to the time Macdonald generated so much notoriety for and with his NGLA it's pretty hard to miss, whether he fully understood it or not at that early time, he really did "work" this massive dynamic back then over "American" golf and golf on the other side and which was better and why.

Clearly, Macdonald was America's greatest proponent at that time of the excellence or over-all quality of golf abroad compared to over here. There's no question at all that he set out to change that with his NGLA as he definitely said that and wrote that.

There is a far more interesting dynamic in this, however, in my opinion. That is that perhaps in that dynamic of what was better---golf and architecture over there or over here, as the years went by the Americans did depart from Macdonald's ideas and examples of architecture inspired by the other side and they very much went in their own ways stylistically and otherwise with what ultimately became a most identifiable style or perhaps even "principles" that we may fairly label "American architecture.”

It is not lost on me that this is very much able to be documented (Tillinghast’s ideas and statements are perhaps the most indicative of all) and it was something that probably served to depress Macdonald as the years went by until his death in 1939.

But the most interesting thing to me about Macdonald and this entire dynamic, is, as time went by or perhaps even early on he seemed to not only recognize it but somehow to even accept it even if grudgingly. It may've even been that even if he never admitted it, that somewhere in his makeup he might have admired it. He referred to it sort of obliquely early on when he admitted he understood that Americans probably are the world's greatest innovators in all things and even if he truly wanted to transport the golf and architecture over here from abroad he had known and loved, he did recognize that as USGA President Robertson said in 1901; "Nothing stays long in America without being Americanized, and what I would like to see is "American Golf".

I believe the thing that most interests me about C.B. Macdonald in the context of all the foregoing is even if he viewed himself as perhaps the Father of golf and architecture in America or that that was something he should have been even more than he actually became, he realized, and again, maybe early on, that even he would never be able to truly influence and certainly not be able to stand in the way of the spirit of American inventiveness and innovation. I think in a real way he knew, and earlier than we understand, that he would just never be able to stand in the way of or "beat City Hall", as it were! 

[Thomas MacWood]

Often times the biggest influences to a given architect are other architects. Architects they observed early on who may inspired them to get into the profession. Architects they worked with or collaborated with at some point in their career. Sometimes the influence manifests itself midway through their design career as a stylistic change.

That is why when documenting an architect's career its important to establish an acurate timeline, escpecially in the early stages. If you don't know precisely where he worked and when, who he worked with or for, where he may gone to seek inspiration, who he sought advice from, it will be nearly impossible to unravel the influences.

Which brings up another important factor in determining influences, that is knowing how an architect's work changed and evolved over the years. If you know an architect's work changes at a certain point, you then know when and where to look for potential influences. Other potential influences are economics, especially economic down turns. Cultural influences and artistic movements can also be a factor.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

To get back to architectural influences on William Flynn, a few of us believe one very identifiable architectural influence on him was this "separated" or "interrupted" fairway idea that he used on many of his designs, apparently initially on his plans more than actually. He even specifically advertized it a time or two. We don't think there's much question it was an influence from Pine Valley and the idea seemed to come from Crump (perhaps with some influence from Tillinghast).

It seems pretty obvious that Hugh Wilson may've influenced Flynn's bunker style or perhaps they influenced each other. A restoration expert such as Ron Prichard, for instance, believes that the Merion style dished, sand flashed bunker shape and style may've influenced the basic generic American bunker style.

I think the foregoing may've already been mentioned on here.

It is not exactly known where Wilson or Flynn came up with the idea but it certainly had a lot to do with the idea of maximum visiblility of bunkering as a form of strategic sentinal (strategy) as well as an important new idea on maximum heroic recoverablility!

The idea was that if a fairway bunker was formed in a basic dish shape with an upsweeping sand face a golfer may be tempted to try a very long recovery shot even to a distant green with a wooden club. Wilson wrote about this as a goal.

It should also be noted that this idea of that kind of maximum distance recoverablility was something Macdonald did not exactly agree with and he said as much in that comprehensive article he wrote in 1906 in Outing magazine.

I don't think there's much question that in some ways and in some important architectural ways of both style and look and playability the evolution of Merion East was an important departure from the ideas and early influences of Macdonald, his style and look and playability. These kinds of things could even be referred to as alterations of golf and architectural principles.

In some ways because of his imitation of much earlier holes from abroad Macdonald's ideas were more penal and it seems pretty obvious Wilson and Flynn were moving away from this in certain ways.

[Andy Hughes]

These kinds of things could even be referred to as alterations of golf and architectural principles.

Tom, could you cite examples or explain what you mean by Wilson/Merion having altered gca from what came before at NGLA?

In some ways because of his imitation of much earlier holes from abroad Macdonald's ideas were more penal and it seems pretty obvious Wilson and Flynn were moving away from this in certain ways.

Tom, I have not played NGLA, but my impression has always been that while it has numerous penal hazards the holes themselves were actually more strategic in nature. Would you say that is not the case? In what ways do you think NGLA is penal? Do you consider Merion less penal than NGLA?
Thanks
Andy

[Peter Pallotta]

Thank you, gents. I appreciate those posts, and can't really disagree with anything there. 

But when I was writing to Patrick last night, I was thinking mainly of the art of golf course architecture, and of modern day examples like Tom Doak or Bill Coore.

Imagine if Tom wasn't a writer and had never shared his ideas publicly, i.e. if all we knew about him was that he travelled widely (to see the great American and British courses), that he'd worked early in his career with and for Pete Dye, and that he later co-designed a course with Jack Nicklaus.

How would we begin to parcel out or ascribe his main influence, or his many influences? That is, how could we with much confidence determine who and what led this architect to create Barnbougle Dunes but also Beechtree? High Pointe and Cape Kidnappers? Quail Crossing and Pacific Dunes? Ballyneal and Sebonack?

To me, the art and influences seem to have all blended together over years and then through the medium of Tom Doak's own personal sensibility and ethos and talent poured out again in the form of several great golf courses that, like the great ones of the past, stand on their own and are unique.     

I should not have said this question of influences was unaswerable, as it isn't (especially for those who know more than me). But what I was trying to say is that what makes for GREAT and UNQUE architecture seems to be the art of it, and that in turn this art is the product of a quasi-mysterious process of transmutation that can take years.     

And the question seems all the more interesting (but difficult to answer) when it comes to those early days of American design, i.e. to instances when a "tipping point" came and suddenly past influences of all kinds seemed to be washed away and something new and unique emerged.

I'm just suggesting that there is something not easily quantified or qualified in that kind of magic moment.     

Peter

PS - For some reason, in writing, music and painting I can sense the influences more clearly - but maybe that's because I know those arts a bit better than I do gca, or maybe I'm just confusng what I sense were the influences with what others (i.e. exprts) have written about them   

[Dan Herrmann]

Peter - very, very well said. 

Flynn's ART changed over time, just like any artist.  Heck - he's his own influence!

[JESII]

But there has to be a baseline for his Modus Operendi...or maybe Ideals is a better term...with any artist, these influences are likely ingrained well before they ever pick up a pencil...their life's story should merge with their image of the game to create an operating philosophy that they follow when in the field...no?

[Peter Pallotta]

JES - wow, that's a really a great way of putting it. 

The architect's "image of the game" merging with his life story/influences is a terrific concept/idea.

I'm gonna be thinking about that for a while...

Thanks

Peter

Dan - thanks, that's a very neat idea too, i.e. the artist's art changing over time, and so the artists being his own influence...

 

[Dan Herrmann]

JES - these influences are taken from areas outside golf altogether.  I remember Gil telling us about what I call the "wave" bunker on our 17th hole at French Creek.  Gill told us how the bunker was inspired by a wave crashing along a beach.   

And, sure enough, it looks like a wave crashing on a beach. 

But it serves a great purpose for strategy.  The bunker completely crosses the slightly-funneled fairway about 80 yards from the tee on this 200 yard par 3.  The 'crest' of the wave is on the left and the lower part of the wave is on the right.  Many people aim away from the crest (to the right) only to find danger.  The safe miss is actually to the left.

It's friggin genius, and it was probably inspired by a kid at a beach (and by Bill Kittleman too).

[Thomas MacWood]

Thank you, gents. I appreciate those posts, and can't really disagree with anything there. 

But when I was writing to Patrick last night, I was thinking mainly of the art of golf course architecture, and of modern day examples like Tom Doak or Bill Coore.

Imagine if Tom wasn't a writer and had never shared his ideas publicly, i.e. if all we knew about him was that he travelled widely (to see the great American and British courses), that he'd worked early in his career with and for Pete Dye, and that he later co-designed a course with Jack Nicklaus.

How would we begin to parcel out or ascribe his main influence, or his many influences? That is, how could we with much confidence determine who and what led this architect to create Barnbougle Dunes but also Beechtree? High Pointe and Cape Kidnappers? Quail Crossing and Pacific Dunes? Ballyneal and Sebonack?

To me, the art and influences seem to have all blended together over years and then through the medium of Tom Doak's own personal sensibility and ethos and talent poured out again in the form of several great golf courses that, like the great ones of the past, stand on their own and are unique.     

I should not have said this question of influences was unaswerable, as it isn't (especially for those who know more than me). But what I was trying to say is that what makes for GREAT and UNQUE architecture seems to be the art of it, and that in turn this art is the product of a quasi-mysterious process of transmutation that can take years.     

And the question seems all the more interesting (but difficult to answer) when it comes to those early days of American design, i.e. to instances when a "tipping point" came and suddenly past influences of all kinds seemed to be washed away and something new and unique emerged.

I'm just suggesting that there is something not easily quantified or qualified in that kind of magic moment.     

Peter

PS - For some reason, in writing, music and painting I can sense the influences more clearly - but maybe that's because I know those arts a bit better than I do gca, or maybe I'm just confusng what I sense were the influences with what others (i.e. exprts) have written about them   

Doak DID write, and others wrote about him. Which is the case with most prominent architects, they write and contemporaries write about them. Another common trait with most successful golf architects is the ability to promote themselves, which often includes the written word. One can also study Doak's architecture to find the influence of Mackenzie, Macdonald, Raynor, Maxwell, Dye, British courses etc.

Exploring the influences of any artist is not an exact science, but to my knowledge no one has ever claimed it was. It is however an interesting and often very informative exercise, and isn't that the goal of a biography, to uncover as much as possible about the subject.

[Patrick_Mucci]

1   Let's not forget that one of the architect's primary functions, if not the   
     primary function, is to make getting from point A to Point B challenging
     and interesting.

2   Thus, examining a piece of land and envisioning how to best accomplish
     the task above is what make's architects accomplished.

3   Understanding the game of golf, topography and the introduction and
     placement of features and their impact on play are critical elements in
     superior design.

4   Isn't architecture, in its purest form, taking the land as it is, and crafting
     an interesting challenge ?

5   Isn't the next purest form making modifications to the land ?

6   I would think that what influences competent architects isn't dialogue
     they've had with others, but rather the observance of the application of
     # 5 in other courses ?

[Sean_A]

1   Let's not forget that one of the architect's primary functions, if not the   
     primary function, is to make getting from point A to Point B challenging
     and interesting.

2   Thus examining a piece of land and envisioning how to best accomplish
     the task above is what make's architects accomplished.

3   Understanding the game of golf, topography and the introduction and
     placement of features and their impact on play are critical elements in
     superior design.

4   Isn't architecture, in its purest form, taking the land as it is, and crafting
     an interesting challenge ?

5   Isn't the next purest form making modifications to the land ?

6   I would think that what influences competent architects isn't dialogue
     they've had with others, but rather the observance of the application of
     # 5 in other courses ?

Pat

Like you, I believe the meat n bones of architecture is not art, its design (strategy, drainange the whole 9 yards).  Somewhere along the line the two can and should merge, but there has to be a dominant theme and I don't see how the design element can't be dominant.  I think where many (and I include myself here) get a bit uptight is in the artistic side of the design.  I get tend to get upset when I see perfectly good design compromised by ill conceived artist endeavours.  Granted, its all a matter of opinion, even the design aspects and dare I say that sometimes folks can be put off by a design element they accept on another course because of the artistic side of things. 

Al that said, I think the application of your #s 4 & 5 can both be influential - even though guys like Wayne Grayn Morrison and Tom P don't consider the use of nature elements as architecture - which the idea of still blows me away as to why not.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - this might take us far afield, but here are my immediate/gut reactions to your good post:

# 2 -  the question is not what makes an architect accomplished, it's how an architect -- especially in the early days -- became capable of this "envisioning".  Or is that an inate talent?

# 3 - but the understanding of the game and of the impact on play of architectural features hasn't been a constant, has it? And if that understanding is not static, don't concepts about what makes "superior design" change as well?

#4 - yes, I think architecture in its purest form involves taking the land as it is, and crafting an interesting challenge -- but how many golf courses then or now were created via such a pure form/process?

#6 - okay, it's the observance in other courses of how modifcations are made to the land that influences competent architects, but again - isn't that putting the cart before the horse, i.e. wouldn't any influence already have had to taken place in order to make architect capable of even "observing" a course in a fruitful way?

In short, and as I've said, this question of influence is not unanswerable, but it does seem a very nuanced and complicated affair, and that's not even factoring in the concept of "Time", i.e. how influences might take years after they're first felt before they manifest themselves on the ground, and how a given architect might work for years on a course, constantly tweaking it as new influences emerge...

Sean - I think I agree with you, but would "tie together" the craft and the art much more closely. Those tier-two average English courses manfiest an aesthetic sensibility and ethos of the game that shapes what the craft/design will emerge as, no? 

Peter

[Thomas MacWood]

Golf architecture is artistic design. Art and design can be interchangeable, although not necessarily, but in many cases great design is art. The craftsmen who create samurai swords are both designers and artists. No doubt those swords are extraordinary designs from a functional point of view, but they are also works of art, examples of the artist's self expression. IMO the very best examples of architecture, landscape design and golf architecture are both great designs and artistic expressions.

[David Stamm]

Golf architecture is artistic design. Art and design can be interchangeable, although not necessarily, but in many cases great design is art. The craftsmen who create samurai swords are both designers and artists. No doubt those swords are extraordinary designs from a functional point of view, but they are also works of art, examples of the artist's self expression. IMO the very best examples of architecture, landscape design and golf architecture are both great designs and artistic expressions.

Tom, I agree it is an art form. But form must follow function lest the building fall, or in this case, the course, no? Keep in mind, the artistic nature of the katana was a product of the pursuit of a superior weapon. The performance of the sword, where the users life was at stake, was of primary importance. The strategy of the course and it's ability to hold the players interest is primary. If the arch was/is able to also introduce the artistic element without compromising the design strength of the course for artistry sake's, then greatness has been attained. It must be, IMHO, a balance of the two.

[Peter Pallotta]

I've mentioned this before, but from the photos I've seen I like Flynn's work partly because it's so pretty, though graceful might be a better word, and better still might be comfortable, as in comfortable in its own skin.  It seems like he was trying (within the ideas/context of his times) to make his golf courses look natural, and that he wanted his courses to "play" naturally too, i.e. I think he tied this aesthetic to what Patrick/Sean are calling the actual design by, for example, using the natural tilts of the land/site in his fairways or as TE mentioned having natural features interrupt the fairways, thus adding shot-testing and strategy to the mix. And to me what's interesting is the degree, if any, that he was influenced in this natural aesthetic by architects that came before him. Might it be more accurate to surmise that Flynn -- as a person, not only as an architect -- simply liked natural beauty and wanted to see it in the things he created?

Peter   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick - this might take us far afield, but here are my immediate/gut reactions to your good post:

# 2 -  the question is not what makes an architect accomplished, it's how an architect -- especially in the early days -- became capable of this "envisioning".  Or is that an inate talent?

To be an accomplished architect, I believe the element of inate talent must already reside within the architect.  The development or cultivation of that talent comes intuitively and academically from observation and experience.  I believe that the great courses in the UK along with Myopia, GCGC and NGLA were observatory revelations, standards or benchmarks.  Certainly they represented a repository of architecture that served the dual functions well.

# 3 - but the understanding of the game and of the impact on play of architectural features hasn't been a constant, has it?

I believe they have.

The object remains the same, get from point A to point B in as few strokes as possible.  While the I&B used to play the game and the results they produce have changed, it's only the linear aspect that's changed, not the underlying principles.

And if that understanding is not static, don't concepts about what makes "superior design" change as well?

No, I don't believe they do.
That's why the "classic" courses built 80-90 years ago remain viable today.
Only the linear relationships change, not the underlying principles.

#4 - yes, I think architecture in its purest form involves taking the land as it is, and crafting an interesting challenge -- but how many golf courses then or now were created via such a pure form/process?

Then:  I think efficiency borne of economic limitations along with optimal sites and few if any permitting/environment constraints allowed the purest form of architecture to take place.

Now:  I believe that less than optimal sites combined with permitting/environmental restrictions have thwarted that process.
Hence, in order to present an interesting challenge, modification of the land is almost a necessity.

#6 - okay, it's the observance in other courses of how modifcations are made to the land that influences competent architects, but again - isn't that putting the cart before the horse, i.e. wouldn't any influence already have had to taken place in order to make architect capable of even "observing" a course in a fruitful way?

I don't believe so.
That's where inate talent comes in.

Architects should have a comprehensive understanding of the game.
That's an acquired skill.

Creating a playing field that provides both a challenge and interest is an inherent skill that's refined with the help of the acquired skills.

You can read all the books you want, talk to all the architects you want and visit all the courses you want, if you don't have the inate talent to rout and design holes and features you're not going to produce exceptional products.

In short, and as I've said, this question of influence is not unanswerable, but it does seem a very nuanced and complicated affair, and that's not even factoring in the concept of "Time", i.e. how influences might take years after they're first felt before they manifest themselves on the ground, and how a given architect might work for years on a course, constantly tweaking it as new influences emerge...

Architects evovle or devolve as their careers mature.
The fundamentals remain static.
Point A to Point B.
How they choose to create those paths is what distinquishes their work.

[Sean_A]

Golf architecture is artistic design. Art and design can be interchangeable, although not necessarily, but in many cases great design is art. The craftsmen who create samurai swords are both designers and artists. No doubt those swords are extraordinary designs from a functional point of view, but they are also works of art, examples of the artist's self expression. IMO the very best examples of architecture, landscape design and golf architecture are both great designs and artistic expressions.

Tommy Mac

As David points out, for the Japanese, katana is art in how superior it is designed to do its job.  I think this is the case with many iconic objects that are revered as ultimate functional art.  To me, a golf course very much should fall into this sort of category.  The art is in how well it does its job.  Then for the fanatics (as with other wonderful functional art), they can begin to its beauty.  In other words, it isn't the beauty of the course which makes it a superior design.  Its the superior design which makes it beautiful.  That is, unless the archie gets carried away (and they do - a lot) with trying to make a course striking - then the whole deal gets flipped on its head and is one of the reasons we have so many blah designs in the world.

Peter

We could be saying the same thing, I am not sure.  See above.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

PeterP:

Since you obviously have a great interest in tracking various fundamental principles to do with golf course architecture, would you think it important to attempt to track both when and how the basic principles of Landscape Architecture ("Art Principles" of Harmony, Proportion, Balance, Rhythm and Emphasis) began to enter into golf course architecture and golf architectural thinking?

I would!

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - the points you make deserve a longer post, but here's a short one. I agree with you, but maybe not in the way you'd imagine.

Yes, there is this mysterious quality called inate talent; and yes, there are principles of good golf architecture of such long-standing that they can be called fundamental. 

TE notes that Macdonald might've seen himself (and others did too) as the Father of American Architecture. David M suggests that the difficulty in determining the Macdonald-NGLA influence comes precisely because that influence was so wide-spread.  But Mr. Macdonald didn't INVENT the fundamental principles of good golf architecture, did he?  As far as I can tell, he wasn't even the first to IDENTIFY those principles, or the golf holes where those principles were most manifest -- others before him and along with him had judged certain golf holes ideal in this regard.  And before them, what? I assume the men who actually designed or tinkered with those ideal golf holes also understood those principles, if only intuitively. Mr. Macdonald VALUED those principles and PROMOTED them, which was of great importance.  (Apparently, those early golf professionals in America weren't aware of these principles ) 

I guess what I'm suggesting is that "inate talent" and "fundamental principles" have a connection/relationship that makes ideas about who influenced whom and how even harder to track, not easier.

Anyway, this is going far off-topic again, and I'm just thinking out loud and riffing on the points you made. But maybe there's something that sticks...

Peter   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()