[TEPaul]

"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."


Peter:

I've been thinking about that statement today. Apparently there may be some long-standing principles of good golf architecture that may be considered fundamental but how far back do you think they go? How "long-standing" have they been? 

Do you think those fundamental principles of golf architecture existed when man started batting a ball around the linksland without really altering the natural landscape?

Do you think those fundamental principles existed before an Alan Robertson who seems to be considered the first golf architect practiced just before 1850?

Do you think those fundamental principles existed in say 1880?

If not, when do you think those fundamental principles began to be considered and articulated?

I suppose, once we have come to some understanding of when and where they were first considered and articulated, we can begin to ask the question of why.

[Dan Herrmann]

Tom - I've always wondered similar thoughts - about intutive thinking versus more "logical" thinking.   I actually had a thread a few years ago about the Myers-Biggs personality types of architects. 

I'd think a guy like Dye would be an *STJ type where a more artistic guy like Flynn would be more *NFP.  I really like Dye courses and have total and complete respect for what Dye has done.  But I wouldn't call his designs "pretty". 

I'd propose that every Flynn design could easily be considered "pretty" (thanks, Peter).

The fundamental principles were, I'll guess, invented by the artistic types and refined by the analytic types. 

[Peter Pallotta]

TE –

I’m going to try to give you some kind of answer/theory.

On another thread, Shivas suggests that “judgment” has always been a fundamental  part of the game (e.g. judging distances, judging risks and rewards etc).  I think he’s right. I also I think we can extrapolate from that in regards to golf course architecture, i.e.  golf holes designed to test and challenge a golfer’s judgment have also long-been a fundamental part of the game and the spirit of the game.

Bernard Darwin quotes a golf professional in the 1920s saying that he’d rather play TOC than anywhere else because “you may play a damned good shot and get into a damned bad place”, and then adding, “I think that is the real game of golf."  Darwin goes on to relate this idea to Old Tom  Morris' line about golf as a game that’s "aye fechtin' against ye", a game that demands at once a dour and daring spirit in the playing; a “contest of risks” in John Low’s words.

And again, I think we can extrapolate from this and say that the golf holes/courses that best ‘frame’ and allow for these risks and those risk-tasting are what underpin the real game of golf. The Old Course, in its time of width, seemed to fit the bill; the likes of Dr. MacKenzie and Max Behr and Bobby Jones said so too. And, though it might be an anachronism, we could say that what those men were praising in TOC was the judgment-testing qualities inherent in its “strategic architecture.” 

So, the question seems to be: At  what point during the long life of someone like Old Tom Morris and at what point in the latter 1800s did some idea/sense (conscious or intuitive) emerge that an important/fundamental principle of golf’s fields of play is that they should frame and engender a contest of risks?  At what point, in short, did some notion of some version of strategic architecture emerge? (Note that I’m not making any distinction between a conscious awareness of these principles and an intuitive sense of them – that would make developing an answer/theory impossible, at least for me.)

You mention 1880, and that seems plausible to me: first, because someone like Old Tom was in the mature years of his life and golfing experience; but more importantly because that would leave 20 years or so for that awareness to become more focused and refined, and to start to “attach itself” to specific golf holes, golf holes that were being called “ideal” and recognized as such by a wide-range of experts.  I think that describes the situation in the 1906 time period you mentioned, when Mr. Macdonald’s opinion-poll of experts produced  answers/consensus like the Alps, the Long, the Sahara, the Redan, The Himalayas etc. Now, I can't imagine that consensus having emerged over night; nor can I imagine that the experts polled had only a few years or even a decade earlier come to value these holes and types of holes above all else. So, yes, 1880 seems plausible to me as a date when some sense of the fundamental principles of good golf architecture first emerged; though maybe it was earlier than that, say to the 1850 date and Alan Robertson you mentioned -- maybe that's why some smart fellow(s) decided long ago that Robertson was the first golf architect.

But then what happened? What happened to this awareness (at least until Mr. Macdonald promoted and publicly value and made those principles manifest at NGLA)? I’m going to guess, and I’m going to use improperly something that Max Behr wrote. In the following quote, Behr is explaining a loss that came about in the “art” and  “aesthetics” of golf course architecture as it moved inland from the original links lands. I’m going to use it in a completely different context and one that Behr didn’t intend, i.e. to explain what happened to that awareness of fundamental principles as golf course architecture moved from the UK to America. Behr  wrote: “The natural architecture of linksland, passed through the sieve of the mind, came out utilitarian in aspect and mathematical in form. The novice at landscape gardening cannot see the planting of trees otherwise than in rows, nor the lawn in front of his house otherwise than in a series of terraces”. 

What I’m suggesting is that in the transition of fundamental principles from the UK to America, the early practitioners of golf course architecture in America missed the forest for the trees, that they were utilitarian in approach and mathematical in mind-set, and that -- if they were familiar with the great and ideal British golf holes -- what they "saw" in those holes were not the principles but the surface of things, i.e. they saw the fairways and the greens and the bunkers and not the contest of risks that might have been.  In other words, through the sieve of the mind came the features by which the principles manifested themselves, not the principles themselves nor the true spirit of the game.

That is why Mr. Macdonald was so vitally important – he had the instinct and intelligence and insight to identify for Americans those principles of good golf architecture, and the self-confidence and connections to promote those principles and make them manifest, in the ground, at NGLA. That is of great importance.

But, to get back to the question, or at least to my question i.e. was Mr. Macdonald the only American or transplanted Scot/Brit to recognize these fundamental principles of good golf course architecture, or at least capable of recognizing/understanding them? I find that hard to believe, since that is the nature of those principles, i.e. they are not invented by anyone as much as they simply exist for everyone, waiting patiently there for someone with innate talent to see them for what they were.  There were others, I think, that had this innate talent back then, and there were others who had seen or read about those great British golf holes/courses who were able to discern the underlying principles. 

Anyway, Tom, I just started typing and this is where I ended up. Hope it holds at least a little water theory-wise. (By the way, before I started writing I thought I was going to argue that these fundamental principles have existed almost forever, in the ether someplace even before the first shepherds started batting a rock around with a stick; but then I started typing and my fingers argued something else...)

Peter   
Or - what Dan Hermann said: invented by the artistic types and refined by the analytic types!

[Mike_Cirba]

What do influences really matter??   Truly!

I played High Pointe for the first time yesterday.

Doak designed and built it in 1989 and I would defy anyone on the planet to play there and then guess that Pete Dye had been a huge influence on Tom Doak, without already knowing that fact.

This whole theory of "influences" minimlalizes and almost wholly obfuscates  intuitive intelligence, creativity, and personal commitment and persistence of unique individuals.

Was Desmond Muirhead an "influence" on Jack Nicklaus?

Certainly, but what can anyone cite realistically on the ground that provides definitive proof of that??

It's like Hugh Wilson at Merion...certainly what CB Macdonald taught him and the committee was critically useful, but one would never look at the original or evolved Merion courses and directly be able to see any of that (much like the above examples), because as important as influences are in furthering education and base knowledge, suggesting that they are themselves the preeminent driver in any creative endeavor instead of individual human creativity is ultimately a naive and formulaic disservice to our species.

[Dan Herrmann]

Mike - that's well written for 3AM!

[Thomas MacWood]

Mike
I take it you haven't read many autobiographies, biographies or biographic sketches of historical figures, especially those in the creative arts. In most cases if someone is the subject of a biography they did something pretty special during their lifetime, otherwise there would no interest in telling the story of their lives. One of the primary reasons for exploring the story of their lives is so those interested can better understand what made this special person tick, what were the circumstances and influences that elevated above the rest.

Regarding High Pointe and Doak, do you think Dye was the biggest influence upon Doak's design style? Have you played The Golf Club? Doak wrote about what he was going for when he designed HP. It was heavily influenced by British/Scottish ideas. Not unlike what Dye wrote about when he designed TGC.

If it was as simple as saying designer X worked under designer Y therefore designer X was the biggest influence, there wouldn't be much reason to dig any further. But that is not the way it works. Hugh Alison worked with Colt for decades, but their styles are not even close. Alison's style in Japan is very different than his style in the States. Dye's style changed over the years, and his disciples exhibit a number of different styles.

If you did a thorough study of Muirhead's career and concluded Nicklaus was his greatest influence I would say you did a pretty poor job of researching his career, pre- and post-Nicklaus. One presumes the biographer approaches their subject with intelligence, and those interested in reading about the subject would naturally do the same.

[TEPaul]

PeterP:

That last one is quite a post---a lot to think about. I think I'll try to respond to some of it by citing what it must have been like to sort of layout and play some links courses maybe 200-300 years ago (after-all there were only a very few of them then) and then ask what one thinks today those people back then were looking at and thinking about. It may not have been much for a variety of reasons that haven't exactly occured to us today. One glaring example could be the nature of what they once called "swards". The point is they didn't exactly pick the locations of those "swards" (basically the first fairways). They were just there naturally in shape and form and size and dimension and the reasons they were there that way was one of the most remarkable natural occurences imaginable. Those early golfers didn't sod or seed them, that's for sure. Not to even mention the relative perfection of two grass strains that covered those linksland swards naturally that had almost no natural competition---eg festuca and agrostis---even still today basically the most perfect two grass types to hit a ball off of.

For starters, this was a naturally given gift of those narrow linksland swaths that inland golf never naturally enjoyed. That fact has just got to be one of the primary reasons the migration of golf out of the original linksland could not be and was not a seamless transition and took some decades to adjust.

I've said for years that the inherent connection of early architecture to the various forms of agronomy  to golf depending on location (one remarkably naturally suited and the other really not at all) is so fundamentally intertwined into what was possible and what wasn't that we tend to miss the massive importance of one to the other.

It seems to me when those old linksland golfers back then denigrated early inland golf and golf courses by saying "Nae links, nae golf" they may not just have been talking about those beautiful natural sandy, dunsy linksland land formations and the sea air and all, they may've also been very much talking about the remarkably perfect natural turf conditions of the linkland compared to elsewhere.

Since I'm not that familiar with linksland golf (and other GB courses with the same basic NATURAL soil makeup and characteristic as the linksland), I'd heard about this description of that kind of golf and turf that was always described as "springy" (underfoot). I always thought that description was just something that was conjured up with some romantic notion to do with linksland.

It isn't. It's actual and it is the damnedest feeling for someone who is theretofore unfamiliar with it. It feels something like walking across a sort of tight matteress the size of a fairway.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

Reading your last post and so many others like it in the past when the subject is something like architectural "influences" of someone on someone else it just seems to me you go about it in such a clinical way of just sort of attempting to put people together somewhere at different times and places.

That kind of approach to the subject is a pretty logical one if one simply goes about it by researching old written material in magazines and newspapers----eg Colt was with Crump for a week at Pine Valley or Macdonald/Whigam were together for a few days with Wilson at Ardemore and NGLA, so the one with more experience must have massively influenced the other or taught them everything that the recipient could know or feel.

Again, that's one way of looking at the subject. But the question becomes what could they be teaching and what could the recipient be learning?

I think to even begin to understand this any of us pretty much need to go through it ourselves in the very same ways. So the question I have for you is who was it and where who taught you these things? Who was the primary architectural influence on you? I ask because these are things that no one can just read in books and magazines and newspapers, they have to actually experience it and both on a golf course (hopefully under design and construction) but primarily on raw land.

Who have your architectural mentors been in this way and what was it you really learned from them? I believe this kind of thing is something most anyone pretty much must go through or they probably never will understand the essence of "influences" and how they are intertwined with real talent of either the mentor or the student.

In my 10-12 years of being intensely interested in this entire subject I believe I have only seen one person who may not have needed this interrelationship to really be able to "get it" on his own but I think that is something that is truly rare.

This same question I'm asking you should probably be asked of David Moriarty too, and probably anyone else on here really interested in this subject of "influences". It's probably deserving of its own thread! 

[Jeff_Brauer]

To my good friend, Mr. TE Paul,

First, congratulations for one very civil and thoughtful post to your nemisis Mr. MacWood.  Your thoughts are quite interesting and I agree that "influences" could be a different thread.

I say this, having written down my own "influences" some years ago, and then editing them later. I don't think I have ever put those in public, but my influences stem from:

My mentors,
The first courses I played
Other courses I have played around the world
My aesthetic sense
My landscape architecture training
Whatever personality traits I have and "can't beat" (i.e., midwestern sensibilities vs. flamboyance.

I suspect all designers have similar influences.  Flynn obviously (or probably) learned "his way" of building golf courses on early projects.  I find that there are certain things of my mentors I have to "break the mold on" while of course, most of what they taught me works quite well.

His training probably influenced him, much like Raynor's style MUST be influenced by his engineering training, causing his aesthetic style to some degree.

And he must simply have had some favorite holes from somewhere - and they wouldn't have to be famous - it could be the first par he made subconsciously put that type of hole into his mind as a "good hole."  He may have seen a picture of a Scottish hole in a book that he liked.  A certain bunker pattern might remind him of his potty training on some unconscious level. 

Its possible that Flynn (or any gca) would have a hard time putting his influences into words, or even clearly understanding them.  Who really does?

All of those things play in to it, and I think you are right - in design, influences are very shades of gray, and in some respects, a listing of people he came in contact with doesn't show the whole picture.

For your consideration,


Jeffrey D. Brauer

[Bradley Anderson]

Mr. MacWood,

I am also interested in what inspires and influences great artists, but when the historian attempts to constuct this part of the story he really needs to be working with the subjects own report. For instance, I would wager that ten historians could attempt to construct what influenced Tom Doak and he would tell nearly all of them that they got it wrong. If on the other hand, a historian is able to find direct quotes of the subject as touhcing on what his influences are, then there is no question regarding accuracy.

One of the greatest greenkeepers ever was Bob Williams. I was very fortunate to spend many hours with Bob before he passed away, asking him many questions about his amazing career (he personally mentored over 70 greenkeepers) and when I finally get around to writing his story I will be limiting my interpretation regarding his influences to his own statements.

I just think there is a huge difficulty in projecting why people did what they did, especially when we are not able to ask them to tell us in their own words. And even then, we can be guilty of interpreting too much.

One of the things I learned from speaking to Bob Williams, was that the executive style of greenkeeping which he and a few other pioneered in the 1950's was a result of his experience in WWII. A lot of men came back from the war with a knowledge of how to organize and plan and how to communicate. See, I never would have guessed that that was a big part of what helped Bob Williams develop his skills. He was also a great orator, and he learned that after he joined a toastmasters club. Very few people probably even knew that before he was a toastmaster, he wasn't particularly comfortable with speaking on his feet, if they even knew he was a toastmaster. There are no extant  documents about Bob Williams that an historian would have learned that from. I had to learn that from speaking to him directly.
 

[Mike_Cirba]

Bradley,

That may be the sanest thing anyone has written on this subject.

This whole idea of deconstructing dead guys ideas, influences, and thinking is a wholly subjective exercise that is fraught with bias and inferences filled with incorrections that are unprovably either wrong or right.

It then digresses into a pis*ing match over who can find the most mundane minutiae and can therefore claim the title of king of the researchers.

Dealing with "facts" is one thing, but what is being called "facts" in this Merion/Flynn game are anything but.

[Thomas MacWood]

I would wager that ten historians could attempt to construct what influenced Tom Doak and he would tell nearly all of them that they got it wrong. If on the other hand, a historian is able to find direct quotes of the subject as touhcing on what his influences are, then there is no question regarding accuracy.
 

Bradley
How closely have you been following Doak's career; are you saying Doak has not fully explored what have been his influences?

Have you found any direct quotes from Seth Raynor regarding his influences?

[Bradley Anderson]

I used Tom Doak as an example because he is on this site frequently enough to test my bet. We could have ten different people weigh in on say what influenced Tom Doak to enter into the profession of golf course architecture. And even though we are all his living contemporaries, most of us would still write things that he would say is wrong. If however we asked him that question, or if we find the written record of him telling that part of his own story, then I think we will get the story right if we don't impose our own interpretations or our own paradigms on the parsing of his own words.

When Bradley Klein informs the reader that Donald Ross had a Calvinist background, I thought to myself, now that makes sense, and I won't even go in to why I made that connection. The point is, he could have just as likely gone about his business in a parsimonious way if he had had a miser for a mother, or if he had been brought up in abject poverty.

Seth Raynor may have stated his influences somewhere. And that would be a really interesting thing to read for sure. Obviously he built in a fashion that was patterned by his benefactor, however, I have never read anything on here that explains why held that course for so long after he was independent. I know I once ventured a guess on this site and a lot of people here disagreed with me. I guessed that he would have had to retool his operations in order to change his style, and that that process, being as disruptive and as risky as it was, was just not worth the effort given the fact that his work was in such high demand. But there again, that was just a guess. And all I was trying to do was defend Raynor against the accusation that he did not grow as an artist while all the other name architects were finding ways to make golf course architecture more natural.

[Sean_A]

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   

Peter P

I don't think there is any doubt that what you write is true.  While I don't believe anyone has come right out and stated it, part of the heathland awakening was the fact that guys like Fowler, Colt, Park Jr and Dr Mac did know and understand fundamental architectural principles  very well - probably better than anybody else save a few key characters such as Low.  Not only this, but they strove (especially Colt imo) to meld these principles with a natural aesthetic which was appealing to most golfers.  It is interesting that CBM sought out a concensus of the great principles of golf design by asking in Golf Illustrated what the the most testing holes in the UK were.  This Best Hole Discussion came right at the same time of Huntercombe and Sunningdale, both breakthroughs in inland design.  It is reasonable to assume that CBM was in the middle of this crowd trying "formalize" the concepts of good design and that these conversations had been taking place for sometime amongst the in crowd with folks like Low as outspoken proponents of traditional, philosophical and strategic design elements.  Perhaps these conversations go back to when TOC was first acknowledged as a masterpiece of design. 

It is also interesting to note that CBM made three trips to the UK during the initial blossoming of heathland golf and doesn't record his thoughts on these new inland upstarts.  He also doesn't mention, in his pile of design concept sketches he brought back with him in 1906(?), anything about sketches of inland holes.  It would seem in a way CBM was quite progressive in attempting create an American masterpiece based on sound design principles, but still backward enough not to realize/acknowledge (care?) how these same principles were utilized in the heathlands and how these "discussions" of the past however many years were being manifested in novel situations.  The man seems to have had a goal and nothing was gonna detour him. 

Finally, this notion of amateurism strikes me as very much at work around the turn of the century.  In a way, in the UK there is a bit of the changing of the guard to professionalism in playing and design.  Vardon is at the height of his powers in conjuntion with the Great Tri.  and properly professional archies are turning the world upside down with superb inland courses.  Think about this, only 20 years earlier inland golf could never have been seen on par with links.  It seems odd that CBM would take the mantle of traditional golf, which very much included amateurism, back the the States for the idea to eventually become second fiddle to professionalism, but still exerting more influence than in the UK and arguably for a longer period of time.  However, I don't believe CBM ever thought amateurism and the ideals of the traditional game was second fiddle, much like I don't think Low ever really gave in to the "modern" concepts of golf. 

Ciao   

[Thomas MacWood]

Bradley
Are you familar with Tom Doak's story? Nine out of ten writers would get the story right because they would have had access to his extensive writing on the subject, and the tenth person would be you.

Regarding Raynor, that is pretty goofy conjecture on your part. It is one thing to explore the reasons behind a well documented stylistic change, its a completely different story when you speculate about a change that never took place and may have never been contemplated. Ross never shaved his moustache because he felt he would have been at a competitive disadvantage against the impressive facial hair of Tilly and Mackenzie.

I think one thing that separates the competent historian from the not so competent is logic and not jumping to wild unfounded conclusions. Gathering the information like a detective would gather evidence in a murder case. When they have enough evidence they don't need a confession to convict the killer. Raynor wrote nothing (that I'm aware of), but we don't need a direct quote to conclude he was heavily influenced by Macdonald.

[Bradley Anderson]

Mr. MacWood,

There was a thread a few months ago that celebrated the natural froms of several architects, and in that thread, the more rigid forms that Raynor stuck to were held up against the progression that other architects were making in the same period.

My attempts to defend Raynor were basically to draw attention to the fact that he had a business to think about, and that progression towards a different style would have involved retooling his business. You are certainly right in calling that defense of Raynor "conjecture" but I don't think anyone can call it "goofy". And actually I don't recall that I ever presented my defense as being anything more than a consideration for what he might have been up against.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley Anderson,

I tend to agree with you.

CBM-SR-CB had an architectural BRAND.

Why would they want to allow the BRAND to lose its identity.

While they may have expanded their interpretive concept of the BRAND to fit the land, deviating from, or evolving their style was NOT what the customer wanted.

Remember too, the point in time in which they were designing and building golf courses.  They were distinctive with their product when there wasn't much in outstanding styles from other architects.

[wsmorrison]

While they may have expanded their interpretive concept of the BRAND to fit the land, deviating from, or evolving their style was NOT what the customer wanted.

I hope all is well, Pat.  I know that MacRayBanks stuck closely their brand, but what evidence is there that the clients wanted precisely that?  Is there any documentation, empirical evidence aside?  Perhaps they influenced their clients as much as the clients wanting the brand.

They were distinctive with their product when there wasn't much in outstanding styles from other architects.

I think you are wrong.   While they were working, especially Raynor and Banks, golf architecture in America, as it was already in existence in the UK, was going in a totally different direction.  In fact, NGLA may have been the only exception to your argument though Garden City and Myopia Hunt preceded it.  Both Merion and Pine Valley, especially Pine Valley in the beginning, led American architecture in a different course in theory and practice.

[Bradley Anderson]

Patrick,

The term BRAND is certainly useful in describing their wonderful work, but they also had a NAME. So technically, couldn't they have progressed in sytle without breach of contract or loss of business on the strength of the NAME ? I think they could have, but that would have been a big change given the scale that those guys worked on.

In either case, why they stuck to the knitting can remain a mystery.

[wsmorrison]

I agree with Bradley.  What other architects of that era had such a definitive brand?  Nobody came close.  More recently, Dye, Coore and Crenshaw, T. Fazio and the Jones brothers among others have recognizable brands, but not at all compartmentalized as MacRayBanks.  The limited design and aesthetic growth is a mystery and I suspect not so simple as merely giving the client what they want.

[TEPaul]

"In either case, why they stuck to the knitting can remain a mystery."


Bradley:

While a Raynor (or even MacRaynorBanks) stuck to their knitting, as you say, may remain something of a mystery in the sense that it may not be conclusively provable (as some on here recently seem to tend to demand "proof" ) I don't really think it is a mystery at all and the reasons are logically those that both you and a few others have given, such as---eg if you have an identifiable style or even brand that is so saleable and popular as that one, then why change it?

We should realize, in this vein, that they say Raynor may've even killed himself due to overwork (popularity). 

On the other hand, as far as other styles competing with MacRaynorBanks we should realize they too were becoming very popular out of the teens and into the 20s and on, and it is also probably indicative to note that the MacRaynorBanks era and style and look really only had a timespan of less than 20 years. It's not as if after them any other architect continued to do something so similar to them as to be very identifiable (with perhaps the exception of someone like Strong).

Why and how MacRaynorBanks developed that particular style is what is the real architectural story, though, at least in my mind.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

While they may have expanded their interpretive concept of the BRAND to fit the land, deviating from, or evolving their style was NOT what the customer wanted.

I hope all is well, Pat.  I know that MacRayBanks stuck closely their brand, but what evidence is there that the clients wanted precisely that? 
color=green]

The evidence is that the client awarded them the commission.

The client certainly knew what they wanted and what they were getting from CBM-SR-CB

Is there any documentation, empirical evidence aside?  Perhaps they influenced their clients as much as the clients wanting the brand.

I don't think the clients had any influence in the design of holes and features

They were distinctive with their product when there wasn't much in outstanding styles from other architects.

I think you are wrong.   While they were working, especially Raynor and Banks, golf architecture in America, as it was already in existence in the UK, was going in a totally different direction. 


You can't conveniently eliminate the THE primary architect in the CBM-SR-CB continuum.  And, you can't conveniently eliminate 20 years of formative design by CBM & SR.

In fact, NGLA may have been the only exception to your argument though Garden City and Myopia Hunt preceded it. 

NGLA and what followed from CBM-SR was distinctive.
There was nothing like their work for years and years and years.

Both Merion and Pine Valley, especially Pine Valley in the beginning, led American architecture in a different course in theory and practice.

While CBM-SR influenced the design of Merion and perhaps Pine Valley, neither course had a distinctive style other than that influence.

The CBM-SR product or brand was distinctive then, and remains so today.

[wsmorrison]

I don't think the clients had any influence in the design of holes and features

You don't think the ones that were paying for everything had any say at all?   So Astor, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and the rest just genuflected in front of Macdonald and let him have complete decision making?  I doubt it.

You can't conveniently eliminate the THE primary architect in the CBM-SR-CB continuum.  And, you can't conveniently eliminate 20 years of formative design by CBM & SR.

I'm not conveniently eliminating anything.  They were doing their brand thing for 20 years while others were going in an entirely different direction.  That's my point.  I guess we agree even though you think we don't.  Why they stuck to their theories and practice while nearly everyone else (Langford may be an exception) were going into naturalism, perspective misdirection, more offsets, shot testing, etc. is very interesting.  I don't think it can be explained away by that's what their clients wanted.  The only thing you can say for sure is that is what MacRayBanks wanted to do.

NGLA and what followed from CBM-SR was distinctive.  There was nothing like their work for years and years and years.

It wasn't that distinctive from the UK holes they were modeled after.  And the distinctiveness was certainly lost as more and more of their work was put on the ground.

While CBM-SR influenced the design of Merion and perhaps Pine Valley, neither course had a distinctive style other than that influence.

As regards Merion, you miss the point.  While the first iteration may have been influenced by Macdonald, much of it was discarded pretty shortly after opening and the direction taken was far different and BETTER.   As for Pine Valley, you are speculating there was an influence.  To date I haven't seen anything to suggest there was.  That doesn't mean there wasn't an influence, but I'd say Colt, Fowler, Alison, Maxwell, Wilson, Flynn and others had much more influence.

The CBM-SR product or brand was distinctive then, and remains so today.

Nobody is denying that.  I think we all agree.  Further, I think you can say their brand was rather static.  That is another way in which they were differentiated.

[Peter Pallotta]

.... While I don't believe anyone has come right out and stated it, part of the heathland awakening was the fact that guys like Fowler, Colt, Park Jr and Dr Mac did know and understand fundamental architectural principles  very well - probably better than anybody else save a few key characters such as Low.  Not only this, but they strove (especially Colt imo) to meld these principles with a natural aesthetic which was appealing to most golfers.  It is interesting that CBM sought out a concensus of the great principles of golf design by asking in Golf Illustrated what the the most testing holes in the UK were.  This Best Hole Discussion came right at the same time of Huntercombe and Sunningdale, both breakthroughs in inland design.  It is reasonable to assume that CBM was in the middle of this crowd trying "formalize" the concepts of good design and that these conversations had been taking place for sometime amongst the in crowd with folks like Low as outspoken proponents of traditional, philosophical and strategic design elements.  Perhaps these conversations go back to when TOC was first acknowledged as a masterpiece of design. 

It is also interesting to note that CBM made three trips to the UK during the initial blossoming of heathland golf and doesn't record his thoughts on these new inland upstarts.  He also doesn't mention, in his pile of design concept sketches he brought back with him in 1906(?), anything about sketches of inland holes.  It would seem in a way CBM was quite progressive in attempting create an American masterpiece based on sound design principles, but still backward enough not to realize/acknowledge (care?) how these same principles were utilized in the heathlands and how these "discussions" of the past however many years were being manifested in novel situations.  The man seems to have had a goal and nothing was gonna detour him. 

Finally, this notion of amateurism strikes me as very much at work around the turn of the century.  In a way, in the UK there is a bit of the changing of the guard to professionalism in playing and design.  Vardon is at the height of his powers in conjuntion with the Great Tri.  and properly professional archies are turning the world upside down with superb inland courses.  Think about this, only 20 years earlier inland golf could never have been seen on par with links.  It seems odd that CBM would take the mantle of traditional golf, which very much included amateurism, back the the States for the idea to eventually become second fiddle to professionalism, but still exerting more influence than in the UK and arguably for a longer period of time.  However, I don't believe CBM ever thought amateurism and the ideals of the traditional game was second fiddle, much like I don't think Low ever really gave in to the "modern" concepts of golf. 

Ciao   

Sean - Thanks very much. You raise a number of very good ideas/points. I wanted to bring your post back up again...

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't think the clients had any influence in the design of holes and features

You don't think the ones that were paying for everything had any say at all?   No, none at all.

So Astor, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and the rest just genuflected in front of Macdonald and let him have complete decision making?  I doubt it.

Correct.

CBM was a powerful personality and regarded as a genius when it came to designing golf courses.

These men were smart enough to know that just because their pockets were lined with gold, didn't mean that they could sing well in the shower 
too

What did they know about routing, hole design, feature design and the interrelationships of same ?  NOTHING.

You can't conveniently eliminate the THE primary architect in the CBM-SR-CB continuum.  And, you can't conveniently eliminate 20 years of formative design by CBM & SR.

I'm not conveniently eliminating anything.  They were doing their brand thing for 20 years while others were going in an entirely different direction.  That's my point.  I guess we agree even though you think we don't.  Why they stuck to their theories and practice while nearly everyone else (Langford may be an exception) were going into naturalism, perspective misdirection, more offsets, shot testing, etc. is very interesting. 

I don't think it can be explained away by that's what their clients wanted.  The only thing you can say for sure is that is what MacRayBanks wanted to do.

Sure it can.

Look at the chronology and relationship of the parties involved.

You don't think that CBM-SR were invited to design Piping Rock in 1913 on the heels of NGLA because of what they produced at NGLA and the connection of the members and powers to be at the two clubs ?

Now fast forward to 1925.
Do you think CBM-SR got the job because they were low bidders on The Creek ?

The Creek wanted them for their product.
In addition, some of the same members were at all clubs

OHECA ?   Ditto !

The BRAND was famous and desirable.

NGLA and what followed from CBM-SR was distinctive.  There was nothing like their work for years and years and years.

It wasn't that distinctive from the UK holes they were modeled after. 


That's pure nonsense.

NGLA was distinctive.

Or, are you going to tell me that the 3rd at NGLA, the "Alps" is the same hole as the  17th at Prestwick ?  Without distinction ?  ?  ?

As a golf course, NGLA was unique to both the US and the UK.

One only has to read what Horace Hutchinson and Bernard Darwin wrote to understand that.

And the distinctiveness was certainly lost as more and more of their work was put on the ground.

That's also untrue.
One only has to examine the body of their work to know that.

While CBM-SR influenced the design of Merion and perhaps Pine Valley, neither course had a distinctive style other than that influence.

As regards Merion, you miss the point.  While the first iteration may have been influenced by Macdonald, much of it was discarded pretty shortly after opening and the direction taken was far different and BETTER.   

Is the 3rd hole at Merion still refered to as a Redan ?
It sure has some of the basics of one.
And, it's been there for about 100 years.
As to "better", on what basis do you make that claim ?

As for Pine Valley, you are speculating there was an influence.  To date I haven't seen anything to suggest there was.  That doesn't mean there wasn't an influence, but I'd say Colt, Fowler, Alison, Maxwell, Wilson, Flynn and others had much more influence.

Others may have had more influence, but that wouldn't negate CBM's influence.

The CBM-SR product or brand was distinctive then, and remains so today.

Nobody is denying that.  I think we all agree.  Further, I think you can say their brand was rather static.  That is another way in which they were differentiated.

If there brand was static, their courses wouldn't have survived for close to a century.

NGLA, Yale, Piping Rock, Lido, The Creek, Sleepy Hollow, Mid Ocean, St Louis and Chicago aren't clones of one another.  Each has a distinctive personality.  I'd hardly call any of those designs, "static"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()