News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2002, 09:15:07 AM »
Mike Cirba,
I overall agree with your last post.  A couple of points I would like to make....machines are the downfall of many restorations...if they must be used then use implements such as 12" buckets that will be able to give you the details etc that would be accomplished with a shovel etc.....an earlier post made a good point in using the word classic many times when what would be more appropriate is natural.....The evolving of bunker edges either thru wind or displacement is a natural....does it necessarily have to go back to a certain year.,,,,and as for capes and bays in bunkers....an older guy whose family worked construction for Ross for many years once told me that many fingers etc that were seen on the older courses were there more as an area to place the spoils when constructing the bunker....sometimes you can see where original fingers are piled with small stones etc and covered....in doing these fingers more of a 3D look was found since the top ridgelines were rounded and then today when we copy fingers...many times they are just flat extrusions....machines are the main culprit in many of the restorations that we dislike....I see your point on the Merion bunkers....
Mike
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2002, 09:24:24 AM »
Mike Cirba,
Your points are well made!  I tend to agree with most everything you said though the comment about the bunkers looking like Thomas in grammer school might be a bit harsh  :)

If they don't fall down, they should continue to look better over time.  

Also the comment about the course set up for a U.S. Open is right on.  The only difference, however, is that unlike The Black Course set up, there is room to play golf shots at Merion.  Other than on #1 (where my caddy should have smacked me over the head with my driver rather than let me use it hit my first golf shot, I never felt claustrophobic on the tee).  The beers from lunch must have gone right to my head because I always hit 2I on that hole!  

Mark
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dunlop_White

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #27 on: June 26, 2002, 09:24:59 AM »
Mike Young:

I haven't heard from you in a while! Great post with good contributions!

I have a similar issue at my home course: Roaring Gap Club, a 1926 Ross design. Khris Januzik forwarded me the original Ross Routing Plan from the Archives years ago.  Immediately, I noticed that many Ross bunkers had been covered-up and abandoned. They were the typical "carry bunkers" and "cross bunkers" which Ross used, but were often the first to go since memberships usually believed them to be  out-of-play. My next question was when were these bunkers covered-up, or were they ever constructed to begin with?

I got my hands on a 1939 aerial which reveals that these bunkers did not even exist merely 13 years after Ross spent his summers designing Roaring Gap. (A mountain retreat of the Pinehurst Corp.) No other info. has been made available to me.

Thus, either all of Ross' "carry bunkers and cross bunkers" were abandoned in Roaring Gap's first 13 years, or they were never constructed? I have struggled with this for years now. I determined that a large percentage of bunkers designed by the Golden Age architects tended to disappear in a wholesale fashion during the Depression since bunkers were very expensive to maintain. Other times, I believe that these bunkers were never constructed simply because there are no scars in the terrain, and the terrain does not probe positive for sand.

I will not struggle with this any longer, because I have come to the conclusion that since these cross bunkers and carry bunkers were a "style" or an often utilized "design concept" of Ross, and since the Routing Plans reveal Ross intent to construct this type of bunker at Roaring Gap, then why not reclaim "some" of these bunkers (as the hole may demand) to revive the lost Ross flavor.

Why reclaim "some" of these bunkers and not "all" of them as the pure restorationist may ask? Because bunkers were not "fundamental" to Ross. They were merely "ornamental" to Ross, according to Dr. Klein. Thus, there was a flexibility or freedom with their positions and uses.

Therefore IMHO, if we make reasonable, selfless interpretations with an eye toward recapturing the style, flavor, and typical design concepts of the original architect, then it does not matter if the holes were originally built as drawn.

Dunlop

PS: I forwarding this thread to Mac Crouch. He will enjoy!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

brad_miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #28 on: June 26, 2002, 09:37:39 AM »
Dunlop, your eyes I trust, many others I don't, see the problem.

Mike Young thanks for the comment on the bunkers!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #29 on: June 26, 2002, 09:44:20 AM »
Dunlap,
You summed it up well..  Tell Mac I said hello.  The only problem I have with your post is calling Brad .."Dr. Klein".  Ask him about his "nuclear physics political ramification " book sometime.  .
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Mike_Cirba

Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2002, 11:39:22 AM »
Mike Young,

Thanks for taking the time to start this interesting discussion, as well as clarifying some of your points for me.  I've enjoyed it quite a bit, and it points out that there is a major difference between a little knowledge and those who've done their homework.  I'm sure you have to deal with both types.  

Not everything can be approached from dogmatic positions, either, lest one be intent on certain failure.

Mark Fine,

Would it be more descriptive and less "harsh" if I said "George Thomas in high school"?  ;)  My point being, the bunkers looked like they were shaped by a first time student of the classics, who had never been faced with trying to emulate something so equally subtle and complex before, especially bunkers with the grand scale of Merion's.  I'd give him a C-.  What grade would you give?

You say, "if they don't fall down, they should improve over time".  

The ironic thing is that this was the argument used by the club to rebuild not just the bunkers but also their surrounds in the first place...that some bunkers were in danger of collapse.  I must say that I didn't see evidence of that when I played a year prior to their recreation, but clearly the inner parts of the bunkers needed work for drainage and other purposes like nests of burrowing, stinging insects.  

Lester George,

Thanks for contributing your thoughts as well, and you bring up a fine point that Donald Ross has VARIOUS bunkering styles, most of which can be seen in his book.  It bothers me when I see some restoration architects just bypassing that simple truth in their work, because Ross was truly a site-specific, varied architect on any course he spent time on.

Hoping to see your Kinloch later this year.  

  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #31 on: June 26, 2002, 08:50:23 PM »
Lester
I'm not an expert on the Ross course you restored - I do know that the patron of this site grew up playing on that golf course. I think it has been common knowledge that the course was originally designed by HH Barker and like nearly all of Baker's designs it was remodeled, Whitten claims it was extensively redesigned by Ross in 1921, then by Fred Findlay, then by O'Neil and then by who knows who. The club no doubt hung their hat on Ross, who knows how accurate that might be. Ran has told me in the past there were certain aspects of the course that made it hard to believe it was designed by Ross, but I think the same has been said about there second course designed by Flynn. I suspect that is the result of O'Neil or Findlay or both upgrading both battleships.

The other course was most likely a Maxwell course. Stiles and Van Kleek did design the course originally in 1929 (it may have been their last design) but the project ran into financial difficulty and the course was not completed until the late 30's by Maxwell. Having some familarity with Maxwell I would be shocked if the completed course was not largely his design. The course had an excellent reputation on the tour for many years as a most difficult test. Unfortunately in the early 60's George Cobb thought this battleship also needed to be constructed of something other than wood.

Was the Ross course worth restoring, maybe not, Barker's original design may have limited what Ross and others could do. Ran may know how the course evolved. The Maxwell course is another story, but unfortunately we may never know.

The architect's of today might recognize the value of the past, but if they do nothing to restore or preserve those works, the next generation isn't going to have the same luxury. One of the reason's these clubs have little interest in the past (and I'm not sure that is fair characterization) is because those who they are looking to for expert advice are not educating them on the quality of what they have or once had, maybe because the expert himself has no idea. These things are not always easy to uncover - the Maxwell course as an example. In my mind doing the right thing by the client involves thorough research and study, and sometimes swallowing one's own pride. These two courses illustrate that architects have been looking foward for decades with mostly poor results. It takes a lot more work and a certain selflisness to look backward - obviously easier said than done.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #32 on: June 27, 2002, 06:09:00 AM »
Very nice and informative discussion! Two sides of this issue covered well by many.

I can tell there is still some disagreement in philosophy on this subject as both sides of the question (if you can call it that) seem to want to stick to their guns while conceding that the other side has some merit.

With that kind of outcome the best that can result, in my opinion, for any club or course (of a man like Ross who does have substantial myth attached to him) is to basically look at their course and what to do about it (or not) from the perspective of what both sides are advocating! In other words analyze a Ross course, for instance, from the perspective of both Mike Young and Lester George and also from the perspective of Mike Cirba and Tom MacWood!

If any golf course did that and did it rationally and comprehensively they can hardly fail to come away with a sensible answer to this quesiton.

The very first thing to do even before settling on a plan is to somehow get all the research done (either through the club or with the architect) that's possible. I've never known a club that has been negatively affected in any way by doing TOO much research. If the club can't do it internally (before an architect is chosen) reach out anywhere you can for help!

At that point things should generally start to become a bit more realistic and sensible. With this kind of effort a membership generally builds up pride in an original architect like Ross and also becomes more realistic with his myth and the fact that even he might have done some things that did not work well for the club or it's membership. We can't forget either that memberships and their general abilities and desires towards architecture change too over time.

My course, Gulph Mills, is a very good example of this evolution and the reality of Donald Ross and the course he built for us. Many architects have had their hands on Gulph Mills (but interestingly essentially only in the mid-section of the course). Some of those architects made changes that corrupted Ross and others made changes that vastly improved what Ross originally did.

I doubt there's much of anything that's not known about the architectural evolution of Gulph Mills at this point and that allows us the opportunity to look sensibly at what to do in our restoration and in the future. The entire evolution from beginning to present is there recorded in exact detail for anyone to see! That's a huge help for the committees, the memberhip and the architect! Any so-called classic era course that remotely has architectural merit should do this as a first step if they're really serious about their heritage and what to do about it in the future. Unfortunately, it's easy to do in some cases and near impossible in others--all depending on what material is available and of course what's happened to the course over time!

There's no question whatsoever that Ross built about three to four holes that spanned from the poor to the questionable. One to two holes were poor by any standard and another two were clearly questionable and/or too difficult (in a section of them) generally for our membership.

Should they have been changed as they were in the 1930s? Absolutely! Were they changed correctly and for the better? Three certainly were and the fourth probably but not definitely.

How can I put a value judgement on something like that? Quite easily actually because those four holes have now had many decades of evaluation by all kinds of golfers, members, guests, tournament players etc, so they have been tested by time, plain and simple and they are working well.

To even contemplate returning or restoring any of those three to four holes to the way Ross designed and built them just because it was Ross that designed and built them would be insanity at this point, particularly since their redesign by Maxell made most of them as good as anything on our course!

And I think this is exactly what Mike Young and Lester George are trying to say! It's pretty clear Donald Ross was an excellent architect because the remainder of his holes and many of his courses have worked darn well and have also withstood the all important tests of time for decades on a daily basis.

But it's clear from some of our original examples (those 3-4 holes) looked at objectively that he was certainly not infallible and occasionally even he made mistakes--even egregiously so in a case or two! So that sort of takes care of the myth being larger than the man--it shouldn't be!

But does this mean we should never touch the holes that have stood the test of time well if they can be improved even more in the light of the changes in today's game?

Not as far as I'm concerned! They can be made even better but to do so takes some real thought, probably some restraint and most certainly a real understanding of Ross and what he was trying to do both generally and specifically.

For that kind of thing you really do need to know where exactly you might have some latitude and where you don't. Certainly for that a good restoration architect (not just a blatant redesigner) is essential.  

And how that can happen benefically and positively is interesting but should always be looked at on a case by case, hole by hole basis. I don't think a better overall example could be found than Gulph Mills's hole #13! It's one of the most curious evolutions I'm aware of--subtle but fascinating. By a series of removals, replacements, a true understanding of Ross's general philosophy and a minor but all important bunker tweak the hole will really shine again and if done just right will be a shining example of what the basic Ross philosophy was on a hole like this one--although it has been altered and cannot be restored to what it once was.

So Lester George and Mike Young are no doubt correct in much of what they say but Tom MacWood is too--without doubt!

Do the research--it can never be too much and then you're in a postion to make some intelligent assumptions, intelligent decisions and conclusions and the project will be the better for that!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #33 on: June 27, 2002, 06:55:23 AM »
And having said that it's time to offer up somewhat of  a roll call of clubs that have gone about this comprehensively, rationally and properly although realizing I certainly don't know many of them that have.

LuLu--restoration yet to be done, probably by Ron Forse, but a really first class research effort done by Steve Sayers!

Old Town--Obviously some things done earlier that may have been a tad aberrational but otherwise at this point a really rational, comprehensive and LEVEL HEADED research job done by Dunlop White!

Huntingdon Valley--what can you say about the restoration job done at this course both in design (also an obsoleted nine) and maintenance practices? A very long time to completion and amazing as much for it's "maintenance restoration" as for it's design restoration. Linc Roden, Jim Sullivan, Randy Rolfe and particularly the super Scott Anderson. This one's a prototype in going all the way back to "design intent" in every way!

NGLA--Maybe Bahto's research and Olsen's implimentation and research but an impressive movement towards original design intent!

Five Farms--Don't know much about it other than I've heard it's excellent and the work of Doug Petersen--now at Austin C.C.

Kittansett--Gil Hanse--very successful restoration, I'm told.

Plainfield--Hanse--another very successful restoration

Skokie--I've heard really great things about the restoration--Prichard.

Yeamans--the inspiration of a member and implimented by Doak--really good I've heard.

Westhampton--Possibly the intelligent research and work and understanding of longtime super Mike Rewinski despite an ever changing atmosphere!

Athens--Bob Crosby (architects?)--don't know the details but he seems to be onto the necessary research.

Aronomink--a real rollercoaster of classic to modern age back to classic and a very interesting interpretation and implimentation done by Prichard and Tom Elliot (and committee) of Aronomink.

Essex--great job of research and understanding by Jeff Mingay and I think Hepner.

Paul Richard's Ross course in Chicago--a real attempt at comprehensive research and implimentation by Prichard.

The likes of GCGC, Fenway, Apawamis and many of the others I'm not so familiar with and will ask others to remark on and explain in detail. I wish I knew more about those I didn't mention and I'm sorry I don't and didn't!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Lester George

Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #34 on: July 01, 2002, 03:26:51 PM »

Tom Mac,

You make some ggod points.  There are some architects that do not conduct enough research and some that probably take it to an extreme.  We here at GGD believe that there is no substitute for research an historical information when implementing a plan for any club.  

My main point was, and I know you may disagree, some members of some clubs simply do not care!   That is not to say we as architects should take the easy way out, as a matter of fact, I have been accused of caring too much at times.

The course designed by HH Barker was common knowledge amoung those of us who were putting together the plan for the club.  I knew, you knew, Ran knew, Whitten new, etc.  but there were ten people on my committee (the "decision makers"?) who I assure you had no idea that anyone but Donald Ross had ever touched their course. And therein lies my point.  Until you educate all of the "CURRENT" powers to be, you might as well beat your head against the wall.  

Good architects in todays business must beat their heads against the wall trying to educate members or they will be out of renovation/restoration work in short order.  

I am not saying that I am wrong or right, just that with each club, the circumsatnces are  different, and the architect worth his salt better be prepared to deal with that.  

Thanks for listening.

Lester
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2002, 05:02:57 AM »
Lester
I understand what you are saying, I'm sure you run into some of the same problems when building a new course and ompromise is necessary.

I don't doubt there are some pretty stuborn and bull-headed types who rise to the top of some of these clubs. All the information in the world is not going to change some individuals minds, but (with compelling research) I would hope that by educating as many at the club, possibly with the help of the superintendant and/or other outside resources, that reason would prevail on the larger group. But I'm sure it doesn't always work out that way, but at least the information will be presented and can help guide you even if you forced to compromise some of your plan. And who knows maybe your research will get in front a more interested heirarchy down the road and they may act on some of your suggestions.

Not all these old guys were super talents and even the talented ones produced some border line results, but when you uncover their best work (which isn't always easy) it makes a pretty strong argument in its own.

I think the key is presenting a compelling case and that requires thorough research which isn't always easy. One of the best I've seen is Tom Paul's pamphlet for Gulph Mills and now that club has a documented architectural history that will help guide subsequent club leaders.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #36 on: July 02, 2002, 10:27:22 AM »
Lester George,

Sadly, you must educate the next group in power as well, lest the good work get undone.

It is a difficult, ongoing problem today.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom Doak

Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #37 on: July 03, 2002, 07:58:39 PM »
I believe this thread has stumbled upon a true mission for Golf Club Atlas.

Mike is right in that 250 or more of Ross's 500 courses saw little attention by the master.  Some of these trumpet his name the loudest, and push for a "restoration" because it's the only thing which distinguishes their course.

On the other hand, Mike and Lester, don't you think it would be nice if there were a few golf courses left in America which were true Donald Ross designs, instead of some modern architect's restoration of them?  Every restoration is a matter of interpretation, and usually compromise.

What I'd like to see is for someone to identify the most pristine remaining works of Ross, Thomas, MacKenzie, Colt, and others, and push those clubs to PRESERVE those courses as they are.

And I would hope that someone will do the same for a couple of my courses over the next 75-100 years, no matter what technology does to the rest of the game.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dunlop_White

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #38 on: July 04, 2002, 01:53:38 AM »
Oh boy, I believe we have another "term" on our hands: PRESERVATION! Where will this lead? Will publications come out with a November "Restoration" issue and a December "Preservation" issue? I can forsee a debate looming over the meaning and application of "Pure Preservation versus Sympathetic Preservation".

Seriously, Tom has a point. Although I do not believe that there are any courses today which are pure, original, and pristine, as the classic architect intended (man and nature have simply taken their toll), I do believe that virtually every course retains varying degrees of its original features and classic character. Thus, preservation and restoration go hand in hand. We must PRESERVE the original facets and RESTORE those that have been altered.

But wouldn't subjectivity, compromise, and interpretation inherently follow preservation as well? We still must determine originality and authenticity. And of course, your eye may be different than mine, Tom.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Young

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Myth is larger than the man in architecture
« Reply #39 on: July 04, 2002, 06:01:34 AM »
Tom,
I do think it would be nice if there were some original Ross courses that were "preserved" instead of being restored via interpretation.  Presently, I am trying to do such at Athens CC in Athens Ga.  Due to the fact that the club never wanted to spend money for restoration etc over the last 75 years not much has ever been done with the exception of #8 green and # 17 green.  Everything else is the original shaping minus a few bunkers.  While the Ross strategies and routing are intact( minus a few angles that can be recovered thru tree removal) there are only four greens that were put on the ground as Ross's plan indicated.  For example # 14 green was somehow turned 90 degrees from the direction of play when being constructed.  Yet, this is what the members call Ross.  They like it and it is a good golf course.  So I  intend to do nothing more than extend the greens back to where the original edges were.  Try and convince to implement the tree removal plan.  Add back some of the original bunkers and leave it alone.
Some might interpret that as a lack of "restoration talent" by the architect but it gives a club a good product that was what the old guys remember and what they always felt was a Ross course.  And it is.
Mike
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"just standing on a corner in Winslow Arizona"

Tags:
Tags: