[TEPaul]

I thought this subject might be a good adjunct to the recent thread "Architects that are under-discussed."

Athough I do realize a subject like this one may be something we all discuss most every day on the various threads of this website, putting the specific subject on a single thread seems appropriate even if I do recognize the subject might be enormous and never-ending.

It has always occured to me that if numerous of the old architects could read this website and see the things some of us say about them and what they were doing or saying or thinking they may all respond with something like:

"My Goodness, even we never realized things like that or thought of them."

For starters I might say that some architects that I think might have been the most misunderstood would include:

1. Max Behr
2. Desmond Muirhead
3. And probably unbelievably to most I think I might throw Alister MacKenzie in there for reasons I will explain later.

Ironically, I think the architect who may've been the LEAST misunderstood might have been Donald Ross and the reasons for that I think are pretty interesting and very fundamental.

I'll give my reasons on the above later.

Who do you think were really misunderstood and why?

[Chris_Clouser]

I don't think he is under-discussed, but Maxwell still seems to be very misunderstood.  Even after all of my best efforts....


A lot of people still have confusion about how much he really did.  I think a lot of people are also still in the dark in regards to his style of design.  But the biggest myth that many still think about him is that he was a protege of Mackenzie and was a know-nothing until that English doctor got done with him. 

[Paul Stephenson]

Mike Strantz?  At least from the 50% of golfers who claim to never want to play one of his courses again.

It's interesting that you mention MacKenzie, because if you look at Stranz's website he draws inspirarion from him.

When you answer Mr. Paul, can you comment on whether Stranz and MacKenzie may be misunderstood for the same reasons?

[TEPaul]

Chris:

Isn't that interesting---ie I was just about to say that I feel Perry Maxwell may've been one of the least misunderstood, at least as far as his architecture goes.

[Bob Jenkins]

Ed Seay.

I understand he was Palmer's chief designer for almost all courses that carry the Palmer name. There are four of their courses in BC alone which makes me think there must be many more around the world.

[TEPaul]

"When you answer Mr. Paul, can you comment on whether Stranz and MacKenzie may be misunderstood for the same reasons?"


PaulS:

I doubt I'd say that but I'm only using a few reasons at the moment and there may be a whole host of things that are somehow similar between the two I'm not thinking of or recognizing.

One reason is I don't know a lot about Strantz and his courses. I've only seen one of them (but plenty of others in photos). In my opinion, Strantz just may've been one of the most obvious architects in history for basically showing and perhaps even glorifying the so-called "Hand of Man" in golf course architecture. I mean how can anyone deny that he was one of the most massive site and architectural feature shapers in history? I'm not saying that is right or wrong or anything, only that it is so apparent.

Mackenzie, on the other hand, just may've been the ultimate in architectural history in attempting to hide the "Hand of Man" in what he made and in some cases he "made" a lot even if many golfers may not be able to exactly pick up on what he made and what was actually site natural.

And, of course, I happen to think that Mackenzie's ideas on camouflage and what he pulled the idea from (Boer military trench construction and camouflage) was one of the most imaginative borrowings from something so diverse to golf that there ever has been in this business and art of golf architecture.

But I do think what Mackenzie was actually trying to accomplish in his "camouflage" application to architecture has always been misunderstood and probably always will be----eg some think he was trying to actually hide his architectural features or something! Nothing of the kind; he was merely trying to hide the visible distinctions between what was made and what was actually natural.

But perhaps Strantz and Mackenzie had one interesting commonality and that might be this idea of "looking hard but playing easier". I know that is a theme of Mackenzie's but I have not played Strantz enough to know if that was a theme of his too.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Are you stating "misunderstood" both during their lifetime and after, or just after?

[TEPaul]

Of course, I've said it so many times before on here, but I think Max Behr may've been one of the most misunderstood ever and basically for the truly remarkable writing he did on golf architecture and the essence and philosophies behind it and underlying it.

In my opinion, noone has ever come close to looking so deeply into this thing of golf architecture as he did and probably by a factor or at least ten compared to anyone else.

So, why did that make him misunderstood?

I think it was simply because his writing style was so bizarre, so Edwardian and labrynthian that very very few understood what the hell he was talking about and for that gave up on his remarkable series of interconnected articles too early to understand or appreciate them.

But I think Behr looked and wrote so deep into this subject of golf architecture and how it related to Man and Nature specifically, and that age old and everlasting dynamic between Man and Nature, that he damn near looked clear into the soul of the golfer, and essentially explained what was in there even if subconsciously or subliminally. He also tried to completely understand and explain the actual physical dynamics of Nature's forces on earth forms to determine what the natural architectural formulae was that made particular earth formations either endure or become destroyed.

[TEPaul]

Phil:

It doesn't matter to me. Say whatever you want to. If this thread goes in a hundred different directions, that's fine with me. I'm not one of those guys who's fixated on a thread sticking immediately to the first post and it's wording but I'm quite sure you realize that about me by now. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

I guess I would say yes to Maxwell being misunderstood, if only because his early works really morphed in style from NGLA like to Saucer like bunkers....yes, I know the depression had something to do with it.

What about Tillie?  Despite some books on him, his style varied so much, even from year to year, there has to be a story behind that.

I would say Desmond Muirhead would be pretty well understood - he wrote enough about his ideas.

As to Max Behr - Well, he wrote a lot, but there aren't enough of his works around to know what he meant in terms of translating that on the ground. Ditto Hunter.

[TEPaul]

"I would say Desmond Muirhead would be pretty well understood - he wrote enough about his ideas."


Oh come on Mr. Jeffrey Brauer, Sir!

Of course Desmond Muirhead was completely misunderstood, particularly with his later architecture. After all how many golfers play golf wacked out on LSD or some other mind-altering drug? If you're not completely stoned there's no chance on earth you could ever understand Muirhead.

I actually thought about trying to have sex with that mermaid bunker of his on #12 at Stone Harbor when she was new and really tight looking but on reflection I realized I probably didn't have the time.

[TEPaul]

And Tillinghast is pretty well misunderstood too, Mr. Brauer. How many golfers are soused enough to truly appreciate the finer points of really sophisticated "Flask Architecture"?

Matter of fact, I'd have to say that Dick Wilson was probably pretty well misundertood too, particularly by some of the most competent golf architecture analysts for the simple reason so few could understand how he could practice "Flask Architecture" to that extreme and still be able to create some good and fairly normal architecture.

And why do I think Donald Ross could've been one of the least MISunderstood architects ever?

Because I believe he created some of the most truly "democratic" architecture that applied to and both accommodated AND challenged all levels that there has ever been.

[Jeff_Brauer]

To the esteemed Mr. Paul,

Thank you for the kind, if somewhat off beat reply.  While I may not have thought my answer out completely thoroughly, mine was an attempt to give your premise the serious thought and debate it deserves.  I trust yours contains a kernal of truth but mostly is an attempt at humor, having heard the "flask" architecture references before.  Then, as now, I chuckled at your considerable wit!

You do raise an intersting point.  Do golfers have to be in the "right frame of mind" to understand different types of architecture?  I would say that if I was going to a Strantz course, I would just put myself in the mindset to enjoy a different challenge.  With many of his courses in resort areas, I imagine most golfers add that to the list for variety, even if most of the time they would enjoy a lesser roller coaster ride.  But, if a golfer goes expecting some traditional test of golf, he would come away less than impressed, perhaps, and maybe a bit pissed that the course caused his highest score on his MB golf trip.

For that matter, did you, as the original poster contemplate every day golfers or computer based critics as the ones who would be participating in any understanding, or mis understandings?  I took you to mean web based critics, believing that most golfers wouldn't understand anyway.  But, based on beer cart sales, I think many, many golfers achieve at the very least, a "six pack" understanding of flask architecture.  Do you think such golfers understand, say, the latter holes of a design better than the early ones, when they are not so.....shall we say, "enlightened?"

My comments on DM might have been influenced by my own preconceptions that he saw a style of architecture that was, shall we say, underserved (as opposed to the "overserved" flask architects) and saw a way to make a name for himself and create a niche market.  How much more do we need to understand?  All in all, I think DM is such an offshoot of gca it doesn't require that much study of the work itself.  Now, I will say in his book on TOC, there is much more to the man than showed up in his work, but I also presumed we really were talking about understanding the body of work, and not the mind behind it.

As always, I could be wrong.

Not much has been written about Wilson, compared to RTJ, so in many ways, yes, he is misunderstood.  But, his style always seemed most straightforward and fairly easy to understand on face value.

I trust this missive finds you well (lubricated) and in(to) the best of spirits!

Mr. Jeffrey D. Brauer, esq.

[TEPaul]

"For that matter, did you, as the original poster contemplate every day golfers or computer based critics as the ones who would be participating in any understanding, or mis understandings?  I took you to mean web based critics, believing that most golfers wouldn't understand anyway.  But, based on beer cart sales, I think many, many golfers achieve at the very least, a "six pack" understanding of flask architecture.  Do you think such golfers understand, say, the latter holes of a design better than the early ones, when they are not so.....shall we say, "enlightened?"



Mr. Brauer:

For that paragraph and that basic thought I think you just may be a marketing genius! Let's you and I form a company to promote "architectural enlightenment" amongst the great and good so-called 99%.

Let's call the company "Architectural Enlightenment Corp LLD, PHD, IOU, NYSE, IRS, PDQ".

We will franchise beer sales on golf courses everywhere under the guarantee of architectural enlightenment and general joy and satisfaction within the golfing experience. The company will be due a 3.2819% cut on all beer sales on golf courses all over the world. You handle the beer selections and inventories and I'll handle the leasing of some really fast carts (I grew up in Daytona Beach, you know?) and the interviewing and training of all the cart girls.

[Ian Andrew]

What about Tillie?  Despite some books on him, his style varied so much, even from year to year, there has to be a story behind that.

I think Phil Young's book offers a very good explaination for that.

I have always joked that the architecture reflects bouts of drinking and sobriety.

[Michael Dugger]

Rees Jones?

He's a golf course architect?  Really???

[TEPaul]

Mr. Brauer:

If you don't mind me mentioning it, I would very much appreciate it if you'd stop all this cutting and jiving and horsing around on this thread! I think this thread's subject is a very important one. Can't you see I'm trying to be serious here?

[Jeff_Brauer]

To the esteemed Mr. Paul, and possible future business partner,

Good Afternoon. I have read yours of earlier this afternoon and I think many points bear discussion.  As you know, a business partnership is a tricky thing.  And, when you say:

"I'll handle the leasing of some really fast carts (I grew up in Daytona Beach, you know?) and the interviewing and training of all the cart girls."

I would like to point out that most partnerships break down when one partner assigns himself the good jobs......( in this case meaning the XXXX and/or XXXX jobs........

Now, back on the topic at hand, I was most serious, sir!  I shall take the good Mr. Andrew's suggestion and re-read the Tillie book on the plane tomorrow to glean some more enlightenment.  I am not assured my usual first class upgrade, so other forms of "enlightenment" may not be flowing as usual.

Cheers.

[TEPaul]

Mr. Brauer:

I'm afraid I'm vaguely confused about what Mr Andrews meant to suggest about Tillinghast and sobriety and the opposite condition. He said he thought he had boughts of both. Does he mean bouts of both? Whatever it is, I do not believe Mr P. Young likes or agrees with that analysis of Albert Tillinghast. He feels he suffered from another condition that did not involve boughts or bouts or sobriety or that opposite condition.

Did you know Tillie was very familiar with Whiffensnoofers? Yes indeed. I believe they were a Canadian High Sierra Indian tribe. I believe Mr. Tillinghast even spoke a passable amount of Whiffensnoofer.

I humbly apologize that I coopted the best jobs in our proposed new business venture. I tell you what---I believe if things get rolling well, after a year or so we may be able to get our cart girls to do a little after golf hours escort servicing. We can't record it formally but we can refer to it as our "Pimping Division" of our "Architectural Enlightenment Corp, LLD, PVC, IOU, PDQ".

Why don't you run that division and teach our girls the appropriate etiquette and such? This kind of add-on tends to be very profitable. For our most attractive stars we may need to whack it up with them about 30/70, and with the B+ group maybe 40/60 but for the rest we should be able to do 50/50. If our clientele is "enlightened" enough at the end of their rounds maybe they won't really notice if we overuse our 50/50 group on them.

[TEPaul]

Mr. Brauer:

Now I really am going to attempt to be serious.

Do you think there have ever been any architects who intentionally tried to be misunderstood in what they created in architecture?

[Thomas MacWood]

Chozo Ito. I don't speak or read Japanese.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mr. Paul,

You and I both know that many gca's have spouted much BS in the name of marketing that was meant to intentionally mislead developers into believing that next to Jesus himself, they couldn't hire a higher authority on golf or life!

I have always believed that most gca marketing is intentional attempts at misrepresentation!  At the very least, I believe that the length of any gca statement is inversely proportional to the actual thought that went into it.  Based on your comment in a previous post:


It has always occured to me that if numerous of the old architects could read this website and see the things some of us say about them and what they were doing or saying or thinking they may all respond with something like:

"My Goodness, even we never realized things like that or thought of them."


So, in that sense, yes.  Old DR probably never thought much about green contouring other than "make it drain and make the dirt balance."  To have such nuances in the putting surfaces be attributed to anything other than faster greens, occaisional settling and the like may not be misunderstanding of Ross, but it is certainly "overthinking" of Ross, IMHO.

Now as to actual designs, rather than marketing, I am not sure.  As to indivdual holes, either blind holes or wide open spaces with very limited targets based on contours would probably be the most obvious examples.  Perhaps any kind of design that prevents an aerial shot from holding would be a "statement" green that the gca was trying to get us to return to the ground game.  And, many golfers would misunderstand that.

Beyond actual play characteristics, there is the whimsey factor, although these are usually easy to understand.  I have on a few occasions, tried to get bunkers shaped like an extended middle finger, but wasn't crafty enough to disguise it - when the owner figured it out, it was bulldozed away before construction finished!  Hey, Desmond had his symbolism, and I have mine.

I once put some initials in bunker form and many never catch on to what they were.  I kind of hoped that onl a few would, not all.  I am sure that many gca's have put in personal touches that meant something only to them and a few others present at construction.  Again, drawing from my personal experience, a superintendent once kept reshaping a bunker for easier maintenance.  When I tried to shame him into leaving it by saying it looked like a pork chop he retorted that a pork chop was just the look he was going for.  From time to time, I build a pork chop bunker in memory of that learning incident in my career.  Its just for me and probably no one understands it, least of all the shapers when I try harder for that bunker to get built "just right" than any others!

I recall a Japanese gca who put a "snake" bunker near an apple tree.  Symbolism there, no doubt, but obvious enough for anyone who is really looking to "get it."  I always wondered if someone would put in six bunkers because he had six kids, or something like that.  It could be out there.

AM used greens shaped like Africa and South America.  However, I think that is just the kind of idea that might have popped into his head while looking at a map and needing inspiration for a new and different look, rather than some real symbolism requiring understanding......

It would probably be another case of "over thinking" but I bet you will be looking for all kinds of hidden symbolism next time you play! 

[TEPaul]

Would that be the father or grandfather of Judge Lance Ito of the O.J. Simpson trial fame, Mr. MacWood? And if so do you know when his grandfather died and if he was related to Crown Prince Pistrami Ito of the 19th century? I'd think that kind of "expert, independent" research info would be a total snap for you with your Ancestory.com.

[Sean_A]

I believe Braid is somewhat misunderstood as a penal architect.  He in fact designed all sorts of different courses to suit the land, the client and the purpose.  I also think he is misunderstood as a "minor" archie when he should be considered alongside the big guns.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"Mr. Paul,
You and I both know that many gca's have spouted much BS in the name of marketing that was meant to intentionally mislead developers into believing that next to Jesus himself, they couldn't hire a higher authority on golf or life!"


Mr. Jeffrey:

Now, now, try to control yourself. What a horribilus and dreadmaking thing to say about golf course architects. You were the president of the ASGCA! How can you say such things and admit to such things? I'm devastated. I thought all professional architects knew far more than any of us even including Jesus himself. What course did Jesus ever do to get that kind of credit?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()