Interesting Thoughts on Classic Architecture

[JakaB]

My good friend informed me...as only good friends can...that I have never had an interesting thought about classic architecture.  Truthfully...I don't think classic architecture even exists...obviously pre-this or pre-that exists...but to define classic as based on age or death is naive and opinionated.  Naive based on the flux of technology and opinionated based on access.  Pasatiempo has no more classic architecture than Pacific Dunes....did MacKenzie emulate classic architecture or did he create it...does Doak emulate classic architecture or does he create it...suffice to say it is created everyday with both the greatest and worst architects of all time living at any one time.   The dead architects are the students of changing technology desperately praying that trees don't grow and people won't change.  So my good friend...where or when can I find the classic non-evolving design that may instill an interesting thought...that I promise to both cherish and hold tight to my vest.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

NGLA

[JakaB]

Patrick,

How is NGLA more of a classic course than Pacific Dunes or Rustic Canyon...How can the work of a great modern Superintendent be explained for creating such classic playing condition in todays world using technology that wasn't even available during the "Golden Age"...It could be argued that NGLA is a modern marvel...with design principles no different than what are found on courses build by current architects.  I will give you that if such a classic course does exist outside of a museum enviornment...NGLA could be it...but with all the talk of changing par and tweaking this or that...It teaters on the edge of bastardizing itself into just another modern layout with 90 years of history and outstanding stewardship in the world of golf.   Just another possible sad example of why classics don't exist they just evolve.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

Perhaps, If I had used Newport as an example we might be closer to agreement.

Newport has no fairway sprinkler system, so the fairways are maintained pretty much the same way they were maintained umpteen years ago.  Mother nature determines the conditions of play, not a committee or superintendent.

I chose NGLA due to the distinctive architecture which appears in abundance.

I think classic architects allowed for and designed with elasticity in mind.  Lengthening a tee to retain the architectual values can't be considered a bastardization of the hole.

NGLA remains basically the same today as it did in its original years, save for the location of the 14th green, due to the introduction of an access and egress road.

In my limited experience there seems to be a desire on the part of the club to retain playing conditions consistent with the original architecture.  I think Tom Paul's theory of maintainance meld is alive, well and prospering at NGLA.

I think NGLA also serves as an example for other clubs.
Many visitors who play there return to their home courses with a refreshing appreciation of what they have just experienced.  This can manifest itself in the suggestion for corrective measures regarding playability at their home club.

I take it you are not advocating a return to sand greens, and that greens, and their modern day treatment and speeds fall within the elasticity factor, and exempt from your definition of bastardization.

I'm not so sure a classic course can't be fine tuned to the degree that it is improved, and I don't see anything wrong with fine tuning, so long as the design integrity of the architecture is preserved,

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Talk of changes, due to the quantum leap in the performance of touring pros, is just that, talk, and shouldn't be used to denigrate the golf course, which continues to pass the ultimate test, the test of time.

[grampa (Guest)]

JAKA

You make an interesting point regarding classic architecture evolving as opposed to existing. I have always thought that any form of classic ARCHITECTURE needs to evolve. There aren't any courses built in the last 25-30 years that can be considered classic. Just as there haven't been any buildings built in the last 25-30 that can be considered classics.  Sure there have been several good architectural works created recently but they can hardly be considered classic. A classic course must evolve and endure the test of time. We find that architecture is more than "form follows function". Years of proper "maintenance meld" and a true appreciation for the style of architecture are needed to become a classic. In the past 2 years we have seen 3 courses fall from the classic list ( Merion, Augusta, Riviera). Yet others continue to embrass their history ( Shinnecock, Fishers Island, Seminole). With modern technology it is all to easy to destroy the classic characteristics that have taken years to evolve. A course must stand the test of time to be considered a classic for tomorrow it could be gone!

[JakaB]

Gramps and Pat,

I would like to thank both of you for proving my point famously...the arrogance it takes to think time has anything to do with the greatness of design is monumental.   Do either of you really believe that NGLA is better tomorrow than it was yesterday....better ten years from now than it was ten years ago...better 1000 years from now than when it was created...Of course you don't.   There is no time line that defines classic...there is only good or bad architecture...only fun or nonfun....joyous or sorrowful...vigrant or impotent...not old or new...tick tick tick...sazzam we have a classic on our hands...laughable truly laughable.

[CHrisB]

Doesn't classic essentially refer to something excellent that endures over time?  So I would say classic architecture must refer to those principles that have proven most successful and enduring since golf course architecture was introduced way back when.  So NGLA was built 90 or so years ago using some of those principles, and Pacific Dunes was built just a few years ago using some of those principles; both products of classic architecture, both classics.  I guess...

[Patrick_Mucci]

JakaB,

NGLA is better today then it was 15 years ago.

It's better since Karl Olsen took over.

Will it be better 10 years from now.....who knows.

You're correct, great architecture is timeless, but it seems that an abundance of great architecture was created during a certain period of time.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

My Brother JakaB,

Let me put it in the most Catholic of terms.

Where is the defining line where the bible, a long evolving work of passion and faith written by several beings touched by the Almighty himself, stopped being written?

Could someone actually write a new book and verse or text to add to the Good Book from our time? Has it happened or will it ever?

As you might know, the bible is classic. So is Alister MacKenzie.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

It can no longer be said that Barney aka John has never had an interesting thought on 'classic' architecture.

[TEPaul]

How often does the discussion on this website quickly devolve into what a word means far more than it's a discussion of golf architecture and golf courses? A lot! This topic is no different!

This topic is now about what the word "classic" means to various people or what it says it means in various dictionaries, not about the architecture of NGLA, Newport, Rustic Canyon or Pacific Dunes!

Call them any word you want but the architecture of NGLA and Newport is still alive and well after 90 years whether MacDonald is on hand or Karl Olsen. And the architecture of Rustic Canyon and Pacific Dunes is alive and well too after a year or two. The architecture of all these courses is good and interesting architecture too no matter what its called!

Things like "evolve" really don't matter much in the general scheme of things. The point is a course like NGLA is basically the same architecturally as it was when it was built!

Call it a classic or anything else you want to call it--call some of its par 5s par 4s if you want--it really doesn't matter! The golf course and its architecture is basically the same as it always was and that's the point! As such there is still a lot to learn about it and its architecture and that will probably never change!

[TEPaul]

Frankly, I don't think Barney's good friend ever informed him he never had an interesting thought about classic architecture.

I think Barney just says things like that in the beginning of a topic for sake of discussion!

Barney has a lot of interesting thoughts about classic architecture and other things--thoughts that are sometimes very hard for me to understand--but they seem interesting nonetheless!

[JakaB]

TommyN,

The Bible and "Classic Architecture" would both be better tools if they were interpreted and enjoyed by individuals and not taught or promoted by institutions.    

[TEPaul]

JakaB:

If you're trying to imply that some of the heirarchy of the Catholic Church are as corrupting of certain "classic" somethings as Fazio/MacDonald are of some "evolved" and so-called "classic" golf courses, I'd tend to agree with you.

[Tom Doak]

Yes, indeed, the word "classic" like many words once used to describe architecture has become just another marketing word.  Everyone designing new courses will use it, because there is no solid definition.

I have always said that I got many of my ideas on architecture from the classic courses (including the links of Britain and Ireland), but I would never call anything I've built a classic course.  That's for someone else to say 30 years from now.

[jim_lewis]

Grampa:

It will take a lot more than some tinkering on the bunkers to get Merion removed from the "classic list", regardless of how you choose to define "classic".