[TEPaul]

This is a question that has been mused over and probably argued over for 150 years and it certainly still is today.

It was something that was discussed at some length too by a rather large committee at the beginning of the setting up of the new USGA Architecture Archive.

On another thread about the valuable "time-testing" of great holes, Jim Kennedy said that if that was what Macdonald was after he should've gone to a course that had been in existence for centuries. Clearly that would've only left one course available to him---TOC at St. Andrews.

I think the notion that "time-testing" of great holes should go back centuries is ridiculous because personally I don't think golf course architecture, at least as we essentially think of it and discuss it, even began until around the middle of the 19th century. And I think C&W got it right when they identified, as others have before them, Alan Roberston as probably the first practioner.

Of course it may be technically possible to say that those old sheepherders who began knocking rocks around the linksland with their staffs and into rabbitt holes or those who at some point followed them were the first architects because they probably "laid out" or just identified the arrangement of a series of holes but for our purposes of semi-sophisticated golf architectural discussion that really isn't applicable, in my opinion.

But what I find interesting is that Macdonald actually identified himself as the first golf course architect. Even though we all know he could be over-archingly egotistical I don't believe his remark that he felt he was the first architect is all that egotistical as he clearly knew many others had preceded him in one form or another.

I believe he was simply looking at it all in a quite different way (really analyze in-depth the principles of respected holes extant) as he was about to launch into something that had definitely not been attempted before (an "Ideal" golf course using those identified principles). Apparently that variation or distinction led him to believe he was the first architect. Was he right in how he viewed it? It's an interesting question.

Again, for me golf course architecture even remotely as we know it and think of it and discuss it began with Alan Robertson at TOC around 1848.

But if others see it completely differently for whatever their reasons, I, for one, am certainly cool with that. After-all this place is only about opinion and if someone has a legitimate opinion they shouldn't be considered wrong. Well, noone other than Patrick Mucci, of course.

[Niall C]

Tom,

I'm a wee bit hazy as to what Allan Robertson actually did to the Old Course. I thought he mainly cleared away the gorse to open up the lines of play better. If that was all he did, and as I say I'm not sure what he did do, then that doesn't seem like design to me.

I think there has to be some design intent. The fact that holes like the Biaritz were built and copied before MacDonald got started suggests to me that there were architects (using the definition suggested) out there before him. Whether Allan Robertson was one of them I am not so sure.

Niall

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I didn't explain myself well enough in that other thread.  My notion of 'centuries' was linked to the history of the game itself, in much the same way as the building architect studying "Baroque" should be acquainted with  Italy, i.e. that's where it all began.

I do differ with your assessment of the value of the architecture that existed when man's influence on it was only marginal. It's the jumping-off point for what followed, just as late Roman architecture was the forerunner of the Baroque.

The inspiration going forward came from somewhere, no?

[TEPaul]

"The inspiration going forward came from somewhere, no?"

Jim;

Yes, I believe so, and I feel it came from TOC in the person of Alan Robertson around 1848. We're not talking about the history of building architecture here that does have every right and reason to go right back to Greek and Roman times and such; and we're not even talking about the history of golf, we're talking about the history of golf course architecture.

[Paul Stephenson]

1764 when the Society of St. Andrews Golfers shortened the course from 22 to 18 holes?

[Sean_A]

This is a question that has been mused over and probably argued over for 150 years and it certainly still is today.

It was something that was discussed at some length too by a rather large committee at the beginning of the setting up of the new USGA Architecture Archive.

On another thread about the valuable "time-testing" of great holes, Jim Kennedy said that if that was what Macdonald was after he should've gone to a course that had been in existence for centuries. Clearly that would've only left one course available to him---TOC at St. Andrews.

I think the notion that "time-testing" of great holes should go back centuries is ridiculous because personally I don't think golf course architecture, at least as we essentially think of it and discuss it, even began until around the middle of the 19th century. And I think C&W got it right when they identified, as others have before them, Alan Roberston as probably the first practioner.

Of course it may be technically possible to say that those old sheepherders who began knocking rocks around the linksland with their staffs and into rabbitt holes or those who at some point followed them were the first architects because they probably "laid out" or just identified the arrangement of a series of holes but for our purposes of semi-sophisticated golf architectural discussion that really isn't applicable, in my opinion.

But what I find interesting is that Macdonald actually identified himself as the first golf course architect. Even though we all know he could be over-archingly egotistical I don't believe his remark that he felt he was the first architect is all that egotistical as he clearly knew many others had preceded him in one form or another.

I believe he was simply looking at it all in a quite different way (really analyze in-depth the principles of respected holes extant) as he was about to launch into something that had definitely not been attempted before (an "Ideal" golf course using those identified principles). Apparently that variation or distinction led him to believe he was the first architect. Was he right in how he viewed it? It's an interesting question.

Again, for me golf course architecture even remotely as we know it and think of it and discuss it began with Alan Robertson at TOC around 1848.

But if others see it completely differently for whatever their reasons, I, for one, am certainly cool with that. After-all this place is only about opinion and if someone has a legitimate opinion they shouldn't be considered wrong. Well, noone other than Patrick Mucci, of course.

Tom P

We have been round this one before.  You think architecture starts with the hand of man creating something.  I think architecture starts with the mind of man creating or utilizing something for his purposes.  Yes, using an old wall, nob, hollow, burn, building etc. etc as part of the design is architecture.  So with this in mind, I say architecture started when folks started whacking balls toward a hole.  Furthermore, with the recent fade toward getting the most out of the land I can't see how using pre-existing land forms to one's end isn't architecture.  What, half (or whatever - you get the point) of Sand Hills isn't architecture?  The very thought of this sounds ridiculous.  And if we accept that Sand Hills is architecture, then we must accept that the stuff done in the old days was architecture.  It noacana be any other way.

Ciao

[Dave_Miller]

This is a question that has been mused over and probably argued over for 150 years and it certainly still is today.

It was something that was discussed at some length too by a rather large committee at the beginning of the setting up of the new USGA Architecture Archive.

 
 
  But if others see it completely differently for whatever their reasons, I, for one, am certainly cool with that. After-all this place is only about opinion and if someone has a legitimate opinion they shouldn't be considered wrong. Well, noone other than Patrick Mucci, of course.

Tommy:
Are you sure it didn't start when you and Pat had your first discussion on "Maintenance Meld".
Best
Dave

[TEPaul]

Paul (and I suppose Sean Arble too):

I would think the question with a question like yours would be---for our purposes should we consider that anyone who has ever had an idea about doing anything at all on a golf course that was actually done be considered by us to be a golf course architect?

I realize that question of mine departs somewhat from the meaning and question of this thread---eg what was the real beginning of golf course architecture, but then it just does. For me I feel the two (architecture/architect) pretty much go hand in hand for fairly obvious reasons and that's why I look at a guy like Alan Robertson as the first architect and basically what he did as the first real architecture on a course.

But then there is another potentially interesting matter and question at hand----why did Macdonald refer to himself as the first architect with what he was up to leading up to with NGLA? Since he was certainly aware that a number of people before him had laid out golf courses I think that question bears a bit more analysis than to just write that remark and him off as just some super-egotistical guy.

Dave:

If Pat Mucci tries to make even a single mile out of MY "Maintenance Meld" to try to show somebody he knows something or that he ever had an original thought on architecture, well then, my lawyers will be seeing his lawyers! 

[Dan Moore]

Certainly a case can be made for the first time someone said we're playing over that sandhill to the hollow by the road or whatever.  To me though, architecture implies more, not only conceiving,  but combining that with building what was conceived.  No doubt that happened sometime long before anyone would have thought to document it.  Perhaps one can take it further to when someone from the outside of the local circle of golfers (the local green committee so to speak) was called in to provide an expert opinion and plan for laying out or improving a course.  

Among the earliest examples I can think of start with Alan Robertson with Old Tom assisting laying out the first course at Carnoustie in the 1840's.  I have no idea to what extent this was a simple staking out of a lay-out or something more.  Then in 1851-52 Old Tom laid-out and built the 12 hole links at Prestwick.  I say built because he built hazards including the use of railway ties and turfed the greensites and maintained the course over his 12 years there.  In the 1850's Robertson added a 2nd hole to most of St Andrews greens, reportedly built the the road hole green which in those days also served as the 1st green and began a 50 year process (most of which was carried out by Old Tom after Allan's death) of widening the fairways and greens of the Old Course which more or less doubled in the amount of its playing area between 1820's and 1900.  In 1866 Old Tom built the current 18th green and in 1870 built the current 1st green which in turn made the right hand course a possibility.  

It looks like the expansion of the railway network making travel more common and the inexpensive durable gutty created the first golf boom, an explosion in golf's popularity starting around 1848.  This created a need for more courses built from scratch and gave rise to the first era of golf architects for hire.  This need was filled by Old Tom, the Dunn's and Willie Park among others.  

As to Macdonald I think he distinguished his effort at the National because it incorporated pre-conceived hole designs and fused that effort with the latest in construction techniques and agronomy.  

[TEPaul]

"As to Macdonald I think he distinguished his effort at the National because it incorporated pre-conceived hole designs...."


Dan:

I have a feeling what you just said there, "preconceived", may have a good deal to do with what and how he saw himself as different from what came before and why he may've referred to himself as the first architect.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Allan Robertson is readily accepted as the first Architect of note in the historical record, but the idea (my favorite, as explained very well by Sean ) that GCA was a slowly evolving form that began when the... "first man creat(ed) or utiliz(ed) something for his purposes(i.e.,golf)",  cannot be written away. AR's designation as the first architect was the expedient choice, you have to start somewhere when establishing a profession.

And as for Macdonald, who before him was determined to construct a golf course that met every ideal, with out compromise? 

[Bradley Anderson]

I think this is one of those questions that etymology helps to answer.

The term architect comes from the Greek arckhi meaning "leading" and tekton meaning "builder". An architect is basically a MASTER BUILDER.

Now, can we really say that there was much master-building of golf courses being done before Sunningdale? From what I can tell, that was the beginning of architecture. Why not sooner?

1) The use of grass seed as a means of propagating large areas of fabricated landscape was not in practice until Sunningdale.

2) The elite class of sportsmen where not quite enamored enough to put substantial capital behind master-building until roughly this period in time. And even then they seem to have been more inclined to put that capital to work with men of their own class than they were the  professional/greenkeeper, which may have delayed the progress by a decade or so.

And yet, with all that said, Myopia actually may be a forerunner to Sunningdale. Maybe Leeds was the first Architect?

[TEPaul]

"AR's designation as the first architect was the expedient choice, you have to start somewhere when establishing a profession."


Jim:

I realize you have to start somewhere in establishing the beginning of a profession and I think AR and what he did is a fine place to start.

But I do hear Sean Arble's point that if you just lay holes on the ground without actually building anything (as C&C apparently did with 17 greens at Sand Hills that reputedly cost about $300-400 each to do) are you actually doing golf course architecture?

Well, I guess so and I do realize this kind of thing can cut a whole lot of different ways depending on how anyone looks at it.

Years ago when I felt I had C&C lined up to do that Ardrossan Farm project I got a call from this guy who was apparently the representative of some soup to nuts California architect. He asked me if he could come over to my house and talk to me about the project and so I told him sure why not.

So he came over with all these brochures and such and photos and sample plans and then he told me I shouldn't hire Coore and Crenshaw. So I asked him why not. He told me because they weren't really architects! I said: "Oh really, then how have they managed to produce a bunch of golf courses?" He said they were only golf course designers, not really golf course architects.

At that point I told him I was a bit pressed for time because I had to milk the Llamas and give the peacocks their bath. So he left and that was the last I saw him.

So I don't know, maybe my good friend Bill Coore is nothing much more than one of those Scottish sheepherders from the 16th century knocking a rock around and into a rabbit hole with his staff but somehow I think he must be a bit more than that, don't you? 

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

I like particularly your #2 above. Right around this time we surely do notice that with golf courses we begin to hear and read that common description in the reviews of golf courses and projects----ie "No expense spared."

That was a pretty sharp and immediate departure from and contrast to the way things had been done just about everywhere right up until around the turn of the century. The part seed or actual dedicated golf grass planting played in this, I think, as I believe you do too, has been massively underestimated in the way we all look at this entire subject of golf architecture and its history.

[Sean_A]

Paul (and I suppose Sean Arble too):

I would think the question with a question like yours would be---for our purposes should we consider that anyone who has ever had an idea about doing anything at all on a golf course that was actually done be considered by us to be a golf course architect?

I realize that question of mine departs somewhat from the meaning and question of this thread---eg what was the real beginning of golf course architecture, but then it just does. For me I feel the two (architecture/architect) pretty much go hand in hand for fairly obvious reasons and that's why I look at a guy like Alan Robertson as the first architect and basically what he did as the first real architecture on a course.

But then there is another potentially interesting matter and question at hand----why did Macdonald refer to himself as the first architect with what he was up to leading up to with NGLA? Since he was certainly aware that a number of people before him had laid out golf courses I think that question bears a bit more analysis than to just write that remark and him off as just some super-egotistical guy.

Dave:

If Pat Mucci tries to make even a single mile out of MY "Maintenance Meld" to try to show somebody he knows something or that he ever had an original thought on architecture, well then, my lawyers will be seeing his lawyers! 

I don't know what your purposes are.  You seem to be looking for some arbitrary beginning to architecture - perhaps when the "architect" actually created more than he found.  If this is the case, I haven't a clue where you should start looking because I disagree completely with the premise that using pre-existing land forms is not architecture.  Its also must beg the question is Sand Hills architecture?  I already stated that this is silly conjecture, but your line of thinking logically leads to the question.  I know its a sloppy way to look at it, but then no matter where your arbitrary timeline begins it will be sloppy - imo even sloppier.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

By the way, the club records of Myopia show that on their first course in 1894 (pre-Leeds) they didn't plant their course. They just turned some cows loose on most of the existing grass that they used for the course but they did sod their greens, fenced them with temporary fencing and put sheep in them when they weren't playing. They even mentioned the sheep shelter next to the old Court tennis court.

So where did they get the sod to plant those greens? That's a good question but seeing as they were first a polo club they probably got it from some of their polo fields.

[TEPaul]

Sean Arble:

If you haven't a clue where to start looking for the beginning of architecture and you don't agree with the premise then that's fine---thanks for at least that and for following along up to now. See you around the board on some other thread I guess.

But for me, when I see a man like C.B. Macdonald write a remark like that for the whole world of architecture to read and muse over, it tends to get my attention and to want to look for a bit more than just easily writing him and that remark off as the thought of some out of control egoist! 

[Kyle Harris]

Tom:

You'll recall that I proposed the idea at Penn State that the first level of golf architecture was the laying out of the targets and starting points on the property.

If we look at this from the point of what the golfer may "touch" the golf ball (originally) and improve his lie (on the tee), the idea that architecture begins with the layout is easily accepted.

The hole represents the interrupt point from nature. The distance between the hole to the next tee is the only distance in the course where the golfer may carry the ball and then start from an ideal lie of his making. From the tee the golfer reintroduces himself to nature. As such, the path dictated by man from the golf hole to the next tee is probably the first example of what you would define as architecture as the architect is selecting which points of the land are able to be traversed outside of play.

[Sean_A]

Sean Arble:

If you haven't a clue where to start looking for the beginning of architecture and you don't agree with the premise then that's fine---thanks for at least that and for following along up to now. See you around the board on some other thread I guess.

But for me, when I see a man like C.B. Macdonald write a remark like that for the whole world of architecture to read and muse over, it tends to get my attention and to look for a bit more than just easily writing him off as some out of control egoist! 

Tom

I stated I don't have a clue where to look for your idea of the start of architecture because I don't know what your idea is.  Though I expect your question is leading to a pre-conceived answer.  My idea of architecture starts well before Mac or Roberston.  However, it is obvious that you aren't really looking for the beginnings of architecture, you are looking for the beginnings of a certain sort of architecture which probably involves elements such as purposefully built elements and perhaps even seed/turf evolution.  Just cut to the chase.

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
I suspect that the majority of them don't care Who's first, What's on second, or I don't know's on third, as long as they get good projects and get paid (unless they're doing something pro bono).

A few letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're the Master of anything.

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

Yes, I certainly can accept that is the very first or most basic level of golf architecture. I guess I just feel the need to carry it on a bit so the analysis of it isn't so basic as to become virtually meaningless.

I mean I actually walked the sites of both Friars Head and Hidden Creek with Bill Coore right around the time a basic routing was being found on those two properties. But if he stopped at that point and just cut 18 holes in the ground I do not believe I would say any meaningful architecture had been done and he probably wouldn't either.

But others on here might.  

[TEPaul]

"However, it is obvious that you aren't really looking for the beginnings of architecture, you are looking for the beginnings of a certain sort of architecture which probably involves elements such as purposefully built elements and perhaps even seed/turf evolution."

Sean Arble:

I'd say that would be a pretty safe bet. Congratulations. I'm really not looking at glorified shepherds knocking a rock around and into rabbit holes with their staffs. If you think that's the beginning of golf architecture or the first golf architects be my guest; that's fine. I just look at it differently than you do apparently.

[Sean_A]

"However, it is obvious that you aren't really looking for the beginnings of architecture, you are looking for the beginnings of a certain sort of architecture which probably involves elements such as purposefully built elements and perhaps even seed/turf evolution."

Sean Arble:

I'd say that would be a pretty safe bet. Congratulations. I'm really not looking at glorified shepherds knocking a rock around and into rabbit holes with their staffs. If you think that's the beginning of golf architecture or the first golf architects be my guest; that's fine. I just look at it differently than you do apparently.

Tom

I spose because we hit fancy rocks with fancy staffs into holes on well manicured greens that it makes much difference about the architecture - OK, if you say so Tom. 

Ciao 

[Kirk Gill]

We have been round this one before.  You think architecture starts with the hand of man creating something.  I think architecture starts with the mind of man creating or utilizing something for his purposes.  Yes, using an old wall, nob, hollow, burn, building etc. etc as part of the design is architecture.  So with this in mind, I say architecture started when folks started whacking balls toward a hole.  Furthermore, with the recent fade toward getting the most out of the land I can't see how using pre-existing land forms to one's end isn't architecture.  What, half (or whatever - you get the point) of Sand Hills isn't architecture?  The very thought of this sounds ridiculous.  And if we accept that Sand Hills is architecture, then we must accept that the stuff done in the old days was architecture.  It noacana be any other way.

Ciao

Sean, reading this post made me think of what constituted the beginning of architecture generally. If some ancestor of mine found a cave, and walked into it, was architecture being performed? Or if he built a fire, did it happen then? Or what about if he went about improving it in some way, adding some brush to sleep on, etc........I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. At some point someone walked around on a bit of ground, and perhaps he hit a rock with a stick towards a particular bit of high ground, or a bush, or a tree, etc. Was that the birth of GCA, right there?

I absolutely think that using pre-existing landforms constitutes golf course architecture, because there's a mind behind it, deciding that the ball's going to be hit FROM here TO there. And we're going to make that to and from journey happen 18 times. And we're going to admit impediments.

What's interesting though is to think about when those decisions about using land forms progressed a step or three, to the point where the people who wanted to make golf courses felt like they had a vocabulary of features that they wanted to implement, taken from nature and from existing courses, and wanted to use that vocabulary to create something new. While ego was certainly involved there, who knows if the ego of a man like Macdonald was central, if he thought of GCA as self-gratification, or if he really thought he was performing some kind of higher purpose.

What was the question again?   

[Sean_A]

We have been round this one before.  You think architecture starts with the hand of man creating something.  I think architecture starts with the mind of man creating or utilizing something for his purposes.  Yes, using an old wall, nob, hollow, burn, building etc. etc as part of the design is architecture.  So with this in mind, I say architecture started when folks started whacking balls toward a hole.  Furthermore, with the recent fade toward getting the most out of the land I can't see how using pre-existing land forms to one's end isn't architecture.  What, half (or whatever - you get the point) of Sand Hills isn't architecture?  The very thought of this sounds ridiculous.  And if we accept that Sand Hills is architecture, then we must accept that the stuff done in the old days was architecture.  It noacana be any other way.

Ciao

Sean, reading this post made me think of what constituted the beginning of architecture generally. If some ancestor of mine found a cave, and walked into it, was architecture being performed? Or if he built a fire, did it happen then? Or what about if he went about improving it in some way, adding some brush to sleep on, etc........I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. At some point someone walked around on a bit of ground, and perhaps he hit a rock with a stick towards a particular bit of high ground, or a bush, or a tree, etc. Was that the birth of GCA, right there?

I absolutely think that using pre-existing landforms constitutes golf course architecture, because there's a mind behind it, deciding that the ball's going to be hit FROM here TO there. And we're going to make that to and from journey happen 18 times. And we're going to admit impediments.

What's interesting though is to think about when those decisions about using land forms progressed a step or three, to the point where the people who wanted to make golf courses felt like they had a vocabulary of features that they wanted to implement, taken from nature and from existing courses, and wanted to use that vocabulary to create something new. While ego was certainly involved there, who knows if the ego of a man like Macdonald was central, if he thought of GCA as self-gratification, or if he really thought he was performing some kind of higher purpose.

What was the question again?   

Kirk

It could very well be true that Mac was on purposeful mission to bring golf to the US, but not just golf, he wanted to bring traditional golf in all its forms and preserve it in the US.  To some degree he failed as this had to be the case.  In another sense he succeeded because we still talk about Mac, his vision for the game and to some degree it still exists. 

I know where Tom is going with his questions(s) and I am giving him a hard time because I don't believe his ideas of how architecture began and what it exactly is can be reconciled with the traditional and long standing use of pre-existing land forms to get the job done.  He somehow wants to separate the man-made from natural and it just can't be done.  Though I do fully understand that Tom is really looking for what really launched architecture into the creature we know it as today.  In this way he is right, the hand of man (the willingness to move dirt and still make it attractive to the eye) both in the design and agronomy sides of the business are largely the start of what I would call modern architecture - and for me this really starts around the time TOC became the course we know it as today - say 1880ish. 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()