What influence(s) did NGLA have...

[Ran Morrissett]

...in the development of architecture in this country? Clearly, Macdonald intended it to have a vast influence but has it?

I have read comments from many architects of the Golden Age about their thoughts on Pine Valley and obviously enough, Pine Valley made a deep and lasting impression (as it does with anyone who plays there).

However, I have seen far fewer comments/impressions on NGLA. Raynor and Macdonald certainly considered it ideal but how many other architects - past or present - shared the same belief in the merits of this design?

Cheers,

[CBM]

I think you answered your own question, TOO LITTLE

[CBM]

Maybe you should interview me, you did talk to that talented Thomas fellow.

[TEPaul]

Ran:

To answer, "What influences(s) did NGLA have on the development of architecture in this country?", the first thing that needs to happen is to put NGLA in the context of its own time, and ask;

What was so different before it and how did it attempt to change that and itself become different from what came before it in America?

An excellent description of what those factors were is found in GeoffShac's "The Golden Age of Golf design" in the two pages describing "The National School".
 
It's also helpful in understanding the influences of NGLA itself to understand the other influences in early American golf of C.B MacDonald himself. He was not just a man who built a revolutionary golf course influencing golf architecture, he was the actual founder of many other things in early American golf.

Some of us who think of ourselves as "purists" would likely be shocked at how rudimentary golf and its playing fields and architecture generally was in America before NGLA. To open a window on that time and look back we would probably see a game that to us now wouldn't appear much more than a pastime of knocking a ball around in fields with golf features that were surprisingly unsophisticated and slightly repulsive looking.

That was the atmosphere of golf in America that MacDonald was reacting to when he created NGLA; Obviously because of that atmosphere his primary tenets in creating NGLA were;

1. To build a course with "no weak holes", and,

2. To build a course that made what we now call "strategic sense" and also one that could be played by various levels of golfers in their own "strategic" way!

When we consider those two things today we're probably failing to recognize how dramatic a shift in golf design that truly was. We're surely failing to see how rudimentary things were preceding NGLA, in my opinion. MacDonald's effort at NGLA was a real departure from the sort of "lay-out" or "semi lay-out" courses that had come before it in America and perhaps to a degree any other golf course even in Europe.

Clearly Europe was ahead of America in early golf architecture by 1907 but it's unlikely that any course anywhere had been given the dedicated thought and comprehensive effort in both design and construction in an "every hole" context that was given to NGLA by MacDonald and Raynor.

The "every hole" (or "no weak hole") context is probably much more important than we might at first think now. MacDonald did bring back hole ideas and concepts from Europe but he may have felt that his golf course taken as a "whole" was of higher quality and more refined and sophisticated than any entire course even in Europe! And, at the time, in my opinion, he may have been right!

The phrase "no weak holes" should be taken very seriously by us today in considering exactly what that meant in an architectural sense at that time and what the influences of NGLA were because of that! I think that explains #1.

#2 explains MacDonald's influence on golf and architecture in America as the introducer of what we today consider "designed" (or architectural) strategy on a golf course! The way he did that at NGLA is a thread throughout golf that will obviously never leave the game. The key word there is on "designed" as opposed to some of the more natural and "evolutionary" strategic courses in Europe that preceded NGLA. Because of that he very well may completely deserve the term, "The father of golf architecture".

NGLA's primary influence in America was probably that it was such a dedicated and dramatic "design" effort to take golf and architecture to a more sophisticated and imaginative level--and it did that!

But many of us may consider NGLA and that dramatic architectural effort the high water mark of golf architecture or the most sophisticated golf architecture in the so-called "Golden Age". I don't!

I consider it just what I think it is--an extremely dramatic first step from which many others quickly followed its lead in attempting to take golf architecture to even higher levels of sophistication--and they did, and very rapidly and dramaticaly in the 20-25 years that followed NGLA.

The whole idea of "championship" designs quickly followed NGLA's dedicated architectural effort and took architecture to another level beyond NGLA's intentions (it was not supposed to be primarily "championship") and are some of the most architecturally sophisticated courses still in the world today.

From NGLA to the sophisticated "non-engineered" look of the "Monterey School", ANGC, Shinnecock, Seminole etc, etc just preceding the crash and the depression was the duration of the "golden Age", in my opinion, and then it all stopped and the hiatus came!

I love NGLA as much as any course, but for what it was, for what it started, and I consider it's architecture in the context of the time it was built. I love the quirky and even "engineered" holes of NGLA, just like back then they will always be great to play. Coore is right to say; "I can't believe they had the imagination to build those holes and the guts to actually do it."

But I like to put the course in the context of the dramatic evolution it obviously began--and that would be at the beginning. I think NGLA's real influence in America is that it's the one that lit the fuse that created the explosion of sophisticated architecture in America that followed it for the next 25 years or so!

To put NGLA in that context and to say that it inspired others to go beyond it to even higher levels in architecture, which they did, is taking nothing at all away from NGLA or it's architecture, in my opinion!

[regular]

Unfortunately CB (above) is right.  The lessons at National are largely ignored.  Sadly.

American golf is now the antithesis of CB's dream.

CB fought hard for match play and its tenets, we are sadly stuck with courses so fair and always ready for stroke play.

Firm and fast? Ha!

Blind, quirk, character?  Finally we are seeing something again in America after ?70 years?  And some people act as if they invented or found it?  It was here all along and built for that purpose.  If CB is to be criticized, he was too elitist and didn't expose as he hoped he would.

If Thomas is the most disrespected, CBMacdonald is the most ignored.

How many Joe Blows have even hear of CB and the National?  What this group thinks is irrelevant.

Unfortunately, you can make a strong case that NGLA is the nadir of american golf architecture on a purely architectural basis, you can say it has never been surpassed, using only what is old as "new" again.

[Jeff Fortson]

I know that the question asked here is not "how did NGLA change you" but I figured I'd just drop a quick comment.

It changed my entire outlook of golf course architecture.  I think it is the best piece of golf course artwork in this country and maybe in the world.  I have been trying to study everything about it and CB Mac.  

If you've never played NGLA make it a must on your to do list in golf.  You won't regret it.

Jeff F.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Dazzling post.

Bob

[A_Clay_Man]

Is it possible to quantify the "wrong turn at lungfish" as it pertains to GCa?

The antithesis of building on the shoulders of giants, is there one person or group of people who could be blamed for what is so wrong with GCA in america?

Quantifying the time frame may not be as difficult but I'm interested in your opinion on the people who are responsible for all the crap.

[Sebonac]

TEPAUL....Very interesting viewpoint....Great post...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

I think CBM made it acceptable to copy other eminent holes.

His influence must have touched other architects because you see them duplicating REDANS, SHORT, etc., etc., in their designs, holes that CBM made recognizeable and acceptable.

Through his influence it became acceptable to design innovative, bold, daring holes as well.

Perhaps his personality kept him from getting more credit, and perhaps that personality combined with the genius of the architecture at NGLA caused those less secure with themselves to deny rather than credit their legacy, CBM.

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

[Ran Morrissett]

Wouldn't such NGLA greens as the 1st and 6th have possessed BY FAR the most interior contours of any greens in the U.S. at the time that the course opened?

Certainly, Myopia Hunt's did not and I think of Oakmont's as having more tilt (and later speed) than specific interior contour.

Of course, such greens have still hardly been rivaled in this country except for some of the amazing ones at Pine Valley (2, 16, etc.) and a few other courses like Prairie Dunes, Yale and Crystal Downs.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

Some overlook the 3rd green at NGLA, it has wonderful internal contouring, but because of its size, and the apparent propensity, from my perspective, for the pins to be center to left center, most don't give it its due.

#'s 11, 12, and especially 15 also seem to get forgotten in favor or the more dramatic 1st and 6th holes.

Do you also think, as time went by, that it was deemed
that an architect suffered from a lack of imagination if he copied an existing hole, instead of creating his own ?

Did duplicating great holes fall out of favor ?

With all the courses designed in the last 40 years, why does their seem to be a paucity of "plateau/double plateau/maiden
greens, road greens, redan greens, boomerang greens, hogback and horseshoe greens.  Cape holes, alps holes, bottle holes
Where have they gone ??  
Why aren't they being created in substantial numbers ?
BECAUSE IT'S NON-ORIGINAL ?

Some say it might be because it would pay homage to dead guys instead of the guy who just designed the course and received a large fee.

In the ME GENERATION, is that an inaccurate assessment ?

With improved earth moving equipment one can't say that the sites didn't present the opportunity, so why have these holes disappeared from modern day courses ?

Has anyone seen a course built in the last 40 years that has many of these holes and features ?

Not having played many Nicklaus or Fazio courses, can those of you who have tell me if these holes and features are incorporated in any of their designs ?

Is it easier to deny a legacy and collect a fee ?