GCA Book Club – Discussion on Golf Architecture in America Chapters III, IV, V

[Joe_Tucholski]

From my perspective Thomas seems to make important points in the first sentence of each chapter (or one of the first few sentences like the third chapter).  Here are the early sentences for the respective chapters

III:  "A choice of the ground must be considered from the viewpoint of construction, and, therefore, construction and choice go logically together, just as construction and strategy must often be dealt with jointly."

IV: "The well-conceived golf property must be designed as a whole; and while it is true that plans of the clubhouse and its necessary adjacent buildings, parking space, and so forth, should be worked out and submitted by the usual experts, nevertheless your golf architect must be consulted as to the situation of such units; for if they are not properly located they conflict with the course itself, and everything can be made to dovetail without interference."

V: "In golf construction art and utility meet; both are absolutely vital; one is utterly ruined without the other.”

Let us hear your thoughts, reactions or questions pertaining to chapters III-V.

[Mac Plumart]

Joe...

Your quote regarding III, sounds to me like Melvyn saying "land fit for the purpose".  I like it.

I've always liked chapter IV, but kind of felt it was over my head...as I've never designed a course and club.  I do like the sense I get that his goal is to have the golf course be the central and driving force of the entire deal.  Real estate and non-golf stuff are clearly seconday...I feel like this was not the case of the last several years/decades.

You quote regarding V screams Max Behr to me.  I love it!

[Garland Bayley]

Is the reason this book is so well liked the numerous pictures and illustrations?

I am not too pleased to read statements such as the following: "Water hazards are some of the best and most thrilling of natural strategy, and sometimes artificial water hazards are well conceived." (emphasis added)

He goes on to praise Pine Valley as ideal golf country in part due to it's lakes. I have yet to see anyone execute a recovery shot from the bottom of a lake, and yet he touts the necessity of providing for recovery shots.

[Joe_Tucholski]

Chapters III and IV had a good number of "rules" to follow.  (number of hills, valley widths to fit holes, sand trap drainage, water for irrigation requirements, placement of the clubhouse, required acreage...)  I'm guessing these rules are pretty good guidelines but what I have difficulty wrapping my head around is when you can disregard the "rules" and when someone feels comfortable breaking the "rules."  Should the rules only be broken out of necessity?

You quote regarding V screams Max Behr to me.  I love it!

Mac, I read the opening quote for the chapter titled "Beauty and Utility" and was sure it would be my favorite chapter of the book, I wasn't disappointed.  That being said I re-read the chapter because I wasn't exactly sure if Thomas placed a greater emphasis on utility or beauty.  After the re-read I was surprised at how great an emphasis was placed on drainage.  To me it seemed like the beauty side was discussed more but quotes like "the practical side of green building must consider drainage and subdrainage of the first importance" show a greater emphasis should be placed on utility.

So does anyone disagree?  Should a greater emphasis be placed on Beauty or Utility?  Similarly in a hypothetical (or not so hypothetical situation for the architects) if you were building a course would you start with aesthetics and make the utility work or would you start with utility and make it aesthetic?

Is the reason this book is so well liked the numerous pictures and illustrations?

I am not too pleased to read statements such as the following: "Water hazards are some of the best and most thrilling of natural strategy, and sometimes artificial water hazards are well conceived." (emphasis added)

He goes on to praise Pine Valley as ideal golf country in part due to it's lakes. I have yet to see anyone execute a recovery shot from the bottom of a lake, and yet he touts the necessity of providing for recovery shots.

Garland I'm going to be honest and admit I haven't really examined many of the pictures or illustrations.  I wish more were referenced in the text.  I figure I will go back and review them when I'm done reading.

What are people's favorite images so far?

I had the same quote pulled out in my notes as something I wasn’t expecting to find in a “Golden Age” book.  He does put a vague caveat that water should not be overdone.  When artificial water hazards were mentioned in the thread on ODG caring about weak players that quote came to mind.

The rest of the paragraph was also interesting (the bit about variety and a course having virgin trees, sand dunes, plateaus, rolling hills, lakes and streams).  I kind of like a general uniformity to courses.  I want some sort of identity to a course.  Thomas cites Pine Valley as a course that has lots of variety.  I haven't played it but I have played Bandon Trails and it has holes in diverse settings. 

Do people generally like the diversity of Bandon Trails and Pine Valley or do they want more of a single identity to a course?

[Garland Bayley]

...
Do people generally like the diversity of Bandon Trails and Pine Valley or do they want more of a single identity to a course?

When I played competitive basketball, I had no awareness of what went on outside the boundary lines of the court. My college coach always had to get someone to give me a message on court, as he could not get my attention from outside it. When I play Bandon Trails, I am highly aware of the land over which I play and don't miss the ocean view at all. As a matter of fact, it wasn't until I played Pacific Dunes a second time with a friend who kept pointing out the ocean views, that I realized how many views there were. Before that, I was only aware of them on 4, 10, 11, and 13 as they defined the boundary of play.

The thing I find disconcerting about the beauty and utility chapter is that he is going overboard to a certain extent in favor of utility as he get down to discussing fair and unfair. Now Mac thought he sounded like Max Behr, but it can also be said he sounds like Joshua Crane.

[Garland Bayley]

  Should the rules only be broken out of necessity?

If you read their books, it seems that most architects break their own rules regularly. Perhaps that's a key to getting diversity.

So does anyone disagree?  Should a greater emphasis be placed on Beauty or Utility?  Similarly in a hypothetical (or not so hypothetical situation for the architects) if you were building a course would you start with aesthetics and make the utility work or would you start with utility and make it aesthetic?

Utility wins in my book. On a good site a minimalist is not going to touch nature that much, and from that nature will flow beauty. But, it still has to drain.

Garland I'm going to be honest and admit I haven't really examined many of the pictures or illustrations.  I wish more were referenced in the text.  I figure I will go back and review them when I'm done reading.

What are people's favorite images so far?

I'm like you. Since they are not referenced from the text, I haven't been looking at the illustrations. Therefore, I have no favorite.

[Mac Plumart]

Should the rules only be broken out of necessity?


If you read their books, it seems that most architects break their own rules regularly. Perhaps that's a key to getting diversity.

Here what I always found as odd reading the ODG's.  If the land and naturalness is suppossed to be a calling card, how can you have hard and fast rules?  It seems the land dictates everything and you do what you can from there.

[Garland Bayley]

Mac,

Max Behr, or Joshua Crane?

It seems to me he is too prescriptive and his mention of fair/unfair clearly puts him in the Crane camp. You still think he sounds like Behr?
If so, why?

[Mac Plumart]

Garland...

I didn't see where you were coming from at first, but I see it now and I think you are on to something.

His chapter on "Beauty and Utility" starts off Behr like to me and throughout the book he seems to espouse Behr-esque principles.

"On the artistic side there is a theory of construction with a main fundamental that we copy nature; in this we all seem to agree."

"The contours of our tees, of our hazards, our greens...should...all melt into the land surrounding them."

But then, I read things like...

"In the forming of greens, beautiful modeling must conform to what a ball will do when it lands on a green from certain distances, and knowledge of what shot is neccessary to reach it from strategic points, decides the contours of the green.

Rolls must not take up too much of the green.  There must be space for the placing of the cup, and plenty of space for its changing."

"The green ought to be of the proper size for the shot."

I think this is the Crane side of Thomas that you are touching on.  I see it.  But I still feel he is "more" Behr than Crane.  But I also recognize I maybe totally wrong and many may disagree.

[Garland Bayley]

I'm seeing more Crane than Behr. As we go on we will see him calling places done like Pacific Dunes, Bandon Trails, and Old MacDonald unfair.