[Peter Pallotta]

Edit

Peter    

[BCrosby]

Tom Mac -

I think you are over-stating HWW's influence. It's possible that he introduced the names of great architest to a wide public audience. I don't know. But our current views about those architects have been determined by a whole range of things in the three or four decades since HWW first brought up their names.

I'm prepared to give HWW credit for getting there first (again, I don't know), but our current thinking about those architects has been anything but lockstep since. For one thing, us plebes know a lot more about both them and their courses.

Better put, would we have different opinons about MacK et al. today if someone other than HWW had been the first to mention them? If HWW hadn't written about them, would we have a different list of the greatest American architects?

Bob


  

[David Kelly]

So what I am really getting at is this; what occurred to cause the everyday golf writer and golfer to stop paying attention to architectural excellence?

The Depression, World War II, the post War exodus from the cities to the suburbs and the fact that virtually nothing was happening of note in golf architecture from the late 30s through the 60s. Macdonald, Ross, MacKenzie, etc. had all left the scene, courses were being turned into real estate and there was nothing to write about.

[Phil_the_Author]

David,

That explains why course construction declined; heck it may even explain why modern (to those years) architects weren't valued or appreciated, but it certainly doesn't explain why men such as Mackenzie, Ross, Tillinghast and others were FORGOTTEN! Especially not with golf exploding after the war in popularity. No, I think the answers lay in the televising of the game and the reporting of events changing to where the hero worship of the great pros became synonomous with the game rather than representative of how the game could be played.

Look at the Merion thread as an example. There is a "lively discussion" (for lack of better words) on what constitutes a "Golfing Expert" that would qualify someone to then be ABLE to DESIGN golf courses. You may not remember, but when Palmer began designing courses and it became known to his public it was greeted with either "Why would he do that?" or "That's because he's too old to compete." The thought that designing golf courses was not only a noble practice in its own right or something that one shpould aspire to doing never enterred the picture.

Today during every major and many regular televised tournaments, not only are the names of the original designer spoken of with respect, but quite often the names of those who have redesigned or renovated the course. Our view of architects and architecture has definitely changed.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

Where do you think Wind got his information on Wilson and the other amateur architects?

Mike
My guess would be a combination of sources. I know when he wrote his massive piece on PV in the early 50s and he interviewed some of the old timers. Crumps' friend Col Baker being one of them. Wind was also tremendous researcher, based on some of the info found in his essay its clear to me he has access to a very good library, with all the old golf magazines.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom Mac -

I think you are over-stating HWW's influence. It's possible that he introduced the names of great architest to a wide public audience. I don't know. But our current views about those architects have been determined by a whole range of things in the three or four decades since HWW first brought up their names.

I'm prepared to give HWW credit for getting there first (again, I don't know), but our current thinking about those architects has been anything but lockstep since. For one thing, us plebes know a lot more about both them and their courses.

Better put, would we have different opinons about MacK et al. today if someone other than HWW had been the first to mention them? If HWW hadn't written about them, would we have a different list of the greatest American architects?

Bob
  

Bob
In the 50s, 60s and half the 70s there was no else writing about golf architecture history. The Story of American Golf had at least one chapter devoted to it, and that was 1948. The Complete Golfer (1954), he gave whole section to RTJ to srite about the great courses. His articles in the New Yorker and other magazines for many years touched on its history. He wrote a major article on golf architecture history that I believe appeared in SI in 1966. It was a two-part article that later appeared in the Great Golf Courses of the World. That article had tremendous influence. He wrote a similar article in the forward of The World Atlas of Golf. He also was a contributor to the Encyclopedia of Golf. I believe he wrote all the profiles on the great American courses (100) and the important golf architects. This was all before Cornsih & Whitten.

[Tom MacWood]

Better put, would we have different opinons about MacK et al. today if someone other than HWW had been the first to mention them? If HWW hadn't written about them, would we have a different list of the greatest American architects?
  

I think it is possible. I don't have much quarrel with his big four, especially from an American perspective. But what if he substituted Colt or Thompson or Flynn, would our perception of those men be different today? Possibly. His stories of the one hit wonder is really where made a big impression i think, and we now know he had a number of his facts wrong.

[Tom MacWood]

So what I am really getting at is this; what occurred to cause the everyday golf writer and golfer to stop paying attention to architectural excellence?

As David said I think the combination of the Depression, the major golf magazines failing and WWII brought golf architecture and golf architecture writing to a hault. Into the void stepped RTJ and Wind, and they really had little competition. I think it is accepted with RTJ that lack of competition turned out to be bad in the long run. I wouldn't say Wind was bad for golf, he was very good for golf, but he was only person documenting golf architecture history.

[David Kelly]

Philip,

Remember that at the same time that RTJ and Dick Wilson were going around and "modernizing" many of the old classic courses in the 50s and 60s there were thousands of great old buildings being torn down throughout the country in the name of modernization and urban renewal.  Classic golf course architecture was not held in as high esteem as it is now so it wasn't important to a lot of people to write about it or to venerate the great gca practioners of the past.

People's attitude towards historic architecture of all types has undergone a sea change since the 50s and 60s.  You would never see a Pennsylvania Station torn down nowadays for example.

As for our current attitudes towards architecture I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that the best architects of today (Doak, Coore, etc.) spend time talking about what they have learned from the likes of Macdonald, MacKenzie and the courses of the UK and the influences show in their work.  On the other hand RTJ, Wilson, Ncklaus and Fazio seemed to act as if they had no precursors.

[TEPaul]

I love subjects like I thought this thread was about from the intiial post, but I would like to see the point of it focused. If it can be about the feelings and opinions of the likes of Wind or Darwin on the pros and cons of the best of the amateur architects of that early era (just before the turn of the 20th century to approximately the end of WW1) compared to the professional architects of that same era, I'm in and would love to discuss it!

[David Stamm]

It seems to me that the magazine publications up to the '30's gave golfers an education of who these men were and what they did. American Golfer and Golf Illustrated, to me, made the first (and perhaps biggest) impact in this regard. I think HWW played a role, there is no doubt about that, but Tillie, Behr, Travis and others really made an effort to educate the golfers in America. I also think Scotty Chisholms role in this cannot be discounted.

[Tom MacWood]

It seems to me that the magazine publications up to the '30's gave golfers an education of who these men were and what they did. American Golfer and Golf Illustrated, to me, made the first (and perhaps biggest) impact in this regard. I think HWW played a role, there is no doubt about that, but Tillie, Behr, Travis and others really made an effort to educate the golfers in America. I also think Scotty Chisholms role in this cannot be discounted.

I doubt many golfers in the 50s and 60s were exposed to the writing of the 20s and 30s. Wind was really there only source of golf architecture writing that looked back.

[TEPaul]

"Wind is largely responsible for creating the mythology of the American amateur architect that we now take for granted - the story of Wilson at Merion, Crump at PV and Nevill & Grant at Pebble Beach. For some reason he ingored Leeds from his home town of Boston."


Tom:

You ask if HWW gets enough credit or blame for what he wrote about various things to do with architecture and architects. With what you said above about what Wind wrote about a few American amateur architects are you suggesting what he said about them was historically inaccurate in some way, and if so, how was he historically inaccurate about them? If you're not suggesting that then why do you describe the way he wrote about them as 'mythology' and 'romanticizing?'

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Mac,

For one thing, Wind's two parter in GD about 1965 came just as I was getting interested in gca and was a big influence on me.  Writing about Ross hillocks (I think that is what he called them) got me to thinking they should be used more.  In a way, it was instrumental in me starting my own business because I tried some hillocks on a course and was told by my mentors that "we don't do that".  Not that I wasn't going to go on my own anyway, but I used that comment as a spur to get me off my ass and really do it!

BTW, I haven't seen a copy of that personally signifigant article in years. If any of you gca guys can post it here, it would be a trip down memory lane. I also recall a GD architecture article by Gary Player that came out about the same time and would love to see that again.

I wonder why GD had a flurry of architecture articles in that time period?  I also recall one about Pete Dye emerging.

[BCrosby]

Tommy Mac -

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. That HWW has had a formative and lasting influence on how we think about Amercian gca? That he created "mythologies" that (except for an enlightened few) we all still believe? But for HWW we wouldn't hold certain views? Give me a better picture of the historical causation you are proposing.

HWW gets full points for reviving interest in gca in the US. I am unaware, however, of any designer or course that he discussed that was not well established in the gca pantheon by the end of the Golden Age.     

The exception being moderns like RTJ. But if the claim is that HWW is still determining our views about gca more than fifty years on, he didn't do a very good job for his boy RTJ.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

You are right, and I think this is a very confused and "mailed in" thread.  I was only a very casual observer of GCA 30+ years ago, but I knew about Ross and Mackenzie and Macdonald, and not through HWW except maybe osmotically.  I then read SI fairly religiously and the New Yorker occcasionally, but Herbie really wasn't on my radar.  The orginal World Atlas of Golf was the first time I ever saw a coherent expostion of GCA, but I knew fairly well about Dornoch or HWW (for example) before that fine book was published.

Anybody who was in those days was tricked by HWW into believing anything about GCA must have been very naive and/or very young.

Rich

[JESII]

Tom MacWood,

How are you defining "mythology" in your use of the word in the opening post of this thread?




Tom and David,

The offer was clear as a bell if you'd like to have faith in the source. If you do not have any faith than the offer probably rings hollow to you both, but that is your choice. I think it would be very beneficial for all involved for you to pursue that course.

[Tom MacWood]

Tommy Mac -

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. That HWW has had a formative and lasting influence on how we think about Amercian gca? That he created "mythologies" that (except for an enlightened few) we all still believe? But for HWW we wouldn't hold certain views? Give me a better picture of the historical causation you are proposing.

HWW gets full points for reviving interest in gca in the US. I am unaware, however, of any designer or course that he discussed that was not well established in the gca pantheon by the end of the Golden Age.     

The exception being moderns like RTJ. But if the claim is that HWW is still determining our views about gca more than fifty years on, he didn't do a very good job for his boy RTJ.

Bob

Bob
His promoting of RTJ in the 1950s is separate from the influence he had writing about the golden age. That has more to with reporting on current events. By the way Wind became a critic of RTJ and modern golf architecture in the 1970s.

HWW is largely responsible for creating and publicizing the stories of Merion, PVGC and PBGL, at the expensive of people like Macdonald, Colt and Egan.

His Merion story suggested Wilson travelled abroad in 1910 prior to designing the course. He also made the point the course had nothing in common with the NGLA, evidently not knowing the course he knew was the result of more than a decade of remodeling. His account at PV has Colt designing one hole - the 5th. There is no mention of Egan's dramatic overhaul of Pebble Beach prior to the 1929 US Am.

He obviously felt the less help these fellows had the more interesting the story, unfortunately its not factual. And we have seen first hand what happens when some of these long accepted tales are challenged. If thats not an illustration of Wind's impact I don't know what is.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood,

How are you defining "mythology" in your use of the word in the opening post of this thread?




Tom and David,

The offer was clear as a bell if you'd like to have faith in the source. If you do not have any faith than the offer probably rings hollow to you both, but that is your choice. I think it would be very beneficial for all involved for you to pursue that course.

The stories are myths. These men had a lot more help than what Wind tells us.  

[BCrosby]

"If thats not an illustration of Wind's impact I don't know what is."

No, that's an illustration of what HWW said, not of the impact of what he said.

The issue raised above is your assumptions about the impact of what HWW wrote. That's the part we are having trouble with.

Or am I the only person on this board that doesn't check on the HWW party line before expressing an opinion?

Bob 

 

[Mike_Cirba]

Did HWWind mention, or know of Macdonadl's advising of Wilson and the Merion Committee?   I wonder if he was aware that 3 or so of the original holes were meant to be versions of great holes abroad?

Frankly, what I find much more fascinating woud be an exploration of why Wilson and Merion so quickly adapted a style based on nothing but what the land itself suggested, and the strategic placement of hazards aligned to optimize those natural features (and other hazards like boundaries) without any care whether the hole was supposed to symbolically or functionally represent something considered ideal abroad.

When I read what Wind wrote about what Wilson accomplished at Merion, I believe that is the critical point he is trying to make.

[Lou_Duran]

Everyone's friend Ed Getka befriended Mr. Wind in the latter years of the writer's life and when he talks about him it is in a tone of great reverence.  I don't think I ever mentioned to Ed that I was not a big fan of his friend's writing, though I became interested in golf architecture shortly after I began playing the game at Ohio State's Scarlet course in the early 1970s.

It is the interaction with the golf course which sparked my interest in its designers.  Mr. Wind had no impact.  I suspect that mine is more within the relevant range of experiences than that suggested by TMac.

As with my reading of most types of history, I take very little for granted that the views expressed represent "truth".  Only by comparing a variety of writings on the matter, taking into consideration customs, styles, and norms of the time, and then subjecting the conclusions to a reasonableness test can we hope to arrive at some ballpark version of truth.

[Tom MacWood]

Did HWWind mention, or know of Macdonadl's advising of Wilson and the Merion Committee?   I wonder if he was aware that 3 or so of the original holes were meant to be versions of great holes abroad?

Frankly, what I find much more fascinating woud be an exploration of why Wilson and Merion so quickly adapted a style based on nothing but what the land itself suggested, and the strategic placement of hazards aligned to optimize those natural features (and other hazards like boundaries) without any care whether the hole was supposed to symbolically or functionally represent something considered ideal abroad.

When I read what Wind wrote about what Wilson accomplished at Merion, I believe that is the critical point he is trying to make.

I don't believe Wind wrote about Wilson visiting CBM, although he mentions Macdonald prominently, comparing their trips abroad and the contrasting results. Wind wrote Wilson was not impressed by the blind holes like the Alps. He also wrote Wilson's trip was 7 months long, which became part of the myth.  

[Tom MacWood]

"If thats not an illustration of Wind's impact I don't know what is."

No, that's an illustration of what HWW said, not of the impact of what he said.

The issue raised above is your assumptions about the impact of what HWW wrote. That's the part we are having trouble with.

Or am I the only person on this board that doesn't check on the HWW party line before expressing an opinion?

Bob 

 

I don't follow you. Are you doubting Wind was the creator of the one hit wonder mythology or are you doubting these stories were accepted as the common truth?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said:

“HWW is largely responsible for creating and publicizing the stories of Merion, PVGC and PBGL, at the expensive of people like Macdonald, Colt and Egan.

His Merion story suggested Wilson travelled abroad in 1910 prior to designing the course. He also made the point the course had nothing in common with the NGLA, evidently not knowing the course he knew was the result of more than a decade of remodeling. His account at PV has Colt designing one hole - the 5th. There is no mention of Egan's dramatic overhaul of Pebble Beach prior to the 1929 US Am.

He obviously felt the less help these fellows had the more interesting the story, unfortunately its not factual. And we have seen first hand what happens when some of these long accepted tales are challenged. If thats not an illustration of Wind's impact I don't know what is.”


and…


“I don't believe Wind wrote about Wilson visiting CBM, although he mentions Macdonald prominently, comparing their trips abroad and the contrasting results. Wind wrote Wilson was not impressed by the blind holes like the Alps. He also wrote Wilson's trip was 7 months long, which became part of the myth.


Tom:

I can’t speak on this regarding PB and Egan but I sure can with Merion and Wilson and PV and Crump.

I think I can agree with you that in a sense HWW did perpetuate a few myths or mistaken facts about Wilson and Merion and Colt and PV, but he did not create those mistaken facts (myths) which did become pretty much accepted for quite a time. All he did is just repeat them directly out of club history books to a far wider reading audience then those club history books ever could've or did reach.

Of course I am speaking specifically about Wilson and the trip abroad in 1910 and Colt only contributing the 5th hole at PV or contributing only the fix of the 5th hole from what Crump had planned for that hole compared to how it was built with Colt’s suggestion. Why Colt got so much attention for that particular hole I think is pretty fascinating and actually very important in a pretty in-depth architectural sense.

The important thing for us to know is both when those myths got created and how. I know that and in spades because I actually know or knew the people who were responsible for them and why. Those are some interesting stories and two out of three of those people know now how their mistaken interpretations of previously existing documentation created those myths. I spoke to two of them about it and how it happened. The third I knew and spoke to but he died before I could explain how his mistaken interpretation happened. Both when and how of those kinds of things can teach people on here who don't have much familiarity with these clubs a ton about how this stuff happens if they will just keep and open mind rather than defending such things endlessly as their uninformed pet conspiracy theories or whatever with far less than complete information from those clubs themselves.

HHW just took those stories right out of existing history books. I know that because I spoke to HHW too. My approximately hour long conversation with HWW covered some pretty interesting ground that I may not have appreciated the significance of until now or recently. Almost the very same conversation happened with me as well on some of these same subjects with Geoffrey Cornish.

The problem as I see it with some of your thinking and your theories, and Moriarty’s too, is you two tend to take these kinds of few isolated examples that are no doubt interesting and you two tend to extrapolate them into some much larger theory that because a few mistakes of facts were made perhaps decades later about the likes of Crump and Wilson that everything that was said about them with those courses and their architecture by so many people who knew them and saw them and worked with them was wrong and mistaken too and that ultimately they never could’ve done what they have been given credit for doing for so long.

That is where I believe you make your mistake in analyzing the likes of Crump and Colt with Pine Valley, and Wilson and Macdonald or Barker with Merion East and even Leeds and Willie Campbell with Myopia.

Again, I am very glad you started this particular thread and subject because this is precisely what I have tried to and wanted to discuss with you and flesh out with you for so long now but you always seem to try to avoid the subject and the discussion of it with me somehow.

So here we are----let's have a good, a civil and a productive discussion on it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()