FROM JUNE, 2003 Post by Moriarty!!
"DMoriarty
Guest
Re:Did the Golden Age 'Jump the Shark' with the Lido?
« Reply #146 on: December 28, 2003, 07:35:14 PM » Quote
Tommy,
You and I are of course talking about different things. You are talking about importing golf to the US, spreading it across the country, going forth and multiplying. Call it golf manifest destiny, if you like.
I am talking about the approach taken by golf course architects here (and there for that matter.) Whether here or there, most were working within the general constraints of the land (Surrey apparently accepted.) MacDonald was a revolutionary in that he went the opposite direction.
_______________
Jim and TEPaul,
If I left the two of you to define and argue my premise, we'd never have had anything to talk about. Eight pages in and you guys are still stuck in my first post, arguing issue that have been buried since the beginning.
Quote from: jim_kennedy on December 28, 2003, 04:34:57 PM
Your ultimate point seems to be that Macdonald sinned greatly by pumping muck to make a golf course when others of the time were working in harmony with the land.
I never said MacDonald "sinned greatly" or that he had done something terrible, nor am I trying to run him down or smear his name. I did say that he approached Lido entirely differently than others approached their projects, and this constituted a major break with the rest of the Golden Age.
I also said that attempting the Lido was an act of arrogance on the part of the MacDonald, but I am certainly not the first to call C.B. arrogant, am I? Any time an architect takes on a project for the thrill of becoming a "creator" and starts trying to match Nature bump for bump, I think it is fair to call them arrogant. And by the way, I think what C.B. tried to do at NGLA was arrogant also (for different reasons), even though he pulled it off.
I think that this is a large part of the misunderstanding. You guys mistake looking critically at one of the guy's projects with some sort of personal attack aimed at dimishing his greatness. If we cant look critically at these guys' methods and approaches, then what the heck are we doing hanging around this website?
Quote
In your view this should be seen as detrimental and contrary to the "Golden Age".
Contrary to the Golden Age? Yes, it most certainly was. Contrary in the architect's approach to the existing landscape. Others generally worked with the existing landscape, C.B. created his.
But was it detrimental? I admit that my first post treats the Lido as detrimental to GAA. But, very early on, I repeatedly conceeded this point, emphasizing that I was not trying to prove C.B.'s was detrimental to the Golden Age. Nor was I trying to prove any causual connection between the Lido and the demise of the Age. Thus the discussion about the departure being a "symbolic" departure, not a causal one. Thus my continued focus on the "Contrary" prong. Thus the description of the Lido as a modern course. Thus no mention of the "Detrimental" prong in post 37, where I try to set out my entire position. I dont know how I could have been more clear.
If this was truly my issue then both sides have been wasting time, we ought to have been discussing other C.B. courses influenced by C.B.'s approach taken at the Lido. [By the way, the two WWs would make that discussion very difficult, as they were intervening superceding causes.]
So we are left with the "Contrary" prong. And the architecture at the Lido was contrary. A reversal of the process. Something out of Nothing, as opposed to Something out of Something.
Quote
The major obstacle in your way, and one that you have yet to hurdle, is proving that Lido had any detrimental effect upon the golf course architecture of the time. This is the primary, salient point and one that you must successfully cross to continue on with the argument, that his "contrary to the time" building technique has any meaning whatsoever.
Frankly, I don't think there is enough evidence in the historical record for you, or anyone, to "jump" the first hurdle.
As I have said above, proving detriment to other GA courses isnt my "primary, salient point" nor even my point at all. It hasnt been for a very long time, if it ever was. My concern is with whether Macdonald's approach was contrary to the others of the time. The fact that there are no direct Golden Age descendents of the Lido bolsters my point, rather than tearing it down. As I have said repeatedly, regading MacDonald's approach to the using Nature and the natural landscape, the Lido was a modern course, not a Golden Age course.
Why is it that you guys want to continue to argue with points I have conceded? Perhaps we agree with everything else? Perhaps you agree that, in process, the Lido is a modern course, and that it represented a major departure from the rest of the Golden Age?"