[Rich Goodale]

MarcakaBou and Bob-Cat (Brother of "Harry" aka Bing)

When most of the writing of the ODG's was postmortem (or at least post facto), it is hard to correlate what is in the ground (architecture-wise) and what is in the ground (architect-wise) without a lot of imagination.  Speaking of which, I miss Barney too.

Rich

[Phil McDade]

TEPaul:

Having visited both clubs this past summer, Chicago's Beverly and Flossmoor have done a very good job in this regard. Beverly's history, written by GCA contributer Tim Cronin, is very good for a course that's had an interesting history, including a major re-do by Ross. And the book also delves into some interesting, not-strictly-golf aspects of the club that are worth reading. In addition, the clubhouse is full of some wonderful photos of the many top golfers who have played at Beverly over the years, a project overseen by GCA contributer Paul Richards.

Flossmoor's history is being written, I believe, as we speak, with contributions from some here among the GCA crowd. The bits I've seen of it so far are quite good -- another course with some interesting architectural history.

[Doug Wright]

this is kind of off topic, but as an architect, how difficult is it to obtain these documents? Say a club asked you to renovate/restore/redesign a course, would they provide all pertinent materials? or does it fall on the firm to gather such materials?

Not a surprising answer I suppose but "it depends." Some courses like I suppose Beverly have pretty good documents at hand; others may not as their courses just changed over the years through work of committees and such. 

[BCrosby]

North Shore Rich -

To paraphrase L'Inspecteur Renault in the penultimate scene in Casablanca, "But Ricky, imagination is my least vulnerable spot."

Bob 

[Tom MacWood]

Tom

This is a very good question in one regard (i.e. trying to see which clubs have been the best in recording and tracking down facts regarding GCA), but a less satisfying one if one is trying to find some sort of meaning from the these facts.

Virtually all of my "knowledge" in these areas relates to mostly "great" courses in Great Britain and Ireland, and the more I look and learn at these courses, the more I believe that any "attribution" as to what they look like and play like today is far more due to the activities of and visions of golf club committees (collectively, over time) than any individual architect (or even architects).

To know how and when and by whom and why any individual changes were made on course X or course Y is mostly a trivial pursuit.  In VERY rare occasions, Club X or club Y might use such trivia to make a point as to how their course might be improved today, by going back into the future, as it were.  Maybe the ~ 2000 Merion 1930 retro look project is a good example of this, or the fairly recent remodelling of Lahinch as Mackenzie would have wished it, or Tom Doak's work at Pasatiempo and SFGC.  However, even though this is probably a good use (if properly designed and skillfully executed) , it is also an idiosyncratic one, based on the visions of the committees of those clubs, as they were constituted at that time they made the decision for retro-change.

I find all the old facts which are uncovered on this site, by people like Melvyn Morrow, Niall Carlton, Sean Tully, The Mackenzie Project, Tom MacWood, etc. to be fascinating, but I am a trivia junkie.  Only a small percentage of them actually has any influence on the enjoyment of the golf courses which I play.  For example, to know that such a hole as "Sandy Parlour" at Deal once existed, and to be able to locate it even today, is a cool fact, like seeing a plaque in London saying that "This was the spot of Sid Vicious' first public puke."  But, I've been by Sandy Parlour 5-10 times (mostly recently) and nobody I have played with there has ever tried to convince me why that lost hole deserved anything more than a tip of the hat in passing.

Or to put it more bluntly, Tom:

Who cares who designed Merion or Myopia or Cruden Bay and if so, why?

Ricardo

In order to document and study of golf architecture history, architecture history, landscape architecture history, art history, etc. you need to know who did what when and where.

[Rich Goodale]

In order to document and study of golf architecture history, architecture history, landscape architecture history, art history, etc. you need to know who did what when and where.

Possibly so, Tom, but what is the purpose of all that "documentation (sic)" and "study?"  For example, does it really change our understanding or appreciation of the game to know that a certian bunker at Pine Valley was sited and/or built by Crump, or Colt or Wlson, or Flynn?

[Tom MacWood]

If you are studying architecture at the university studying architecture history is a requirement, the same is true with landscape architecture and art. The theory being I suppose is that by studying history you can learn lessons from the past, what worked and what didn't work, and why they worked or didn't work. It is also possible to gain inspiration from past artists, historic works or artistic movements.  

[TEPaul]

"For example, does it really change our understanding or appreciation of the game to know that a certian bunker at Pine Valley was sited and/or built by Crump, or Colt or Wlson, or Flynn?"


Rich:

If one can analyze enough of it with some good solid historic documentation and attribution perhaps it doesn't change our understanding or appreciation of the game but it may help our understanding and appreciation of some of the differences and distinctions of the architectural thinking and architectural applications between Crump, or Colt or Wilson, or Flynn.

Some of us are sort of into trying to understand and appreciate those kinds of architectural differences and distinctions. On the other hand others may not be interested in looking at things like that and considereing them; they may be more interesting in overlooking them and just aiming at flags. It's a great Big World out there in golf and architecture and there really is plenty of room in it for everyone. 

[Tom MacWood]

In golf course architecture there are many factors to consider when documenting the history of a golf course or an architect or a period, including economic issues, technology, aesthetic trends, environment, geography, societal pressures, maintenance, and strategic theories.

Pine Valley is a very interesting case study, considered by many to be the greatest golf course in the world, its architectural history is one frustration and failure after another (economics, technology, maintenance, environment, aesthetics and strategic theory all were factors), which ultimately resulted in the demise of the fellow who inspired the whole thing.

[TEPaul]

As always, I, like apparently a number of other thoughtful golf architectural historians on here, would prefer to see that last sentence written not like this; 'which ultimately resulted in the demise of the fellow who inspired the whole thing.',

but like this:

"......which ultimately MAY HAVE been some of the reasons that resulted in the demise of the fellow who inspired the whole thing."

The fact is neither Tom MacWood, nor anyone else on here, or anyone else anywhere else at any time in the past had any idea what Crump's reasons were that resulted in his tragic demise. Had he left a suicide note as to his reasons perhaps then we might have some good idea but if he did that no one ever revealed it PUBLICLY.  

[Rich Goodale]

If you are studying architecture at the university studying architecture history is a requirement, the same is true with landscape architecture and art. The theory being I suppose is that by studying history you can learn lessons from the past, what worked and what didn't work, and why they worked or didn't work. It is also possible to gain inspiration from past artists, historic works or artistic movements.  

Yes, Tom, but we are not at University.  We are just a bunch of wing-nuts who enjoy golf, including some of its "architectural" aspects.  Another thing a lot of us enjoy is the history of golf--courses, players, designers, etc.  I deny none of that.  My point is that only a very few of us take what we know about GCA history and apply it to anything more than just an accumulation of trivial knowledge, and the warm fuzzies that devie from such accumulation.

[JNC Lyon]

Tom Paul,

As you probably know, Oak Hill has preserved much of its architectural history over the years.  We are currently trying to piece it back together.  As for the membership holding Oak Hill's architectural history in the highest regard, that is a different story...

[Rich Goodale]

"For example, does it really change our understanding or appreciation of the game to know that a certian bunker at Pine Valley was sited and/or built by Crump, or Colt or Wlson, or Flynn?"


Rich:

If one can analyze enough of it with some good solid historic documentation and attribution perhaps it doesn't change our understanding or appreciation of the game but it may help our understanding and appreciation of some of the differences and distinctions of the architectural thinking and architectural applications between Crump, or Colt or Wilson, or Flynn.

Some of us are sort of into trying to understand and appreciate those kinds of architectural differences and distinctions. On the other hand others may not be interested in looking at things like that and considereing them; they may be more interesting in overlooking them and just aiming at flags. It's a great Big World out there in golf and architecture and there really is plenty of room in it for everyone. 

I agree, Tommy, but taking the specifc example above, what do you know about the "distinctions of the architectural thinking and architectural applications between Crump, or Colt or Wilson, or Flynn," and what is important (to whomever) about these differences?  If any knows the answer to this, you should!

Thanks

Rich

[Tom MacWood]

Rich
You asked why it was important.

The wing nuts document the history; those designing and making design decisions take the lessons and inspiration.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich
You asked why it was important.

The wing nuts document the history; those designing and making design decisions take the lessons and inspiration.

What evidence do you have, Tom, for this remarkable statement?  Ou sont les wing-nuts d'antan?

[TEPaul]

".....but taking the specifc example above, what do you know about the "distinctions of the architectural thinking and architectural applications between Crump, or Colt or Wilson, or Flynn," and what is important (to whomever) about these differences?  If any knows the answer to this, you should!"


Rich:

Well, I know from what I have read from some of those architects what they were attempting to do and why. Often some of those things differ and sometimes markedly from other architects. I know from what I consider to be an incredibly important docucment---eg the so-called "Remembrances" hole by hole by his two close friends Smith and Carr some of the things Crump wanted to accomplish and why at Pine Valley. Some of it gets into some specific detail on holes and features and such about WHAT he was trying to do and WHERE and those documents even get into his reasons WHY.

I just think some or all of that is so interesting because it really appears to be a window into an interesting architectural mind that has been left to us. Not to even mention the fact that Crump was a guy who very much had some very unique ideas about architecture (or at least his one and only attempt at architecture, although he did say he was going to built another couse at PV) that were most definitely controversial compared to most to all architectural thinking or writing of the time. In that specific vein (which I haven't even identified to you yet), I'm not aware of any other like him of his time with the possible exceptions of Leeds and Fownes, two men he certainly knew.

[Rich Goodale]

Tommy

If you can write that book (or even just an article), drop the Flynn manuscript at Wayno's doorstep and get cracking!

All the best

Rich

[TEPaul]

"Ou est les wing-nuts d'antan?"

Reeeshard:


Are you absolutely certain that's how you spell wing nuts in French?

I have always been under the impression if the nuts on wings are not of decent quality then the aeroplane may not fly or fly very well. I know this first-hand, as the last time I flew the wing nuts failed and both wings fell off the aeroplane and I got a very serious bimp on the head that appears to have increased my daftiness which was not insignificant before those wing nuts failed.

[TEPaul]

JNC:

BINGO! Oak Hill. They've done an awesome job apparently with the preserving of material and the tracking of their architectural evolution. Or as far as I know they have but we should realize that Tom MacWood has not yet begun his expert independent research on the club and course to tell you how and how much your history is wrong, so at this point Oak Hill may not really know that much about their "actual" architectural history.

And Goll-dang-it, JNC, you are that KID I was talking about on another post but you have to understand that most on here are kids to me I'm so old.

[TEPaul]

"My point is that only a very few of us take what we know about GCA history and apply it to anything more than just an accumulation of trivial knowledge, and the warm fuzzies that devie from such accumulation."


Richard The Wise:


You are completely right about that statement. Most all of us on here are nothing more than a herd of "arm chair" architects and sniveling architectural sycophants! Unless and until we actually get out there and have some of our concepts put on the ground and in play we will never be anything but "arm-chair" architects and sniveling, sniffling sycophants.

To date, I have two of my concepts on the ground and both of them opened to such controversy I feared for my already repulsive reputation. Thankfully, things seem to be quieting down some now. And I have been told by two architects at either end of the country that some kind of concept I suggested on two courses were a high-rising all around success with everyone but for the life of me I never understood or remembered what those concepts specifically were they say I suggested. On the one in Georgia, I think I said: "If we put the pig back into Pig-Latin then that green will really have some strategic import and philosophically optional challenge but if you or this shaper fucks up that clearcut architectural suggestion and application this hole will be on the order of the lowest troglotye under the bridge of a slim-infested Crick."

[JNC Lyon]

JNC:

BINGO! Oak Hill. They've done an awesome job apparently with the preserving of material and the tracking of their architectural evolution. Or as far as I know they have but we should realize that Tom MacWood has not yet begun his expert independent research on the club and course to tell you how and how much your history is wrong, so at this point Oak Hill may not really know that much about their "actual" architectural history.

And Goll-dang-it, JNC, you are that KID I was talking about on another post but you have to understand that most on here are kids to me I'm so old.

Tom Paul,

Oak Hill has had the advantage of having two fantastic club historians in Donald Kladstrup and Fred Beltz.  We also have the advantage of having many major championships.  Thus, the club has made painstaking assessments of what sorts of changes are needed to ready our East Course for championship play.  As a result, we have pretty definitive records of what architect did work at Oak Hill.  By contrast, the history of our West Course, the more "pure Ross" of the two courses, is a little bit fuzzier.  It is still undetermined who built the current ninth green.

Our main shortcoming in architectural history concerns Ross's original layouts for the East and West courses.  For example, many people assumed that the 16th Hole on the West Course contained bunkers on the inside of the dogleg left.  The area is currently a series of mounds.  The original Ross plans show bunkering, and the hole layout is in multiple books on Golden Age architecture.  However, a 1930 aerial of the golf course does not show any bunkers where people thought there were bunkers.  This conflict is still unresolved.

Of course, Oak Hill was probably built by Willie Watson anyway, so why does this debate matter?

I understand your perspective on age and "kids."  Of course, I am more of a kid than most on this site.

[TEPaul]

"By contrast, the history of our West Course, the more "pure Ross" of the two courses, is a little bit fuzzier.  It is still undetermined who built the current ninth green."

JNC:

Really? Then my suggestion to you and to Oak Hill would be to just go with either C.B. Macdonald or HH Barker because we have been told in no uncertain terms by two of our best and most expert researher/analyst/historians on here that they were best and second best architects in America at one point and perhaps always. If you can find any old train schedules around Rochester we should be able to pretty much nail down the architectural attribution once and for all.  



"Of course, Oak Hill was probably built by Willie Watson anyway, so why does this debate matter?  "


Oh bullshit, what do you know? I think you have your Willies confused anyway. You must mean Willie Campbell; he was at least closer than Watson.

[Bob_Huntley]

TE,

1927 is not so distant a year in golfing history, but surely the history and architecture of both course and club house at Morfontaine is a paean to style and good taste.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"For example, many people assumed that the 16th Hole on the West Course contained bunkers on the inside of the dogleg left.  The area is currently a series of mounds.  The original Ross plans show bunkering, and the hole layout is in multiple books on Golden Age architecture.  However, a 1930 aerial of the golf course does not show any bunkers where people thought there were bunkers.  This conflict is still unresolved."


JNC:

Well then, you and Oak Hill are going to have to get into a bit of good old fashioned "architectural archaeology". Whereever you think those old bunkers might have been just do some really deep core samples. If there were ever any sand bunkers there the sand will show up in the core sample strata. If there is none at all just stick with the mounds under the educated assumption that Ross changed his plans from bunkers to mounds.

[TEPaul]

BobH:

Tell us about Morfontaine. The more detail the better.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()