[Mike_Young]

This site has brought much good to GCA and much entertainment......Today..I had the pleasure of spending part of my day with some real dork/dude GCA theorists....As the USGA and others work to create historical records for golf architecture I am now more sure than ever that if not very careful the "knowledge of the last few years" will be taken more seriously than much of it should be....and isn't that revisionist history?   

[TEPaul]

MikeY:

I'm not too sure exactly what you mean. Could you cite some examples of what you think might be in danger of being taken as revisionist history?

[Mike_Young]

MikeY:

I'm not too sure exactly what you mean. Could you cite some examples of what you think might be in danger of being taken as revisionist history?

Tom,
I think there are a few cases where some have interpreted architect intent and involvement w/o much to back it up other than hearsay yet it is written enough that it becomes accepted as fact....in so many cases we want it to be more than it was...especially at some clubs looking for an indentity....

[Anthony Gray]

  Just a thought.............Are the older courses that much better than todays? Can physicians, real estate guys and insurance salesmen build better courses than today's trained and educated guys. Are the ODGs better because they are dead?

  Anthony

[TEPaul]

"I think there are a few cases where some have interpreted architect intent and involvement w/o much to back it up other than hearsay yet it is written enough that it becomes accepted as fact....in so many cases we want it to be more than it was...especially at some clubs looking for an indentity...."

MikeY:

I see what you mean and I agree with you. I think that kind of thing and attempt got completely out of hand over this whole Merion/Macdonald/Whigam/Barker thing on here that has been going on and still goes on almost seven years later. Let's just call it something like "concept attribution," if you know what I mean.

If you look back on the thread that started this whole Merion and Macdonald thing (It began in Feb. 2003 and was entitled "Re: Macdonald and Merion?") you'll see what I mean and apparently what you mean.

The question was asked initially on that thread about who specifically was responsible for what almost hole by hole and we immediately responded that that kind of thing is essentially unknowable as things like that were not recorded as they almost never are on any architectural project, particularly if an actual architectural plan from a specific architect no longer exists. The only time you seem to get lucky with something like that is an example like Richard Francis writing how he fixed the problem on the last five holes by suggesting the trade for land thereby creating what is now the 15th green and the tee area for the famous Quarry Hole (#16).

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
in my mind there is difference between speculating about an architect's intent and revising a historic attribution. Unless the architect wrote down his specific thoughts its impossible to know what he intended. An attribution is a completely different story.

The term revisionist history has a negative connotation today and is too often used by a few to portrait legitimate revisions in a negative light. History is always being revised, that is what historians do, they revise history as they uncover new information.

Golf architecture history is a relatively new field with really only one comprehensive book that traces its history from beginning to end. Its only natural that we would be revising that single account as time goes on, especially with the explosion of new information at our disposal.

This site has been a great platform for discovery, a remarkable platform for GCA history IMO, bringing like minded people from around the world together to share info and ideas. 

[Mike_Young]

Tom P and Tom Mac.....I agree with both of you....

In the last few months....I have seen a historic expert explain to me where a bunker once was placed for some reason by ODG....it was actually the indention of a removed oaktree rootball form the past.....the genius ODG had also "wrinkled" the fairways...but in reality it was dynamited tree stumps.....the "internal contours" from the genius were actually unplanned settling...the original ODG bunkers were actually done in 1962 and we can go on....that type of stuff is on here daily....

This week I am on one of my projects removing 15 bunkers because the municipality wants to reduce maintenance..we are also reworking bunkers to remove all flash and flatten the sand to help maintenance....will that go down 50 years form now as "how we wanted the design to look" or will anyone ever know or care that the changes were made.....and why....

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
Must not be having too much of a negative effect, the town didn't call an ODG to remove those 15 bunkers for them.

[V. Kmetz]

Tom McW:  I agree completely and can only add on to your well-taken point of GCA being in its infancy.

Who knows how long life, earth, civilization, society and indeed, Golf, will last and how important any of them will be to future existence? Is Golf halfway to death or only in the first year of its life?

But if we put that aside for a moment, and accept that we can't answer it without error, we can only treat it as living now and forever. The long-dead handed it to us and it seems likely that in some small capacity GCA (the site and the activity) will hand it off to the next batch of the living.  And through all the amateur and professional work, thought and critique that are involved in the enterprise and the Game in this vein, a valuable and rewarding quotient comes out - that we get at the truth of something and document how and where and why we arrived at it.  

I suppose then my main answer to Mike's original question is, "No. I don't think we're getting into revisionist history nor do I worry about taking the last years too seriously at all."

I think the last post you made Mike, explains perfectly the process of history...how would you know about the 1962 Non-ODG bunkers without previous documentation, how would you know about the fairway contours without sticking a shovel in the ground?

You're correct, in the future people may make all sorts of false assertions about your removal project (just like they made assertions about the ODG's work) but you are documenting the true intent right now and I'm sure you have done so in other forms, including anecdotally. 

If Golf goes on at all, I'm sure GCA culture will be apart of it, someone will find it or report it firsthand.

  

[TEPaul]

“Tom P and Tom Mac.....I agree with both of you....”


“Mike
in my mind there is difference between speculating about an architect's intent and revising a historic attribution. Unless the architect wrote down his specific thoughts its impossible to know what he intended. An attribution is a completely different story.”


MikeY and Tom MacWood:

Although there certainly is a difference between speculating about an architect’s intent and revising architectural attribution, there most certainly is a potential problem of intertwining the two and I think there are a number of pretty good examples of threads on this website where that very thing has probably happened leading to potential historical revisionism in architectural attribution.

[Mike_Young]

V Kmetz,
You need to write more..your post makes good sense ( to me).... I have thought about "how young is golf" and it may be in it's infancy....but the reason I think there is revisionist history is because so often things are not written but they transpire before they are written...as Tpm P says below....and my issue is just that. Where I may write something regarding the "wrinkle in a fairway being from dynamited tree stumps....what if another says they were from shaping...   As you say more needs to be written by the architect for a more concise , correct history and yes.....I don't know..I just see a lot of BS being carried forward as fact....cheers

[Mac Plumart]

Mike Young...and Vinnie...

I agree Vinnie needs to write more.  In all sincerity, I look forward to seeing his post on a daily basis...but he only post a few times a week/month.  But Vinnie, do what you've got to do...if you need to pick and choose your spots to drop your wisdom/knowledge on us; do it...just know that I, and others, enjoy reading your well-thought out posts.

Thanks!

[TEPaul]

When one claims that golf course architecture itself is still in its infancy, I may take some exception to that----eg is about a 150 year history to be considered something still in its infancy?

However, if one considers the comprehensive and sophisticated chronicling and recording of golf architecture and the details of it hole to hole and course to course and architect to architect and crews to crews that certainly might still be in its infancy if in fact it has yet even been born! If in fact it ever even gets gestated!

One reason it may never be recorded and chronicled, at least when it comes to the details of architectural intent and conception, becomes pretty obvious when one goes out into the field on some of these projects and watches and listens to how it happens!

[Bill_McBride]

I thought the 16t fairway at Highland Links - which I've not seen - was just wonderful natural contours, but was told, forget by whom, that the contours are buried rocks.

I was glad to learn that, what a cool thing to do!

[Lou_Duran]

I thought the 16t fairway at Highland Links - which I've not seen - was just wonderful natural contours, but was told, forget by whom, that the contours are buried rocks.

I was glad to learn that, what a cool thing to do!

Until the damned rocks rise to just below the surface and you ruin your favorite wedge, or worse yet, break a wrist.

Mike Young,

I often thought that if the ODG had internet access and found the DG, that their reaction would range from laughing their asses off to "WTF" to "I wish I would have thought of that".  I suspect that most were doing what they could with their limited resources, rather narrow body of knowledge and formal training, and the corresponding relatively uninformed expectations of their clients.

This site has developed a very clear, and IMO, rather romantic bias toward so-called "classic" architecture.  I personally prefer playing the Brook Hollows than the Dallas Nationals of this world, but I wonder if this would be the case if the "classics" had not been "updated" repeatedly since their beginning and maintained to today's standards.  For example, would we think so highly of Pasatiempo if the greens were running at 8' vs. 11'+ or #2 without 30-40 years of top-dressing crowning the greens and grassed in slow, grainy common bermuda?

When it comes to human behavior and economics, I think that the unvarnished, unrevised lessons of history are invaluable.  When it comes to golf which has changed continuously and significantly since its early days, I have to wonder just how much history can inform the future.

And this is all before you consider how much of accepted history is fact or fiction.  They say that the victor gets to write the history.  I am not sure that this has been true at least since the early 20th Century, and particularly since the advent of the internet has essentially removed many of the barriers to publishing.  I suspect that 100 years from now some researcher will come across this site and start laughing his ass off, think "WTF", or cite Moriarty and MacWood to settle the dispute on who designed Merion.     

[Tom_Doak]

Lou

The fact that the victor gets to write the history is one of the reasons to be skeptical of what is written by the architect even in his time.  I don´t think we need to encourage architects to pat themselves on the back even more than they already do.

It would be nice to know what Hugh Wilson would have said about who did what at Merion, but even then, others might have had differing views of who did the most important bits.  Look at Kingsbarns now ... client and architect fighting over who did what and who helped how.

Come to think of it though, the most telling point about Merion is that C.B. Macdonald did not claim any credit for it in his own book, where he was certainly not shy about claiming credit for the rest of what he did.

[Paul Stephenson]

The term revisionist history has a negative connotation today and is too often used by a few to portrait legitimate revisions in a negative light. History is always being revised, that is what historians do, they revise history as they uncover new information.
 

Well said Tom.  History is a slow process that requires patience.  This can get forgotten in the Google era.

[Jim_Kennedy]

I remember reading the opening p[age of theis website, back about 8 or 9 years ago, and I was never under the illusion that the architecture of the ODGs wasn't going to be in the main. I'm sure I wasn't the only one who came to that conclusion. The new front page reflects the modern, and the architecture of the 21st century will rival the best of what was built 70 to 110 years ago. Frankly, I don't see any reason to be upset, everyone came on this site with their eyes open. 

[Lester George]

Mike,

I think you are on to something but not sure it will ever be objectively appreciated by some here.  The very "geniuses" you are taliking about occur on every restoration job I encounter. 

Accusing someone on this site of being revisionist is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500. 

Lester

[BCrosby]

Mike -

I take it that your point is that accidental features of a course designed by an ODG often get interpreted decades later by "experts" as evidence of the ODG's genius. That happens. And it can make an "expert" look foolish. Which is as it should be. If an expert is wrong, he should be called out.

But I'm not sure where you go with that.

Bob     

[Bill_McBride]

I thought the 16t fairway at Highland Links - which I've not seen - was just wonderful natural contours, but was told, forget by whom, that the contours are buried rocks.

I was glad to learn that, what a cool thing to do!

Until the damned rocks rise to just below the surface and you ruin your favorite wedge, or worse yet, break a wrist.

I guess it worked out okay, those rocks have apparently stayed buried for many decades.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TMac,

I agree with all of your post No. 5.

I would add that to the degree that gca history is in its infancy, its only because they were working on the more important topics first.  The advent of the internet and scanned documents has certainly been a factor in "amateur sportsmen historians" being able to pursue a subject they love, since so few professional historians would get funding for it in this, or most, economic climates.  And, we do appreciatethe efforts of those, like you, who do it.

And you are right, revisionist is a combative term, much like the word "agenda" and "conspiracy" and a few others.  Revisionism is good, as long as its right.  In general, we would have to believe that as more info is more readily available, history should get more accurate, although there is a case to be made that it would be more accurate from closer to the actual event as well.

As Tom Doak points out, perhaps those who were there had reasons to twist the truth a little.  Maybe supporters of particular gca's might have reason to twist the truth today.

All of which goes to show, there will always be some heated debate on a passionate subject.

[Tom MacWood]

This site has developed a very clear, and IMO, rather romantic bias toward so-called "classic" architecture.  I personally prefer playing the Brook Hollows than the Dallas Nationals of this world, but I wonder if this would be the case if the "classics" had not been "updated" repeatedly since their beginning and maintained to today's standards.  For example, would we think so highly of Pasatiempo if the greens were running at 8' vs. 11'+ or #2 without 30-40 years of top-dressing crowning the greens and grassed in slow, grainy common bermuda?

Lou
Ignorance is bliss. This what Brook Hollow looked like before all the "updating".

[Ian Andrew]

I thought the 16t fairway at Highland Links - which I've not seen - was just wonderful natural contours, but was told, forget by whom, that the contours are buried rocks. I was glad to learn that, what a cool thing to do!

According to golf architect and historian Geoffrey Cornish, who supervised the construction of Highlands Links during the late 1930s, Thompson put a great deal of thought into the creation of the fairway contours at sixteen. He meticulously orchestrated the placement of piles of rocks and boulders cleared from the hole corridor, then covered the piles with riverbed silt excavated from the area comprising the sixth fairway – a construction method that caused serious problems for the irrigation contractor when Highlands Links’ first fairway watering system was installed in 1996. Jeff Mingay's review of #16

[Ian Andrew]

I take it that your point is that accidental features of a course designed by an ODG often get interpreted decades later by "experts" as evidence of the ODG's genius. That happens. And it can make an "expert" look foolish. Which is as it should be. If an expert is wrong, he should be called out.

Bob,

I ended up with work at one club because one of the other interviewing architects pointed out a great "typical" example of what the ODG had done - the hole had been altered and they knew it - he was out of the process right at that moment.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()