[Mike Hendren]

Did the Golden Age architects romanticize their designs through sketches?  

While their fairway and green edges have likely been softened over time (in the Brunswick CC thread Bob Crosby rightly points out the misconception that Ross' greens were generally inverted saucers) did the Golden Age architects build or even intend to build many of the sharp edges their sketches reflect?  George C. Thomas is the best example off the top of my head.  

One thought would be that they did so because their design work was primarily two-dimensional with the third dimension crafted in the field.  This contrasts with building architects who have the luxury of romanticizing their designs through elevations. 

Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Mike:

I am not sure about your theory, but one thing I am sure of:  the set of grading plans produced by most golf architects today surely does NOT romanticize anything.

[michael damico]

Mike,

I like what you bring up. I enjoy looking at the different styles each architect uses in their depictions. Take MacKenzie for example, his sketches are not accurate and most do not offer a third dimension (elevations) but each can easily be interpreted; they have character and grittiness - naturalness one might say. Ross's drawings are exactly that, professional sketches that include elevations. Thomas's illustrations are somewhere in between both AMacK and Ross in my opinion. Wethered & Simpson representations are unmistakable, especially with the accompanying perspective sketch that depicts more than the lackluster plans.

The one I wish I was able to see more of would be Robert Hunter, but from what I can assume, (and we know what assuming does...) MacKenzie did all illustrations on the collaborations.

[Carl Rogers]

The few I have seen mostly through this web site (and links) are interesting to me by what they emphisize (if not exagerate) and then what they tend to ignore.  It is if they are trying to make sure that they are trying to make sure that certain design elements get built no matter what.

By enlarge very expressionistic and not literal.

[Mike_Trenham]

I have recently been looking at a bunch of Donald Ross drawings and with special focus on the fairway lines compared to photos.  One thing I notice is that the fairway starts often are very narrow and angled and you rarely see this in the finished product and if you mowed the starts like this it would really anger the short hitters.

Also so many of Ross's drawings show non-square tees.  Yet were they every built or mowed like that?

[Steve Lang]

   like Mike Strantz's??

[Tom_Doak]

The one I wish I was able to see more of would be Robert Hunter, but from what I can assume, (and we know what assuming does...) MacKenzie did all illustrations on the collaborations.

Michael:

Robert Hunter wrote his own book and included many drawings in it -- but none of his own.  I think you can safely assume that sketches were not his prime method of communication.

Carl is right that in order to get a feature to show up on a drawing, you have to exaggerate it.  That's why I prefer to work in the field and sculpt things ... you don't have to worry about people misinterpreting what you meant.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()