[Patrick_Mucci]

Seth Raynor
Walter Johnson
Richard Francis

Are they the men who really crafted those famous courses ?

How significant do you think their role was ?

[Phil_the_Author]

It depends on the course...

[Peter Pallotta]

Cool!

I don't know, Pat.

Was their portion of the 'work' subject to as many revisions/restorations over the years as that of the architects involved?

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Cool!

I don't know, Pat.

Was their portion of the 'work' subject to as many revisions/restorations over the years as that of the architects involved?


Peter, what difference does it make as to what portion of their work was revised ?

The question is, where they the real architects ?  Did they produce or substantially contribute to the design and construction of the ORIGINAL course ?

What happened after opening day is of no relevance.

[Mike_Young]

They probably played a large part....as with any business whether it be engineering, constrcution or law....a guy starts out small and actually does the production then as he becomes larger he is the spokesman and salesman...his contacts and reputation bring the work which is most likely produced by others under his eye...NOW ahving said that it is still under his name ....bu the work is a team effort....

[Peter Pallotta]

Pat - if you don't mind some thinking out loud on my part, as explanation for my previous post.  It seems to me that many of the great courses of old were recognized/deemed as such right away, and yet many of those same courses were nonetheless subject to early and on-going changes of one kind or another, often at the hands of the original architects (and sometimes at the hands of their immediate successors in the patheon of greats).  So I think that the qualities those courses possessed that initially made them great and sustained them in that greatness over time would more likely be the fundamental (rather than 'surface') aspects of design/architecture, e.g. the routings. And, since I assume that the CEs had nothing to do with the routings, I would have to give their contributions, no matter how extensive, 'second place' in the scheme of things.

Peter  

[Joe Bausch]

Pat, who was the construction engineer for Mountain Ridge?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
The architect is the C.E., He Created the Esthetic.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I think those mentioned were the first of the engineer/surveyors who worked alongside some of the early architects throughout and for that reason they were important and imbued a new and important element into golf course architecture----eg the use of their profession's tools; such things as PRE-construction topographical (contour) survey maps to design holes on with the commensurate cut and fills used and/or depicted on drawings before construction. They may've been some of the first to use the drawing board in golf architecture and to depict the vertical dimension in drawings. Some may think this was ancilliary or somewhat inconsequential. I don't think so! At least not when one considers that PRE-construction drawings before them may've only depicted two dimensions---eg length and width!! In other words they brought golf design preconstruction from two dimensions into the all important third dimension! It was probably also the beginning of golf architecture getting away from pretty much exclusively being just DESIGNED preconstruction on the ground and in the field.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

An important question occured to me when at Mountain Ridge, in this vein. That was we are aware that the likes of C.B. Macdonald, Devereux Emmet and Hugh Wilson at least were known to have brought what they referred to as drawings and survey maps back with them from holes and courses abroad. This was all around the first decade of the 20th century. But what we do not know is whether those drawings and surveys they brought back with them were in two dimensions or three dimensions (topographical contour lines).

It is only speculation on my part but I have a hunch they actually used some of the first three dimensional lines (contour lines) somewhat in the way an artist would make basic illustrative drawings of land. Perhaps they even tried to measure and notate some of the heights (vertical dimensions) of the features they were most interested in.

MCC's Richard Francis actually tells us in that 1950 US Open article he wrote why he was put on the Wilson committee----eg he said he could read drawings, make them and run a tape and level. In other words he could measure things and calculate quantities and draw them on paper!

And I also note that in that letter from C.B. Macdonald to Horatio Gates Lloyd in June 1910 Macdonald actually mentioned the idea of a "contour map" and since he mentioned it before the club bought the land he was certainly referring to a PRE-construction topographical (contour lines) map!

This is the first actual direct mention of a PRE-construction contour map I'm aware of in golf architecture (I'm not saying it was the first but only the first I'm aware of that was directly mentioned). It looks like Macdonald mentioned the same thing regarding NGLA but he did not actually say he got Raynor to do PRE-construction contour maps, he only said he got him to do contour maps.

On the flip side the only golf course I am aware of who ordered contour line survey mapping to be done AFTER construction was Pine Valley in the late 1920s. I am not aware of why they did that but it may've been done in conjunction to that project they referred to at the same time as "holding the course together" as apparently large sand areas were shifting and moving. This project also involved some massive tree planting and terracing and the vegetating of the terracing to enable stabilization of large areas of the land (massively sand based).

[JESII]

Seth Raynor
Walter Johnson
Richard Francis

Are they the men who really crafted those famous courses ?

How significant do you think their role was ?

That depends on how much value is placed on the structure and how much on the game if you ask me...I'd say the engineering must equate to half or more of my total enjoyment of a round of golf if good conditioning can be directly attributable to good engineering.

[Steve Lang]

  As an engineer, I'm biased, but most I know just want to do what they're told to do and will diligently apply the tools available to conduct their work, the rest will be creative in how they do their tasks, i.e., try to be more efficient..

So, the subject OLD DEAD ENGINEERS (ODE's) probably were the real architects after a while..when the physical process was established in their mind and the application to new sites created the challenge.  The process was the same: check out the site, create the land survey, make the routing and drainage work while applying hole design principles and classic challenges.  Voila!

If a landscape architect or Dr. or "player" can do it, certainly an engineer with a little imagination and cultural exposure can too.  

A crafty one goes back and does a post construction survey, and compares plans to the "as-built" drawings to judge how well the plans were executed, to build on experience..

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()