A Discussion of Tom MacWood's "Magazine Architecture"

[Sean_A]

The tier two English courses that Sean profiles, the lesser known Colt courses that dot the countryside...modest, elegant, simple and inexpensive to maintain, providing smart quality golf -- they have served golfers/people for decades, and have done so very very well. The biggest and newest monstrosity in the desert that cost a fortune to build and a fortune to maintain and a fortune to play -- who does it serve? (Well, actually, in this climate it serves almost no one).

Peter  

Yes, I have been promoted from under my father's shadow.  This is the first time I can recall Pietro using my uh, er, Christian name when referring to me. 

I have long been curious as to what really separates the Harbornes and Southfields of this world from the Sunny News and  St Georges Hills other than what I consider to be quite a minor descrepancy in quality.  One additional aspect could be difficulty.  Steve pointed out that this could easily be deemed as part of the function of a course.  However, I think the main difference is visual.  Harborne and Southfield are lacking that difficult to describe grandeur that is often best illustrated in photos if one hasn't been fortunate enough to visit.  So yes, I do believe the art of designing to a photographer or magazine was in full flourish in Colt's heyday.  It should be no surprise that most of the inland grandees of England are near London because that is where the punch of publishing would have the biggest effect and the members of the professional classes had the money to pay for the architectural splendor - which essentially amounted to a more balanced approach of form and function.  Many may be hard pressed on any given day to say which takes the prime role. 

The more I really consider Colt the more amazed I am by his skill.

Ciao       

[Andy Troeger]

JNC,
I think you made Kyle's point here. In your most recent post you say, "If you want a golf course that (a) is walkable, and (b) has a clear flow between holes, Kaluhyat is deficient."  However, your original and subsequent posts on the course just called it poor, inferior, etc. Your qualified statement allows me to understand where you're coming from, which is critical for me as a reader since my criteria might be different.

Its the same issue as to why I tend to respond when you make broad generalizations about Fazio courses, especially given that my recollection from our previous discussions are that you've played maybe a handful of his courses. Its hard to take you seriously from my perspective having played about twenty of his courses given that some of them might absolutely fit your generalizations, but many do not. In regards to routing, you might hate Ventana Canyon's Canyon Course (Tucson, AZ) and its 1 mile walk from the 9th green to the 10th tee and otherwise choppy routing, but well over half of the 20 I've played were walkable and had solid routings.

[JNC Lyon]

JNC,
I think you made Kyle's point here. In your most recent post you say, "If you want a golf course that (a) is walkable, and (b) has a clear flow between holes, Kaluhyat is deficient."  However, your original and subsequent posts on the course just called it poor, inferior, etc. Your qualified statement allows me to understand where you're coming from, which is critical for me as a reader since my criteria might be different.

Its the same issue as to why I tend to respond when you make broad generalizations about Fazio courses, especially given that my recollection from our previous discussions are that you've played maybe a handful of his courses. Its hard to take you seriously from my perspective having played about twenty of his courses given that some of them might absolutely fit your generalizations, but many do not. In regards to routing, you might hate Ventana Canyon's Canyon Course (Tucson, AZ) and its 1 mile walk from the 9th green to the 10th tee and otherwise choppy routing, but well over half of the 20 I've played were walkable and had solid routings.

Fair enough Andy.  I try not to use qualifying statements such as "I think" or "In my opinion" because it should be clear that what I am posting here is my opinion.  I realize my statements come off as overly generalizing, but I'd rather stick my neck out and register an opinion rather than stay silent.  I generalize because, as you point out, I have only played a handful of courses from architects like RTJ Jr. and Fazio.  Sometimes this leads to me falling flat on my face, but that's part of the process.

Additionally, I don't think playing a huge number of golf courses automatically makes a person more knowledgeable about golf course architecture.

An unwalkable routing is deficient because it limits walking golf.  Highly walkable routings place, on the other hand, place no limits on cart golf.  I understand people prefer different types of golf courses, but a course that eliminates one type of golf is inferior, no?

[Andy Troeger]

JNC,
Most things here are taken as opinion, but I think its worth fleshing out the "why" part, which can be where the qualifying statements come in. Sometimes the most interesting posts on here are from guys willing to throw something out there to stimulate discussion, including your own posts. Even if I don't agree with all your generalizations, if nothing else it forces me think about why.

I also agree that playing large numbers of courses does not automatically make someone more knowledgeable. I do think its hard to be knowledgeable without first-hand experiences. You can generalize about what you've seen, but its still dangerous to extrapolate that to the larger picture if your sample size is really small.

I prefer walking golf, so I have no issue with your premise. Every course in my personal top ten is walkable, and the vast majority of those coming after are walkable as well. I've played a handful of courses where I thought the collection of holes was so good that the impact on walkability was worth the trade-off, especially since I probably ride about half the time when golfing anyway. I tend to have more sympathy for courses where walking is impacted by severe terrain as opposed to developer choice. I can understand how others might not be willing to make the trade-off. Fazio's Alotian Club is probably the best example of that that I've seen. Gozzer Ranch, Black Mesa, and Castle Pines are all tough walks, although I would guess one could get around if they were in good shape.

[JESII]

Is it possible the simple fact that a course, or building, has survived is what makes us appreciate it today?



This was my answer to John Kirk when he asked why Stone Eagle gets more criticism for undulating greens than Crystal Downs.



Does the fact that the market has, so far, accepted the work influence our acceptance?

[Andy Troeger]

If magazines did not exist, how much impact would that really have on the tastes of the readers' that they serve? Would golfers still be as interested in dramatic golf holes and courses if they didn't have the media to photograph and write about them?

[JESII]

Andy,

I think the most dramatic holes on a course stand out most in our memories. I guess magazines give us that in advance.

[Andy Troeger]

Jim,
I'd agree with that. I've played a couple courses where I saw a dramatic photo in a magazine or on their website and wanted to play, only to find out that the other 17 holes were pretty bland and boring in comparison. Although, I can think of at least one course where those bland/boring holes became less bland and more appealing after I went back a few more times. The dramatic/scenic hole was still fun, but perhaps never quite as much of a thrill as that first occasion. I'm thinking of Stonehenge in Fairfield Glade, Tennessee.

[JESII]

I'll bet even the best courses can be victims of this...it definitely explains my lack of enthusiasm for Pebble Beach.

[Jason Topp]

I love that Cougar Point example.  That course was my favorite of the lesser lights at the resort because it was very awkward and therefore more interesting than the other lesser known resort courses there.  I found I could not trust that the architect followed a formula on that course and therefore found myself working hard to figure out what was in front of me.  

  

[Peter Pallotta]

"Does the fact that the market has, so far, accepted the work influence our acceptance?"

Jim - I don't think so, at least not in a way that makes our "acceptance" firm and comitted and of actual value.  Otherwise, we would never see any work from any era get torn down or bull-dozed over.  Around my house there are a number of buildings that are 50 and 60 years old and that the market continues to "accept"; but in the 1950s these buildings sprung up because the ones from the 1850s -- that the market had accepted for 100 years -- were torn down to make room for them.  

Kelly - thanks; good post.  

[JESII]

Peter,

I think there are emotional reasons beyond perceived quality that help preserve building and golf courses.

My guess is that those building near where you live had not been built in the 1950's it would be significantly more difficult to do so today based simply on that added 60 years of existence.

I do however think I agree with you that our "acceptance" of those 1850's buildings would not necessarily be firm and committed...just that it would be more firm and committed than it was 60 years ago.

I might be speaking Greek, seems like a theme lately.

[Niall C]

I am no researcher.  But every now and then I will flip through archived issues of American Golfer, Golf Illustrated, etc. from the golden age while looking for information about something I'm interested in.  One thing that often jumps out at me is how similar those old periodicals are to those of today.  The format, the topics, the writing, the advertisements all seem to me to share a lot in common with modern golf magazines.  For example, the February 1917 Golf Illustrated article I posted on the Overhills thread (for some reason, the link no longer works) reads like a puff piece from a current golf rag, including course photographs that are clearly intended to be appealing.  Is it possible that "magazine architecture" has been going on for much longer than we think?  If it's not a modern phenomenon, does that impact the analysis?

Ed

As I think you know, I have read an awful lot of old golf mags and I would say it is hit and miss. At some periods and in some publications you have some astonishing discussions about golf architecture and at times you are correct that articles tend to read lioke fairly bland advertisements. Unfortunately you need to plough through an awful lot of dross to find the good stuff.

Niall

[Niall C]

I had one comment about the association with buildings. I agree with Ian in disagreeing with Tom, in that poor buildings usually don't stand the test of time. We love good buildings because they are smartly built, The same is true for great golf courses. But, until you experience that smarts, you might not appreciate them the way someone who visits frequently does.

Adam,

I think you could also say that buildings last because they function well or at least can be adapted to another function than what they were originally conceived for. Some of the magazine photos tell you how the course is dressed up but doesn't really tell you how it plays IMHO.

Niall

[Ian Andrew]

The tier two English courses that Sean profiles, the lesser known Colt courses that dot the countryside...modest, elegant, simple and inexpensive to maintain, providing smart quality golf -- they have served golfers/people for decades, and have done so very very well. The biggest and newest monstrosity in the desert that cost a fortune to build and a fortune to maintain and a fortune to play -- who does it serve? (Well, actually, in this climate it serves almost no one).

There is a movement to try and reintroduce the human dimension to cities and towns and even suburbia. You would enjoy a book, The Architecture of Community, by Leon Krier, a leader in this movement. Your description regarding low rise buildings vs. skyscrapers is straight out of the book. I noticed an interesting contrast as well in NYC a couple of weeks ago. As we walked up 8th avenue to Columbus Circle on our way to the Dakota we passed several tall buildings but one awful building stood out on Columbus Circle, Trump’s glittering gold high rise on the north west part of the circle. What a horribly distasteful building particularly when contrasted with the lower story Dakota building. I don’t know how the Dakota measures in the architecture world, but it was so much more appealing and has you said it retained a human scale despite its size, a bit of old world charm, and I am certain very modern and luxurious on the inside.  

Peter and Kelly,

Loved your discussion.

One of the most profound experiences I’ve had to date was a visit to Delamere Forest just outside of Manchester. I just loved the place. Everything about the club is simple, honest, elegant, and charming. The Tudor Clubhouse is decidedly understated and blends easily into the surroundings. The course largely set in open glades bleeds out beyond the property and into the farm fields beyond. It left me so impressed how nothing at the club seemed imposed. I would describe everything about Delamere Forest as tastefully restrained. What a lesson the club is for me. Even Fowlers architecture carries this philosophy through because at no point did Fowler feel compelled to overwhelm or impress you even when the course got to the occasional stretch of simpler land. He treated the entire property with a soft touch that left me so impressed with the feel. Everything at the club fits together so perfectly that the club is greater than the sum of its parts.

I wish I was a member.


To All,

I have really enjoyed some of the opinions, I have read every word that you have written and I would love to add to it, but in most cases others have picked up the conversation for me, and in a few cases I couldn’t figure out how to add to your ideas.

One thing I learnt from this is when we have a well thought out starting point, that being Tom MacWood’s Opinion Piece, the responses are much longer and better crafted. It gives me hope. I do expect the traditional pattern to follow and this thread to find its way to the “abyss” of page two quite soon. Thanks for indulging me.

[Sean_A]

Ian

I agree, Delamere is better tahn the some of its parts just as most Fowler courses are.  It is interesting that Delamere made such a mark on you.  Now I don't feel so bad about hounding you into seing it - tee hee.  Would that experience tempt you to seek out other inland 2nd/3rd tier courses?

Ciao

[Ed Oden]

I am no researcher.  But every now and then I will flip through archived issues of American Golfer, Golf Illustrated, etc. from the golden age while looking for information about something I'm interested in.  One thing that often jumps out at me is how similar those old periodicals are to those of today.  The format, the topics, the writing, the advertisements all seem to me to share a lot in common with modern golf magazines.  For example, the February 1917 Golf Illustrated article I posted on the Overhills thread (for some reason, the link no longer works) reads like a puff piece from a current golf rag, including course photographs that are clearly intended to be appealing.  Is it possible that "magazine architecture" has been going on for much longer than we think?  If it's not a modern phenomenon, does that impact the analysis?

Ed

As I think you know, I have read an awful lot of old golf mags and I would say it is hit and miss. At some periods and in some publications you have some astonishing discussions about golf architecture and at times you are correct that articles tend to read lioke fairly bland advertisements. Unfortunately you need to plough through an awful lot of dross to find the good stuff.

Niall

Niall, I agree entirely.  And that is really my point since I see things as being very similar today.  There is some wonderful analysis and good writing out there, including plenty from contributors to this site.  But, to use your words, you still often have to plough through an awful lot of dross to find the good stuff.  Again, I'm inclined to agree that magazine architecture is more prevalent today than in the past.  I just see it as a sliding scale rather than black and white phenomenon.

[Steve Kline]

I think what is happening at Pinehurst #2 right now is very interesting in light of MacWood's essay. The course will certainly photograph much better than it did in the past. The look will be more striking and appealing. Some could claim this is magazine architecture - look they just went with the fad of frilly bunkers, didn't restore the greens, etc. But, for me this is an ultimate return to function. The course is being restored to a more natural environment. It will appear as if I'm playing holes that were found instead of in a park that was manufactured. This will be in stark contrast to the rest of the courses at the resort.

[Ian Andrew]

Would that experience tempt you to seek out other inland 2nd/3rd tier courses?

I've come to a point where I'm more interested in playing the "so called" 2nd tier than the high profile courses. I'm finding I'm gaining more inspiration from what I learn from them and I've also come to realize those courses are far better than they get credit for. For example I loved Southerndown on my Wales trip and Montrose on my last Scotland trip and not playing either would have been a loss for me. It's easy to be impressed with an Open rota course, but as much as I enjoyed Birkdale (as an example), I barely made a single note for future reference. The next day I had lots after playing Delamere Forest.

[Sean_A]

Would that experience tempt you to seek out other inland 2nd/3rd tier courses?

I've come to a point where I'm more interested in playing the "so called" 2nd tier than the high profile courses. I'm finding I'm gaining more inspiration from what I learn from them and I've also come to realize those courses are far better than they get credit for. For example I loved Southerndown on my Wales trip and Montrose on my last Scotland trip and not playing either would have been a loss for me. It's easy to be impressed with an Open rota course, but as much as I enjoyed Birkdale (as an example), I barely made a single note for future reference. The next day I had lots after playing Delamere Forest.

What are some of the specific notes for Delamere?

Ciao

[Niall C]

I am no researcher.  But every now and then I will flip through archived issues of American Golfer, Golf Illustrated, etc. from the golden age while looking for information about something I'm interested in.  One thing that often jumps out at me is how similar those old periodicals are to those of today.  The format, the topics, the writing, the advertisements all seem to me to share a lot in common with modern golf magazines.  For example, the February 1917 Golf Illustrated article I posted on the Overhills thread (for some reason, the link no longer works) reads like a puff piece from a current golf rag, including course photographs that are clearly intended to be appealing.  Is it possible that "magazine architecture" has been going on for much longer than we think?  If it's not a modern phenomenon, does that impact the analysis?

Ed

As I think you know, I have read an awful lot of old golf mags and I would say it is hit and miss. At some periods and in some publications you have some astonishing discussions about golf architecture and at times you are correct that articles tend to read lioke fairly bland advertisements. Unfortunately you need to plough through an awful lot of dross to find the good stuff.

Niall

Niall, I agree entirely.  And that is really my point since I see things as being very similar today.  There is some wonderful analysis and good writing out there, including plenty from contributors to this site.  But, to use your words, you still often have to plough through an awful lot of dross to find the good stuff.  Again, I'm inclined to agree that magazine architecture is more prevalent today than in the past.  I just see it as a sliding scale rather than black and white phenomenon.

Ed

I've been thinking about what you said in your last post. Question, do the magazines follow the advent of design or do the influence it ? Thinking back to the old mags from say the golden age period, and perhaps I should have used a mining analogy rather than a farming one previously because when you find the good articles theres generally a rich seam of them. Whats also interesting is that the protagonists in any discussion are generally the great and the good of the day, people like Simpson, Behr, Fowler or MacKenzie. You generally don't get that in the main stream mags today although occasionally there is an article with Doak on one of his courses or Martin Hawtree or whoever but generally there is limited discussion on design issues and more emphasis on what professional tournament the course is likely to host (I'm only talking about UK mags here as thats all I get to read).

Of more direct comparison to the architectural discussions in those old mags might be the discussions you get on here although I would suggest that myself and perhaps the vast majority on here add little that will influence design trends but that maybe the discussions between the professionals on here might. Clealry there is a difference in that when writing in periodicals arguments and theories can be better thoguth out and less chance of being diverted than say on a website where the discussions sometimes get sidetracked and fail to develop the way they would if more thought had gone into them.

Anyway, the question remains, do mags/websites advance design or merely record it ?

Niall

[Mac Plumart]

do mags/websites advance design or merely record it ?

My opinion is that the magazine type entities add fuel to the fire of things, take them to unrealistic levels, and help perpetuate fads.  This is a certainty in my business.  The herd instinct in the market is strongest at peaks or troughs...everyone wanted Tech Stocks in 2000, everyone wanted real estate in 2007, no one wanted to touch as stock in early 2009...things like that.  They take good ideas and incent the average Joe to jump on board at the exact wrong time.

Is this 100% applicable to the golf world?  No.  But Jeff Brauer's "Badge of Honor" comment makes some sense.  I'd bet in a few years time, clubs with Fazio designs might want to frill out their bunkers, sand up their fairways like Pinehurst #2, and things like that...even if there is no place for those features in the surrounding landscape of the courses in question.  This is what I am referring to when I say the magazine type entities add fuel to fire, help perpetuate trends and everyone jumps in eventually.

When this begins to happen...that is non-minamlist designs add their natural/minamlist Badges of Honor, people will tire of the trend...it will have reached fad status...and the door will be opened for something else.  And this process will be aided by the magazine entities. 

At least that is what I  think will happen...it will be interesting to watch and see how things unfold.

[Niall C]

Mac

Thanks for your comments. What I think you are talking about is trends on how courses are dressed up. Will a Fazio course, or anyone elses course for that matter, play any differently with hairy lip bunkering than without, probably not I would suggest. Does the look of a bunker ie. clean cut lines or ragged edge, have any bearing on strategy or how the course plays ? I can't imagine that it does but its probably what developers want, what punters clue into when they look at a magazine photo and mainly what we tend to comment on even on an architecturally astute site like this. In that respect golf mags/websites probably report the fashions of the day.

On the other hand issues like fairway widths, the amount of bunkering, how strategy is defined - is it by bunkering or by shaping, etc which determine how the course functions don't really get any airtime in main stream mags so where do movements (if there is such a thing) like minimilism form ?

Niall

[Mac Plumart]

Where do movements start?

With a visionary...for sure.

I think this particular movement started when someone study the history of golf, golf courses, and golf course architecture and pulled the trend back inline with those historical roots.  And had enough courage in his convictions to stick with it...at all costs.  Maybe I'm wrong on this part, but I don't think so.

[Niall C]

Mac

That may well be the case, but to have a movement you have to have more than one person. You have to have an exchange of ideas and a meeting of minds. The question is where did that happen, in the pages of a magazine, on a website or somewhere else altogether.

BTW, the minilism reference was the first that I thought of when typing. Equally it could be any idea, for instance it seems to me that wider more open fairways seem to be flavour of the moment.

Niall