[Mike Hendren]

The Palma Ceia G&CC thread made me wonder:  Were Bendelow's routing map and hole depictions ever built in the first place?

The bigger question:  It seems the golden age designers often embellished (i. e., enhanced with fictitious elements) their routing maps.   Where they:  1) enjoying throwing in the kitchen sink even if it was not economically of physically feasible; 2) creating the equivalent of a marketing brochure, either to the developers/founders or prospective members;  3) using the map as an outlet for their drawing skills and creativity;  4) leaving room for the developers/founders to make changes by subtraction;  5) attempting to overcome the inherent weakness of two dimensional images; 6) dreaming; or 7) trying to make someone's top 100 list down the road?

Your thoughts?

Bogey

[Charlie Goerges]

I don't know about whether they added fictitious elements to their drawings, but the general style that many used is full of embellishments. How they chose to depict rough, fairway, trees, mounds etc. as well as lettering styles and fancy borders certainly fulfilled many of the reasons you listed. I would guess that sales brochure would be the biggest reason they did it.

[Sven Nilsen]

The Palma Ceia G&CC thread made me wonder:  Were Bendelow's routing map and hole depictions ever built in the first place?

The bigger question:  It seems the golden age designers often embellished (i. e., enhanced with fictitious elements) their routing maps.   Where they:  1) enjoying throwing in the kitchen sink even if it was not economically of physically feasible; 2) creating the equivalent of a marketing brochure, either to the developers/founders or prospective members;  3) using the map as an outlet for their drawing skills and creativity;  4) leaving room for the developers/founders to make changes by subtraction;  5) attempting to overcome the inherent weakness of two dimensional images; 6) dreaming; or 7) trying to make someone's top 100 list down the road?

Your thoughts?

Bogey

Bogey:

Curious as to what features from the Bendelow routing map you believe were never built?  The course was rebuilt by Ross in the 20's and reworked recently by Weed, and working solely with modern day photos it would be impossible to decipher what the course looked like in 1916.

As for the question of extraneous features appearing on maps, I think you're closest to the answer with proposition #2 above.

There are several questions that go into the analysis, including:

1.  Who prepared the routing map (often times not the architect)?

2.  When was it prepared (if prior to the completion of the course, it mostly likely wouldn't represent the final result on the ground)?

3.  The purpose of the map, or was it meant to be a marketing tool or simply an accurate depiction of the course?  In the Palma Ceia case, the name of the agent on the map suggests to me that it was a tool for the real estate play.

Sven

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Not sure if it was the same then as in my career, but suspect it was.  Usually, those renderings are completed at the end of design phase.  As construction progresses, changes are naturally made, but the architect isn't really paid to go back and provide a post construction accurate rendering, as he is on his way to the next job.

[Mike Hendren]

Sven, pure speculation on my part, but if Bendelow had produced on the ground what was drawn on paper, there would have been no need for a quick follow up by Donald J.   I don't believe it was uncommon for Ross to go behind Bendelow within a decade or so to spiffy up what were otherwise rather pedestrian, pioneering golf courses.  I could be wrong.

As for a specific example, I can't fathom the 15th and 9th greens being built as depicted, just for starters.   Again, I could be wrong - Belvedere is a great example of a course where there's little if any clue today of the extensive and complex bunkering that originally existed but for a fortuitous black and white photograph.

Kindest regards,

Bogey

[Sven Nilsen]

I'd whole-heartedly agree that the greens you noted look ambitious, and would like to know if they were actually built according to the spec's on the plan. 

It looks like a pond was added at some point that might have necessitated changes to 9, and 15 seems to have disappeared (with the tee being incorporated with the old 16th to form a new hole), although I wonder if the green was incorporated into the current course.

As for the Bendelow/Ross pattern, most of the reworkings were on Bendelow's courses from an earlier time frame.  Palma Ceia is one of the later Bendelow's to be redone.

Its interesting to note that although Ross is known for following Bendelow at many locations, there may be more courses that he redid where Findlay was the original architect.

Sven

[Mike Hendren]

Its interesting to note that although Ross is known for following Bendelow at many locations, there may be more courses that he redid where Findlay was the original architect.

Foulis brothers too perhaps?

[Tom_Doak]

The Palma Ceia G&CC thread made me wonder:  Were Bendelow's routing map and hole depictions ever built in the first place?

The bigger question:  It seems the golden age designers often embellished (i. e., enhanced with fictitious elements) their routing maps.   Where they:  1) enjoying throwing in the kitchen sink even if it was not economically of physically feasible; 2) creating the equivalent of a marketing brochure, either to the developers/founders or prospective members;  3) using the map as an outlet for their drawing skills and creativity;  4) leaving room for the developers/founders to make changes by subtraction;  5) attempting to overcome the inherent weakness of two dimensional images; 6) dreaming; or 7) trying to make someone's top 100 list down the road?

Your thoughts?

Bogey

Mike:

The answer to your question is all of the above.

But, the answer to your question is really what Pete Dye told me 31 years ago:  there are lots of architects who have good ideas and good intentions, but who do not have the dedication to stick around and make sure their golf course gets built as they envisioned it [or the wherewithal / commitment to hire the guys to make sure it comes out as good as possible].

Plus, there are many clients who don't care enough to let the architect sweat the details.

P.S.  One of the most interesting embellishments I've ever seen on a course drawing was on the map someone drew of The Valley Club, where the fairways continued right around the side of the green and into the next tee on the drawing.  I thought for years that was an embellishment until they found the old aerial photos of the course and I saw that it had really been built that way, and just abandoned after a while.  Many of the old photos I've seen of golf courses show that much more detail has been lost over the years than we usually imagine.

[Sven Nilsen]

Its interesting to note that although Ross is known for following Bendelow at many locations, there may be more courses that he redid where Findlay was the original architect.

Foulis brothers too perhaps?

A few, but nowhere near the number of TBs and AFs.

There are a few examples of a Foulis redoing a Bendelow, and vice versa.  And there's at least one course where a Foulis, Bendelow and Ross were all involved.

Sven

[Bill_McBride]

The Palma Ceia G&CC thread made me wonder:  Were Bendelow's routing map and hole depictions ever built in the first place?

The bigger question:  It seems the golden age designers often embellished (i. e., enhanced with fictitious elements) their routing maps.   Where they:  1) enjoying throwing in the kitchen sink even if it was not economically of physically feasible; 2) creating the equivalent of a marketing brochure, either to the developers/founders or prospective members;  3) using the map as an outlet for their drawing skills and creativity;  4) leaving room for the developers/founders to make changes by subtraction;  5) attempting to overcome the inherent weakness of two dimensional images; 6) dreaming; or 7) trying to make someone's top 100 list down the road?

Your thoughts?

Bogey

Mike:

The answer to your question is all of the above.

But, the answer to your question is really what Pete Dye told me 31 years ago:  there are lots of architects who have good ideas and good intentions, but who do not have the dedication to stick around and make sure their golf course gets built as they envisioned it [or the wherewithal / commitment to hire the guys to make sure it comes out as good as possible].

Plus, there are many clients who don't care enough to let the architect sweat the details.

P.S.  One of the most interesting embellishments I've ever seen on a course drawing was on the map someone drew of The Valley Club, where the fairways continued right around the side of the green and into the next tee on the drawing.  I thought for years that was an embellishment until they found the old aerial photos of the course and I saw that it had really been built that way, and just abandoned after a while.  Many of the old photos I've seen of golf courses show that much more detail has been lost over the years than we usually imagine.

Tom, those closely mown areas around 14 and 1 greens and 2 tee, and 18 green over to 15 green are really entertaining.  There are possibly too many options for shots into and around those greens.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()