[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ Daley made an interesting comment on the upscale thread about Mac coming back from the grave, etc.

I commented that this would be an interesting speculative topic....if Mac, Ross or whoever came back from the grave, what new technologies would they adopt?  

What would the original Donald (Ross, and well known for frugality) recommend to the current "Donald" ( Trump)? Would Trump listen?

Certainly greens construction research well known, but less sophisticated in their time.  Would they continue to use the grasses they knew, or adopt the latest and greatest?  Would they insist on the simpler construction techniques of yesteryear, or use USGA or similar greens?

Ditto for irrigation.  Would they stick with single row quick couplers or go automatic?  2 row? 3 or 4 row?  Wall to wall?

Where would they stand on cart paths? (hopefully off to the side where they wouldn't get run over..... )

Bunker liners on their fabulous steep walled flash bunkers (at least in clay soil)

Drainage? (I do recall a listing for drain work on Tillie's Winged Foot and Raynor's Chicago Golf Club.  Obviously, nothing as major as what we see today, but certainly both knew the value of picking up drainage where required.

We could go on all night.  The only specific writing I know of is from Ross in "Golf Has Never Failed Me" where he suggests the wondrous possibilities of the bulldozer.  Are there any other hints as to where these guys would stand on modern architecture and construction techniques based on whatever writings or speeches we access to from their careers?

My guess is that aside from cart paths, which they would abhor, they would probably slowly adopt most modern techniques.  I doubt they would use drainage to justify excess shaping, but as it became cheaper to use, they would embrace it to keep standing water out of at least critical areas.

Always interesting food for thought.  Anyone recall any specific thoughts from any of the former greats?

[Peter Pallotta]

It is an interesting question, Jeff, and I think it can be approached in several ways. For me, I'm thinking about how the architects you mentioned aligned with/fit into the prevailing and dominant approaches and philosophies and styles of their own day.  And it seems to me that they weren't outsiders, i.e. they didn't discuss architecture or design courses in ways that were dramatically at odds with most of their contemporaries, they just happened to be amongst the very best practitioners of that shared art-craft. In other words, as people (and as architects), Ross and Mac etc  weren't rebels or purists or even idealists, they were above all dedicated working professionals who wanted/needed to keep working and keep designing. All of which is to say, I assume that if Ross and Mac were around today, they'd be the same kind of people and architects they were back then, i.e. they'd be working professionals with an approach that was more or less in line with the prevailing one and that -- more or less, with possible changes over time -- utilized the earth-moving (or not) and massive irrigation (or not) and naturalistic style (or not) of their contemporaries.  

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

It is an interesting question, Jeff, and I think it can be approached in several ways. For me, I'm thinking about how the architects you mentioned aligned with/fit into the prevailing and dominant approaches and philosophies and styles of their own day.  And it seems to me that they weren't outsiders, i.e. they didn't discuss architecture or design courses in ways that were dramatically at odds with most of their contemporaries, they just happened to be amongst the very best practitioners of that shared art-craft. In other words, as people (and as architects), Ross and Mac etc  weren't rebels or purists or even idealists, they were above all dedicated working professionals who wanted/needed to keep working and keep designing. All of which is to say, I assume that if Ross and Mac were around today, they'd be the same kind of people and architects they were back then, i.e. they'd be working professionals with an approach that was more or less in line with the prevailing one and that -- more or less, with possible changes over time -- utilized the earth-moving (or not) and massive irrigation (or not) and naturalistic style (or not) of their contemporaries.  

Peter

MacKenzie was more of a rebel, in my view.  He was among the first to utilize big earth-moving machines in the early 1930's, but he did so on the basis of how much money they saved.  From that point of view, I think he would be wary of the rising cost of construction of golf courses in the modern era and rail against it.  

He devoted an entire chapter of his book to "Economy in Golf Course Construction" and reported that the construction costs for Pasatiempo and The Valley Club, excluding irrigation, were $58,691 and $44,807, respectively.

He was also the one who reported Harry Colt's view that the fairways at Sunningdale were becoming "too perfect" ... in 1914!  

I think that Dr. MacKenzie would have explored every new construction technique known to man, but he would not be an easy sale for many of them.  His primary intent was to not destroy any more of the natural site than he had to.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()