Why Did The Macdonald/Raynor/Langford/Moreau Style Of Design Disappear?

[MCirba]

Bill Brightly,

Respectfully, I would suggest that your summary is a very narrow historical over-simplification of events that could lead to misunderstanding of what came before and after.   The land for the National Golf Links of America was secured by Macdonald in late 1906 and after several months of design and planning, construction began in the spring of 1907.   Despite the hefty budget, the project ran into numerous problems and delays due to the difficulty of the overgrown site as well as an underestimation of the difficulty of growing grass on such sandy soil.   

It wasn't until July of 1910 that the course first opened for a preview Founders tournament (and was in pretty rough shape even then) and it wasn't until the Fall of 1911 that the course actually opened, nearly a five year process.

Your post also dismisses by omission the foundational work done in the states prior to NGLA by men like Walter Travis, Devereux Emmet, and Herbert Leeds.   Interestingly, the first two had quite a bit to do with NGLA, serving on Macdonald's design and construction committee (along with H.J. Whigham) through the process, and between the four had as much knowledge of golf courses abroad as anyone in America at the time with the exception of Leeds, who did his own studies for his own less grandiose purposes.

Not to be self-serving, but I think a good resource to understand the entire process in great detail can be found at the series of articles I posted here a few months back.   Part three most specifically deals with NGLA, but the first two parts have a lot of historical information of how golf course architecture in America evolved to that point in the first place.   I think you'd enjoy reading them.

 http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/cirba-mike-walter-j-travis-dropped-at-national-golf-links-of-america-truth-or-travesty-part-one/

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/cirba-mike-walter-j-travis-dropped-at-national-golf-links-of-america-truth-or-travesty-part-two/

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/cirba-mike-walter-j-travis-dropped-at-national-golf-links-of-america-truth-or-travesty-part-three/
 

[Bill Brightly]

There is still enough demand for the Macdonald-Raynor style for a few years, but then the Great Depression hits. Banks' business naturally falls off (he never comes back to build the third nine at Hackensack)

Charles Banks died in 1931, in case you were wondering why he didn't come back.

I know when he died, Tom. But he was scheduled to come back well before that. When we moved from the city of Hackensack to our new site, we sold the land to a property developer who was to pay us over time as he sold lots/homes on our old site. The developer ran into trouble and we never received all the funds that we expected, so our club was not in the financial position we expected. We actually struggled to pay the architect/builder of our clubhouse. Plans for the third nine were scrapped, and we eventually sold of much of the extra land.

[Bill Brightly]

Mike,

I just re-read your articles and found them to be very interesting, especially the rift that developed between Travis and Macdonald. As you correctly conclude, what actual influence Travis had on what was laid out at NGLA cannot be determined and it is a moot point anyway: Macdonald was in charge so he gets full credit for the final product, including good ideas that his assistants may have provided.

I was not trying to be dismissive of the work other architects had done at the time. Rather, I was trying to provide an answer to the original question: why did the (very popular) Macdonald/Raynor style disappear? I stand by my thesis that it was the Depression, the death of CBM and Banks, no work for any of their assistants, and a huge time lag before there was a lot of new construction work.

One of the interesting things I found in your article was Travis' criticism of NGLA as being  too hard, too overdone. That allows us to make two conclusions: CBM made final decisions that Travis did not like, and what was built at NGLA was truly unique. So it is not hard to envision Macdonald boasting that he built 18 great holes, implying his ideal golf course was far better than Garden City, Travis bristling, and replying by saying CBM simply built 18 hard holes. Then Travis goes on to say, by the way, the holes are actually poor replicas of the originals! Gotta love that!

[MCirba]

Bill,


Thanks, and I think we agree on most points, particularly on why that style of architecture faded from the scene in the 1930s.


Thanks as well for taking the time to re-read the articles and respond in that context.

[William_G]

The rankings regardless of source are loaded with this style and people love them. They are sought out by nearly everyone that has an interest in golf course architecture yet there are those that decry them as unoriginal and forced. If I could only play this style going forward I wouldn’t be disappointed.

The rankings NOW are loaded with this style.


The rankings in the 1960's and 1970's were not loaded with this style at all.  Places like Camargo, Shoreacres and Yeamans Hall were nowhere to be found in the rankings when I was in college.  For that matter, neither were Fishers Island and NGLA.


Tastes change.  Some people back then even loved Kool Aid.

My response didn’t reference the rankings when you were in college. Thanks for the history lesson.

hahahahaha

[Jeff_Brauer]

I wonder how that style would be ranked if all 10,000 courses (?) built since Raynor retired had been built in his style?  We got tired of 400 RTJ courses, and over 100 TF, JN and other courses.  I have to believe, popular culture and taste being an ever changing thing, that at some point, the magazines and critics would say "enough already, lets see something new!"


Even among architects, Raynor was unique in putting the exact same 18 holes out there.  While RTJ developed a style, and every busy architect has repeated themselves, in general, we do like to look a bit different from course to course as much as we can.

[Ira Fishman]

I wonder how that style would be ranked if all 10,000 courses (?) built since Raynor retired had been built in his style?  We got tired of 400 RTJ courses, and over 100 TF, JN and other courses.  I have to believe, popular culture and taste being an ever changing thing, that at some point, the magazines and critics would say "enough already, lets see something new!"


Even among architects, Raynor was unique in putting the exact same 18 holes out there.  While RTJ developed a style, and every busy architect has repeated themselves, in general, we do like to look a bit different from course to course as much as we can.

Jeff,


There is no question that scarcity impacts perceived value.  Pappy Van Winkle proves that point (although it truly is the best).  However, how do you square your point with Ross in the US and Old Tom in the UK? 


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

I don't recall off hand how many Old Tom courses there are, so I won't comment.


As to Ross, he did comment later in his career that he was excited to do new things with all the bulldozers coming on line.  His courses really fell out of favor for a while, too.  Maybe other than Pinehurst and his top dozen.  To be honest, his style wasn't visual enough to be considered great after WWII.  Even at Pinehurst, Diamond Head had no trouble changing his course there.  Mac and Tillie (and Thomas) were more revered, although relative scarcity might have something to do with that, too.

[Tom_Doak]

The rankings in the 1960's and 1970's were not loaded with this style at all.  Places like Camargo, Shoreacres and Yeamans Hall were nowhere to be found in the rankings when I was in college.  For that matter, neither were Fishers Island and NGLA.


Tastes change.  Some people back then even loved Kool Aid.

My response didn’t reference the rankings when you were in college. Thanks for the history lesson.

hahahahaha

Hahahaha yourself.


The title of this thread is why did that style fall out of favor?  I'm not 100% sure why, but I was simply trying to answer that the perspective of people in the 1960"s and 70's was much different than now.  The style was abandoned because it was seen as old fashioned back then and golfers were not attracted to it. 


Those who are incredulous at that should maybe consider that not everyone else agrees with them.  There is room for lots of styles, not just one.

[Tim Martin]

The rankings in the 1960's and 1970's were not loaded with this style at all.  Places like Camargo, Shoreacres and Yeamans Hall were nowhere to be found in the rankings when I was in college.  For that matter, neither were Fishers Island and NGLA.


Tastes change.  Some people back then even loved Kool Aid.

My response didn’t reference the rankings when you were in college. Thanks for the history lesson.

hahahahaha

Those who are incredulous at that should maybe consider that not everyone else agrees with them.  There is room for lots of styles, not just one.

I don't think you will find a single post in what is now a four page thread where anyone even remotely suggests that there isn't room for different styles. Seems like an overreaction.

[MCirba]

If you look at styles of everything from the 1910-20s to the 50s, 60's, 70's and beyond the answer to the original question is somewhat self-revealing, no?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Who was building anything in any one of the ODG's style in the post war decades? Most likely no one, and it wasn't until this article hit the stands that people started to think about what was 'missing'. Plus, I don't think there was more than a handful (perhaps not even that many) of meaningful books on GCA in those same decades.

http://persimmongolftoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/HANNIGAN-ARTICLE.pdf

[V_Halyard]

Mike Cirba, forgive me for typing this but, the "Fake News" nature of early golf TV and film also accelerated the movement away from classic design. I apologize on behalf of my industry. Remember, "9 out of 10 doctors recommend Camels"... They didn't know and I wasn't born so..

For consideration within this conversation, it would be accurate to add that technology from Harvester, Cat and Deere helped accelerate movement away from the sensibilities of Dr. RayMacMore TillLangRossWell.
Not to be discounted is the media effect of the early Television that delivered the first images of Golf on TV on the cheap. For decades, announcers and commentators extolled the "beauty" and "glory" of a multitude of tree lined fairways or pond rimmed desert cart paths and greens viewed from a variety of resorts and courses on TV and newsreels. Many were shot near the studios (Lakeside/Griffith Park etc.) or sponsored by check writing real estate developers. (Skins Games and most shoots that originated in Palm Desert)
The media effect of decades of film, television and photo archives powered by recognizable voice artists should not be discounted.  Wonderful World of Golf, The Skins Games, Bob Hope, Bing Crosby, Celebrity Golf were shot within 10 to 20 minute drives from the studio equipment warehouse at tree lined inland courses like Lakeside, and Griffith Park in LA, and even the Bobby Jones black and whites were filmed at locations distant from the links-land of treeless, coastal sand-barren classics.
 
So decades of Post War TV showing "Great Golf" playgrounds as played by the great golfers took its toll. Suffice it to say, none of it was filmed at NGLA, The Country Club, nor Fischer's Island... I'm sorry Mike. I'm working hard to make amends for my predecessors. 

-Vaughn

 

[Peter Pallotta]

It's useful to look back at the phenomenon that V describes. Reminds me of the Nietzsche line: 'When you stare into the Abyss the Abyss stares back into you.' Which is to say: yes, the broadcasters back then waxed poetic about the beauty & glory of the tree-lined avenues of prestige and the watery mirrors of wealth, but that's only because the viewing audience was more than willing to embrace those as the symbols of the good life that promised to be just around the corner -- the Dream that President Ike secured for all Americans with his victory in WWII. It's interesting, then, to think about what *today's* e-broadcasters and bloggers and PR people-magazine writers are waxing poetic about in terms of what *we* think of as the good life -- now that a small minority have achieved the American Dream beyond their wildest dreams, just as tens of millions of others have given up ever trying to achieve it, and aren't sure if it even exists.
Just as we can look back at the Top 100 lists from decades ago to see what then symbolized success and the pursuit of happiness to our golf ancestors, so too are today's hyped courses a reflection of our own/current aspirations: the treeless expanses of limitless possibilities, the wide vistas of the ever-more good. 
But I suppose this is all just stating the obvious. The wealthiest & most successful golf developers today know all this in their bones -- that's why they're wealthy and successful!
P

[MCirba]

Vaughn,

Good post.   Lord there were lots of great old golf shows on really bad golf courses.

One exception was the old "Shell's Wonderful World", which did go to some very good venues including Pine Valley.   

I think the one factor missing so far in this discussion, however, is the simple fact that post-WWII America needed a lot of golf courses built and RTJ Sr. (and Dick Wilson and some regional others like Ed Ault and the Gordons and Geoffrey Cornish in my region) were all too happy to fill that void with perfectly serviceable golf courses that could be built quickly, maintained reasonably, and generate return revenue.

They just weren't places built laboriously and expensively over periods of 5 or more years and then further refined over decades like NGLA and/or Pine Valley.   Or Augusta National.

[Michael Whitaker]

Part three most specifically deals with NGLA, but the first two parts have a lot of historical information of how golf course architecture in America evolved to that point in the first place.   I think you'd enjoy reading them.

 http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/cirba-mike-walter-j-travis-dropped-at-national-golf-links-of-america-truth-or-travesty-part-one/

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/cirba-mike-walter-j-travis-dropped-at-national-golf-links-of-america-truth-or-travesty-part-two/

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/cirba-mike-walter-j-travis-dropped-at-national-golf-links-of-america-truth-or-travesty-part-three/

Mike - These are wonderful articles and, indeed, were a joy to read. Thank you for this work... it really helps!

[V_Halyard]

Vaughn,

Good post.   Lord there were lots of great old golf shows on really bad golf courses.

One exception was the old "Shell's Wonderful World", which did go to some very good venues including Pine Valley.   

I think the one factor missing so far in this discussion, however, is the simple fact that post-WWII America needed a lot of golf courses built and RTJ Sr. (and Dick Wilson and some regional others like Ed Ault and the Gordons and Geoffrey Cornish in my region) were all too happy to fill that void with perfectly serviceable golf courses that could be built quickly, maintained reasonably, and generate return revenue.

They just weren't places built laboriously and expensively over periods of 5 or more years and then further refined over decades like NGLA and/or Pine Valley.   Or Augusta National.

So true Mike, and no doubt. I have heard legendary stories that the "allegedly", production heads HATED Shell for insisting on the remote productions as it was more akin to a film shoot, which can be 10x the cost/minute of a television production. It was the early equivalent of "The Big Break" which also required a ton of high resolution equipment, cranes etc. Shell WWoG used a large hybrid mix of the equipment needed to shoot a  film and PGA tour event, to focus on as they would say: "Two F*****g guys."  (Non-golfing crew)
But the result shows you get what you pay for and Shell paid the networks a big check to make it look really good. Some of production team members hated it, the networks loved the revenue and others of the crew, especially this that golfed or had golf knowledge reportedly had CaddyShack-like production experiences at some of the more luxurious locations. (Google "CaddyShack on set stories")

[MCirba]

Mike - These are wonderful articles and, indeed, were a joy to read. Thank you for this work... it really helps!

Michael Whitaker,


Thank you very much.  That makes all the research, writing, and effort very worthwhile and I am so heartened you enjoyed them.