Defining "Dark Ages Architecture"

[Ira Fishman]

Bernie,

The title of this thread is "Defining Dark Ages Architecture", not about what has or hasn't survived.

There are plenty of mediocre and crappy courses that will surely continue to be around, for the reasons you've stated and perhaps more.  But I put them more in the camp of fast food where the Taco Bells and McDonalds will survive because they are cheap, easy, and convenient. But I wouldn't be making the mistake of arguing they offer much quality if any at all.

In the Charleston, S.C. episode of Parts Unknown, the late Anthony Bourdain and Southern chef Sean Brock have basically the time of their lives eating at a Waffle House. There they are, in one of the most foodie-friendly cities in America, and they're rhapsodizing about the pecan waffles and other menu items that would be easy for foodies to dismiss as mundane and pedestrian and therefor not "offer[ing] much quality if any at all."


On an episode of David Chang's (another great American food mind) podcast, he and his guest Lolis Elie, who is a screenwriter and food critic, spent a good five minutes talking about how the best red beans and rice might be the version made by, of all places, Popeye's.


I love independent foodie-haven restaurants as much as anyone, but I think there is a sneaky-high amount of quality in the more widespread restaurant chains out there. There's a lot of not-great food, obviously, but while it's easy to dismiss it all wholesale, it's also inaccurate to do so.


The same thing is happening with regard to "Dark-Ages" GCA, which is understandable when the name for the entire era is a put-down. It makes it awfully easy to overlook what I think is plenty of sneaky-strong product.


I learned the game on a 1961 Geoffrey Cornish design that doesn't have the frills and trigger features that some Dark Age dismissers seem to require in order to truly appreciate a course. It doesn't have 80 acres of fairway or enormous greens, but it has a good mix of holes that give the whole bag a workout, as well as some interesting uphill and downhill shots.


Ol' Hop Meadow CC is but one example, but I've been impressed by several, shall we say, "Midcentury Modern" courses. I think the trouble partly comes from lack of separation, when evaluating a course, of that course's style (look/shaping/vibe) from its content (variety/strategy). I think if some of the haters would set aside their arbitrary objections to the look of a course and evaluate the content, it might, uh, brighten their view somewhat.

Waffle House and Popeyes are both off the chain (pun intended). And pretty difficult to find a better dessert than a Blizzard at DQ. Plus not even Willie Mae’s clearly tops the fried chicken at a Brothers in a gas station.


As it relates to golf courses, Plum Tree National (Joe Lee and NLE) and Hog Neck (Lindsey Ervin) are 1970s Public courses with real merit and reasonable green fees. I played several  other such courses growing up and as a young adult.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

Tim,

-----------------------------------
IN my opinion, and the following is just that...

To me the real objection I have to the dark ages, is it seems like they tried to corporatize golf in the name of "progress" and make it all about the bottom line instead of following with the artsy/whimsical/fun side to it (exceptions duly noted).

And then when the ball really got rolling in the 60s and the RFPs were flooding the market and pumping out 400+ courses per year it seems to have went full construction line, where it was all about how many courses can we make in the shortest amount of time, end product be damned...

Kalen,

One of the problems with this whole Dark Ages concept is, how do you talk about a 35-45+ year period (depending on when you believe the era began and ended) in any meaningful way? Especially considering that over 8,000-10,000 courses were built (nice job on the research).

I would actually cleave it further, into smaller sections. The period from 1945 to about 1965 has a lot in common -- it is the Ramp Up. This is when golf booms across all demographics, demand is extreme and good and sometimes great land remains available and fairly accessible. The courses of this era are typically what I would call "honest, with many built are on nice, core properties -- most are public, are good walks and not difficult to drive to.

The 1965-1980 period is the Scale Up. Industrialization begins with more courses added, often farther away from city centers. This is when housing developments and new suburban communities really begin to grow. As cities push out into more difficult land the courses and architecture is forced to bend to the demands and and constraints of outside, non-golf factors. Golf carts gain in popularity.

1980-1990/whenever is the One Up. The one-upsmanship that begins in the 70s takes on new meaning as the influence of Pete Dye and more readily available money encourages new designs to go big and test limits and blah blah blah. Golf cart paths gain in popularity. The dawning of the era of the signature hole.

I just find it pretty hard to compare what was happening to golf design in 1975 to what was happening in 1950. Too much happened -- in the world, in outlook, in technology and communication and culture -- to draw clean lines.

Derek,

I appreciate this last post. I think breaking it down further would be a worthwhile activity, because the time span is pretty large as Ran has it on the main page.  Then again, that entire section is certainly very brief and i'm guessing intentionally doesn't go into much detail.  But if you asked Ran, i'm sure he could provide far more detail on how he arrived at the conclusion for the "Dark Ages".  I can certainly see how that term is a bit heavy handed, even if I agree with it personally, and have tried to provide evidence/data as to why I agree with it.

Maybe a takeaway from this thread is to further digest this topic and perhaps present an updated narrative to Ran to post on the main page.  I don't believe its changed since I first came here well over a decade ago, so i wouldn't hold your breath.

On that note, I leave you with this in regards to your last post! 

[Jim Sherma]

In reference to the idea that the GCA could reinvent itself I am not sure that the professionalism and reliance on larger name recognition brands didn't have its seeds in the depression and how that decade played out.


Tillie's PGA trip was sponsored by the "establishment" PGA and certainly was a strong message across the industry in the value of a professional GCA. In the RTJ Sr. biography there is a good write up about the work he did for the NY State Parks department during the depression. This type of establishment work accelerated through public investment made in golf during the depression and after the war. I am sure the name recognition and ability to jump through bureaucratic hurdles was a selling point for the larger and more professional firms in a given area.   

[Jim Hoak]

In my mind, Golf Course Architecture entered the "Dark Ages," when many golf courses were built just to be another amenity to sell lots.  Beauty at the expense of strategy, ease of play by all levels of players, with multiple tees to choose from, visibly exciting greens much like miniature golf, etc.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim S,


I don't disagree.  We like to compartmentalize things for easier understanding but really a lot of factors came into play.


Not sure the PGA throwing Tillie a bone did much to ramp up professionalism, though.  If anything, it may have established you could get a gca on site for really low cost.  Similar for a then young RTJ or any gca doing work for public agencies. Most just went out of biz, either permanently or for a decade waiting it out.  It was great golf got such a nod back then.  It was excluded specifically under the $797 Billion spending package after 2006!



But then, I can't know, since I wasn't there.


Jim H,


Don't disagree either.  But, even now, you have to admit not every course should be built to be great.  And Back then, great meant tough, so it was especially apparent.  Certainly there was a real estate emphasis, putting courses where the people were, as opposed to the Golden Age (and now) where it was financially feasible to build resorts (Pinehurst then, Bandon Dunes now, as examples) 


If filling the major market need constitutes a dark age, I am not seeing it.  Again, not every course was ever meant to be great.

[Jeff Schley]

Jim H,


Don't disagree either.  But, even now, you have to admit not every course should be built to be great.  And Back then, great meant tough, so it was especially apparent.  Certainly there was a real estate emphasis, putting courses where the people were, as opposed to the Golden Age (and now) where it was financially feasible to build resorts (Pinehurst then, Bandon Dunes now, as examples) 


If filling the major market need constitutes a dark age, I am not seeing it.  Again, not every course was ever meant to be great.

I like this observation Jeff and I'm wondering if anyone has any data about how many courses built during the "Dark Ages" were private clubs vs. public (or even municipally built). Back in the golden age most of them were built as private clubs with large budgets for very wealthy people. As golf grew in popularity and mainstream public courses were built more and more. Even local municipalities built them in mass for their city's residents to enjoy. So in a way I think the golden age got the large budgets and thus prime locations and GCA's for their projects. 


Then we have an era that was the democratization of golf, providing it to the every man.  However, certainly not to the NGLA, Riviera, Chicago, etc. standard. Doesn't it just stand to reason that what was built then is a lesser quality and be susceptible to survival of the fittest compared to the entire amount of courses remaining? Similar to track homes built in the 1970's / 1980's vs. custom built mansions from the golden age.  Which are we going to restore and want to maintain?  The track homes served their purpose and perhaps still are today, but if you only need X amount of courses to meet the golfing demand, which ones will survive I think is evident and happening whether we realize it or not.

Edit: I think this is something to consider, but thoughts?

[Sean_A]

Jeff & Jeff

+1

Although, I think there were big missed opportunities in the 80s when the of fad of CCFAD first came about. As I said in the other thread, Michigan was at the forefront of post war golf boom with unbelievable numbers of munis, local public and resort course openings. The state would probably make a good study of the question.

Happy Hockey

[Derek_Duncan]

I like this observation Jeff and I'm wondering if anyone has any data about how many courses built during the "Dark Ages" were private clubs vs. public (or even municipally built). Back in the golden age most of them were built as private clubs with large budgets for very wealthy people. As golf grew in popularity and mainstream public courses were built more and more. Even local municipalities built them in mass for their city's residents to enjoy. So in a way I think the golden age got the large budgets and thus prime locations and GCA's for their projects. 

Jeff,


Not to distract from your larger point, but I'm curious where you got this information. Are you exaggerating when you say "most" clubs were built as private clubs with large budgets?


There were something like 4,000-4500 golf courses in the US around 1930. How many of those courses were private? How many were built on large budgets? How many were even 18-hole courses?


The very best courses built in the 1910s and 1920s are historically significant. But just like in all eras, the majority of courses built then were ordinary and purely functional.

[Jeff Schley]

I like this observation Jeff and I'm wondering if anyone has any data about how many courses built during the "Dark Ages" were private clubs vs. public (or even municipally built). Back in the golden age most of them were built as private clubs with large budgets for very wealthy people. As golf grew in popularity and mainstream public courses were built more and more. Even local municipalities built them in mass for their city's residents to enjoy. So in a way I think the golden age got the large budgets and thus prime locations and GCA's for their projects. 

Jeff,


Not to distract from your larger point, but I'm curious where you got this information. Are you exaggerating when you say "most" clubs were built as private clubs with large budgets?


There were something like 4,000-4500 golf courses in the US around 1930. How many of those courses were private? How many were built on large budgets? How many were even 18-hole courses?


The very best courses built in the 1910s and 1920s are historically significant. But just like in all eras, the majority of courses built then were ordinary and purely functional.

Hey Derek, big budgets is relative certainly, I don't have the data on how many were public vs. private but would like to know. Certainly the ones that have lasted fit the description of large budgets (including land), private and by the wealthy, but not sure of the numbers. 

[Derek_Duncan]

Jeff,


Here are some statistics from Golfdom in 1936. These should be fairly reflective of the "Golden Age" since not a lot of courses were added between 1930 and 1936.


Private Clubs, 9-hole: 2,366
Private Clubs, 18-hole & over: 1,339


Daily Fee, 9-hole: 576
Daily Fee, 18 hole & over: 474


Municipal, 9-hole: 314
Municipal, 18-hoel & over: 292


Definitely private courses outnumbered public options, and a majority of players played at private clubs than public (861,000 vs. 504,000, from the same study). What can't be determined from these statistics is the relative wealth of the private clubs or the quality of the golf courses.


60% of the courses in the U.S. at this time were 9-hole courses. I'm wondering what kind of information we can divine from that.

[Ira Fishman]

Derek,


Do you have comparable data from 1990?


My guess is that percentage of public access is higher.


Ira

[Derek_Duncan]

Ira,


I don't have numbers right now from 1990, but I'm certain you are correct that public access courses outnumbered private clubs.


The NGF reports that 75% of all current US courses are public access of some sort. I would imagine the numbers from 1990 would reflect something similar.

[Jeff Schley]

Jeff,


Here are some statistics from Golfdom in 1936. These should be fairly reflective of the "Golden Age" since not a lot of courses were added between 1930 and 1936.


Private Clubs, 9-hole: 2,366
Private Clubs, 18-hole & over: 1,339


Daily Fee, 9-hole: 576
Daily Fee, 18 hole & over: 474


Municipal, 9-hole: 314
Municipal, 18-hoel & over: 292


Definitely private courses outnumbered public options, and a majority of players played at private clubs than public (861,000 vs. 504,000, from the same study). What can't be determined from these statistics is the relative wealth of the private clubs or the quality of the golf courses.


60% of the courses in the U.S. at this time were 9-hole courses. I'm wondering what kind of information we can divine from that.

Holy cow, I don't know if I'm that ignorant when it comes to historical numbers of courses, but I would have guessed the opposite % with 18 hole courses being 60% and 9 holers 40%.  I'm very surprised by this.  This goes to show how you really have to study an era before you really can know it well, if you didn't live in it.  This is another example.  I don't know what to make of this in regards to the 18/9 split, but the important stat is the private/public.  A larger amount than I was expecting as well almost 3x's the number of privates than publics.  Certainly we can ascertain that private courses needed a benefactor or people of means to start them. So if we extrapolate that a private course of the era was for the wealthy (general assumption, but fair IMO) and public courses were for the every man, I suppose my assumption is on the right track. What I didn't expect was the number of 9 hole privates being so large.  What happened to those, did they become 18 hole courses or?  There definitely aren't many left.

[Bernie Bell]

The housing analogy is interesting.  Pete Seeger charted a hit with Little Boxes in 1963. 
Little boxes on the hillside
Little boxes made of ticky tacky <audience laughter>
And they all look just the same
And they all play on the golf course
And drink their martini dry
When ole Pete was weary from cross-country gigging as a troubadour for Soviet Communism, he reportedly repaired to his parents’ Maryland house, a magnificent 1905 Queen Anne 7-bedroom affair with a den large enough for two grand pianos, a short walk from the Chevy Chase Club.
The view of post-war architecture from Pete’s privileged wrap-around porch was not shared by the 16 million who returned from WW2 and the 6 million who returned from Korea.  Builders like Levitt couldn’t build little boxes fast enough to meet the demand.  The construction was not substandard (ticky-tacky).  The homes were simple, sturdy and well-built with quality materials, although no one confused the finished product with the Seegers’ stately 4,000-square foot Queen Anne.  Nor did the people who lived in the little boxes fit the stereotype that Seeger then and others now perpetuate.  (Google Herbert Gans).  Tom Lehrer later called Little Boxes the “most sanctimonious song ever written.”
Is US golf meant to be more than a game for the 1%, as it was in the “Golden Age”? To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if people today don’t want to go the golf course, no one is going to stop them.  But perhaps it’s worth considering whether the “dark ages” golf architecture – simplicity, durability, value – was simply a response to demand, or whether there is something about it that helped create that demand – something that may be useful today.  Maybe’s there’s more to the “dark ages” work than conventionally supposed.

[Sven Nilsen]

Certainly we can ascertain that private courses needed a benefactor or people of means to start them. So if we extrapolate that a private course of the era was for the wealthy (general assumption, but fair IMO) and public courses were for the every man, I suppose my assumption is on the right track.

Jeff:


The majority of private courses built in that era were either funded by a bond offering or by initial membership support.  In addition, most courses from the 1920's were open to outside play, hence not just for the weathy.


Your assumptions on this thread are well-intentioned, but they're wrong.  Look up any one of the Annual Guides from the 1920's and spend some time reading through the list of courses and their descriptions.  It might be eye-opening. 


Sven

[Jeff Schley]

Certainly we can ascertain that private courses needed a benefactor or people of means to start them. So if we extrapolate that a private course of the era was for the wealthy (general assumption, but fair IMO) and public courses were for the every man, I suppose my assumption is on the right track.

Jeff:


The majority of private courses built in that era were either funded by a bond offering or by initial membership support.  In addition, most courses from the 1920's were open to outside play, hence not just for the weathy.


Your assumptions on this thread are well-intentioned, but they're wrong.  Look up any one of the Annual Guides from the 1920's and spend some time reading through the list of courses and their descriptions.  It might be eye-opening. 


Sven

Sven, so the "private" courses tabulated really aren't private?  Is that what you mean? Perhaps the definition of private is non-municipal?  Would the guides denote which private courses allowed outside play, which IMO means they aren't really private?
Thanks.

[Tom_Doak]

Is US golf meant to be more than a game for the 1%, as it was in the “Golden Age”? To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if people today don’t want to go the golf course, no one is going to stop them.  But perhaps it’s worth considering whether the “dark ages” golf architecture – simplicity, durability, value – was simply a response to demand, or whether there is something about it that helped create that demand – something that may be useful today.  Maybe’s there’s more to the “dark ages” work than conventionally supposed.

If you look at those statistics from 1936, do you really think all of those nine-hole courses were like The Dunes Club?  I would posit the opposite:  they were small-town courses for the masses, in towns that weren't big enough to support a full 18.  There are still plenty of them throughout the midwestern U.S.


That they were more simple and functional, even during the Golden Age, puts the lie to your idea that the courses of the 1950's and 1960's were anything special.  Practical, absolutely.  But great?  Just because they were practical?


Also, your assumption that what America needs now is more such practical courses, is probably wrong, because no one can afford to build such courses from scratch and charge $30 to play them.  The only courses that can fit that price point are courses where the capital for construction was paid off [or written down] long ago:  older, failing courses.  If you try to build a new course to that model, it will probably fail, too.


Luckily, there are still a lot of golf courses in America that fit that niche, just as there were after the Depression and the war.  Unfortunately, a lot have been closing their doors over the past few years, because capitalists have "higher and better uses" in mind for them, i.e., schemes that might make them money. 

[Tom_Doak]

so the "private" courses tabulated really aren't private?  Is that what you mean? Perhaps the definition of private is non-municipal?  Would the guides denote which private courses allowed outside play, which IMO means they aren't really private?

Most clubs in America [as in Britain today] allowed reciprocal play or outside play back in the day. 


I was told years ago that this changed when the tax laws changed:  private clubs are given income tax and property tax breaks as long as they are for "members only," with a maximum of 5% of revenues from non-member sources.  One can guess this had a chilling effect on reciprocal play.


I'm not a tax expert so I don't know to what extent the above is still true.  Private or not, it seems like most golf courses in the U.S. have been selling snob appeal for as long as I've been a golfer.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ira,


I don't have numbers right now from 1990, but I'm certain you are correct that public access courses outnumbered private clubs.


The NGF reports that 75% of all current US courses are public access of some sort. I would imagine the numbers from 1990 would reflect something similar.

Derek,  While I can't recall perfectly, I do remember an seeing a similar NGF report when I worked at Killian and Nugent (1977-1984) and then, 66% of courses were public by whatever their definition was.  At the time, the proportion of public vs privates had been growing slowly and predicted to continue, which appears to be the case.


As to tax implications, I recall forward to the original World Atlas of Golf in 1974.  It painted a very bleak picture of private clubs (with some dark humor suggesting all golf clubs would be like secret societies in the future) mostly because the govt had taken away some tax privileges of clubs and it seemed like an assault on golf.  People also trotted out that argument when ADA reclassified (for tax purposes) private clubs as public accommodation if they had a certain percentage of revenues.


As Dick Nugent used to say, "Golf's been going strong for 500 years, and faced bigger challenges. I think it will be okay."

[Paul Rudovsky]

Interesting discussion with a lot of good points, but I think two huge changes during the 20th century are very critical to the cause/start of the "dark ages" and the end of the "dark ages".


The first relates to available land.  Back in 1900-1930 for the most part there was ample availability of high quality land reasonably close to major cities (or accessible by commuter trains in the large cities such as Chicago and NYC).  Ever notice that almost all great classic courses hav e train tacks near them...that was the only way to get there from offices in many large cities. 


Great land is a huge plus IMO for great golf courses.  From 1930-41 few projects commenced (outside of a few funded by gov't entities such as Bethpage) due to the depression...one exception was Old Town Club in Winston Salem NC...that was funded by $$ (and land) from the Reynolds family (Reynolds Tobacco).  Interesting that people continued to have tobacco products on their list of necessities during the depression. 


After WWII there was a huge push to build housing for the returning armed forces and that goggled up large portions of available land near major cities...and drove up real estate taxes.  Think of some of the courses that closed or moved during that post war period...Fresh Meadow (NY), Pomonok (NY), Englewood (NJ) (I grew up in NY so know these NY examples).  So the architects were left w so-so land...the great land on the north shore of LI, Westchester, near Lake Michigan in Chicago, or in SW San Francisco was no longer available or way too expensive (or both).


Then in the early 90's Dick Youngscap started working his long time dream to build a course in the "impossible to get to" Nebraska Sandhills.  In so so many ways perfect land for a golf course...fabulous land movement, just about unlimited perfect water underneath, sitting on hundreds of feet of perfect sand, etc.  But if you build it "would they come"?  Youngscap and Coore/Crenshaw took a huge risk (in retrospect looks like a no brainer...but at the time risk was major...just like buying shares of Apple in 1995 looks obvious in retrospect).  They did come...in droves...club membership sold out quickly and that said to Mike Keiser go ahead with that out of the way site along the Pacific Coast in OR...which also was a huge risk.  Those two developments ended the "dark ages" because they opened upon for development at lots of out of the way sites and led the way for great new architecture and courses (based on the assumption that great architecture is substantially easier on great land).  BTW...that s=does not mean great architecture is easy in those cases...but easier.


As a side note regarding the above, IMO both Youngscap and Keiser deserve entry into the Golf Hall of Fame for ending the dark ages and opening up the 2nd Golden Age.  Sandhills and Bandon may not have been sufficient for the 2nd Golden Age but no question they were necessary.


OK...now the second huge change...environmental laws and regulations.  This is NOT meant to get into a political debate about the costs and benefits of these laws and regs.  But they did become a real complicating factor in terms of finding usable land for golf courses.  There is no way that tracks such as NGLA, Shinnecock, ANGC, Seminole, Shoreacres, Merion, Lido etc etc etc could have been build if today's laws/regs were in place back then.  Over time architects, construction folks, lawyers etc found ways to more easy deal w the regs...but that learning process took a while and contributed to the dark ages as well.

[Tom_Doak]

OK...now the second huge change...environmental laws and regulations.  This is NOT meant to get into a political debate about the costs and benefits of these laws and regs.  But they did become a real complicating factor in terms of finding usable land for golf courses.  There is no way that tracks such as NGLA, Shinnecock, ANGC, Seminole, Shoreacres, Merion, Lido etc etc etc could have been build if today's laws/regs were in place back then.  Over time architects, construction folks, lawyers etc found ways to more easy deal w the regs...but that learning process took a while and contributed to the dark ages as well.

Paul:


I think the changes to environmental laws and regulations have not been as complicating a factor as many make them out to be.  After all, I did manage to build Pacific Dunes and Rock Creek and Stone Eagle and others under the rules of the day.  It's true that you probably can't build something like Tara Iti in California now . . . or at least, not in the lifetime of a client who wants to try . . .


And though several of your examples would have issues with stream crossings, I cannot think of anything that would prevent Shinnecock Hills being built today just as it was way back when.

[Kalen Braley]

...not to mention Sebonack, right next door to NGLA...or Friars Head.

[Paul Rudovsky]

OK...now the second huge change...environmental laws and regulations.  This is NOT meant to get into a political debate about the costs and benefits of these laws and regs.  But they did become a real complicating factor in terms of finding usable land for golf courses.  There is no way that tracks such as NGLA, Shinnecock, ANGC, Seminole, Shoreacres, Merion, Lido etc etc etc could have been build if today's laws/regs were in place back then.  Over time architects, construction folks, lawyers etc found ways to more easy deal w the regs...but that learning process took a while and contributed to the dark ages as well.

Paul:


I think the changes to environmental laws and regulations have not been as complicating a factor as many make them out to be.  After all, I did manage to build Pacific Dunes and Rock Creek and Stone Eagle and others under the rules of the day.  It's true that you probably can't build something like Tara Iti in California now . . . or at least, not in the lifetime of a client who wants to try . . .


And though several of your examples would have issues with stream crossings, I cannot think of anything that would prevent Shinnecock Hills being built today just as it was way back when.

Tom--


Yes but when those laws and regs first went into effect, folks like you had not figured out how to deal w them and I bet avoided environmentally sensitive areas as a matter of policy.  After the "industry" learned how to deal with these issues things changed as income the 2nd Golden Age.


Regarding Shinnecock...what about hole #6?  Probably not as show stopper but perhaps a bad headache

[Jim Hoak]

Jeff & Jeff, I agree with the statement that all golf courses need not be built to be great.  And, analyzed from a business plan standpoint, I have no objection to the building of courses as an amenity to produce lot sales.  That is perfectly legitimate.  But, analyzed from the viewpoint of golf course architecture, this emphasis on lot sales has reduced the quality of courses produced.

[Mike_Young]

While we are talking ho many were public and how many were private etc...think about this...when I was getting started there was a term "upscale daily fee" used to describe a product that was being built and that was what I focused on.  In the late 80's and early 90's the signatures didnot bother with daily fee golf courses.  It was not until later in the 90's when a few things slowed down that the signatures got into these types of projects.  Today we forget that and think they were always involved but itwas beneath them for a good while...