News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


TEPaul

Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #25 on: March 31, 2003, 08:46:21 AM »
Rich:

You quoted me as saying;

""Max Behr............understood and admitted that there were certain things about golf architecture that were necessarily going to be man-made looking. Why? Simply because they were necessary for golf to be played and were virtually impossible to make look natural for various commonsense reasons. Those he included that almost had to be perceived as man-made included tees, fairways, greens and to some extent bunkering."

And then you said:

"Tom, what else is left for "nature" to design?  Waterfalls?"

Rich:

That is the most amazing question. Can't you at least understand that Max Behr and many of his fellow "naturalist" architects understood that the very short grass necessary for tees, fairways and greens to play golf on that exists on the tees, fairways and greens of golf courses all over the world may not look particularly compatible to some pre-golf course natural settings--and therefore may not be able to be described as "natural looking" to that pre-golf course natural setting?  And that's precisely why he EXCEPTED those things as something any golf architect would necessarily not be able to make look as natural to the rest of the site.

If you want to see perhaps the best example in the world of what he meant by that in the extreme architecturally, what they meant by that and what I meant by that just compare the photographs on pges 42 to 122 of Shackelford's book on Cypress Point. It's Cypress's #9 hole completely pre-construction and then after construction. What did MacKenzie do there? Just about all he did is plant grass on a completely natural landform without touching anything about that landform other than to plant short grass on it.

So what's the difference in look then between p. 42 and p. 122? Basically the only difference is p. 122, the completed hole, there's short grass on it instead of its natural scruffy sandy natural base. That (the short grass) they recognized is virtually impossible for the architect to hide his hand as if he hadn't been there. But that was all--just grass on tee, fairway and green, those things they excepted. Did they move earth making what they did look unnatural on #9? No they didn't.

And Behr's point was if they had to move earth (design) on holes that they try to make it look as if they hadn't done that. How do they do that? By basically picking up the natural contours, lines, whatever of what is there before they got there and mimicing them as best as possible in what they make.

As for his expecting bunkering and sand as a featrure and something that may not be able to appear to be naturally occuring on a particular golf site I'm sure you can understand what he meant by that. He conceded that perhaps sand bunkers might not appear naturally occuring on the natural pre-construction farmland site of Merion, for instance. So he excepted that too as something that an architect did not need to hide his hand on--because by that time bunkering had apparently become a necessary feature in golf due to its amazing comprehensive holdover throughout the evolution of architecture as a vestige of the original linksland courses.

And why Behr thought it important to do all this to hide an architect's hand and make it look as much as possible like Nature made it? For the fascinating and fundamental reasons for that you'll just have to go read posts #18 & #20 again or Behr's actual articles.

Again, if you don't want to read this stuff of Behr's, or you're not interested in it--then you're just not. Otherwise I'm formally quiting answering these questions of yours or responding to you constantly acting as if you're convinced Behr was some kind of dreamer who basically had no point at all.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #26 on: March 31, 2003, 08:59:04 AM »
Tom

You know that I have seen pp. 42 and 122 of Geoff's book because I did so at your house and you made me study those pictures for hours before you would give me my warm cup of milk so I could get to sleep!

Unfortunately for you, I managed to play Cypress a couple of times after that incident and personally found that the "naturalness" of #9 was highly overrated, at least in the form it was in last summer.  Just because you move small amounts of dirt, doesn't mean that the hand of man is not there.  Dr. MacK chose the tee site and the green and the size and shape of the fairway, and created a few non-natural bunkers and subsequent supers continuously refined his concept.  It is a lovely and somewhat interesting hole and if I could play it every day of my life I would, but "natural"?  Not.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #27 on: March 31, 2003, 09:09:36 AM »
"TEPaul,
Did you know that Max Behr was Bi-Polar?"

Patrick:

Do everyone a great big favor and stay off this thread. I will formally excuse you from participation so that you may go out and totally "game mind" at completely man-made games on a wholly man-made looking golf couse that's no more mysterious or natural looking than a tennis court.

And please rid your mind of any mention I ever made of the "sports" of hunting and fishing. That was simply an analogy to the naturalness of the look of an enviroment and man's reaction to that to some of the mimicing good architects can do with designed features and such that might also look extremely natural.

Analogies like that are way over your head and could even be dangerous to you. So forget hunting and fishing were ever mentioned on here--and I definitely don't want you trying either of those things. It's way too likely you'd shoot yourself with the wrong end of a shotgun at your shoulder or perhaps hook yourself in the ass trying to cast.

For your own safety just stick to defending tee length increases at ANGC. That's much safer for your health.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #28 on: March 31, 2003, 09:28:48 AM »
"Unfortunately for you, I managed to play Cypress a couple of times after that incident and personally found that the "naturalness" of #9 was highly overrated, at least in the form it was in last summer."

Talking concepts in golf course architecture here, Rich, not the collective evolution of 73 years of maintenance on a golf hole. There's a big differe...., oh never mind!

"You know that I have seen pp. 42 and 122 of Geoff's book because I did so at your house and you made me study those pictures for hours before you would give me my warm cup of milk so I could get to sleep!"

Shit--I knew I shouldn't have shown you those photographs, and I certainly shouldn't have given you that warm cup of milk! That must be why your mind has been completely lactescent ever since.

Sorry about that. I suggest you unrinate about ten times in rapid succession--maybe that'll clear up the mental opaqueness somewhat.

  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #29 on: March 06, 2010, 09:00:00 AM »
Seven years after posting on this thread I would add I believe scientific architecture was more an American idea than a British one.

TEPaul

Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #30 on: March 06, 2010, 09:08:57 AM »
"Seven years after posting on this thread I would add I believe scientific architecture was more an American idea than a British one."


I would agree with that but only somewhat. By that I mean the essential architectural IDEAS behind what became known variously and mostly synonymously as "Scientific" or "Modern" architecture probably emanated from abroad to some degree and perhaps a rather large degree even though the TERMS "Scientific" or "Modern" architecture appears to have been coigned by Americans and used far more prominently by Americans when referring to those devolping architectural IDEAS (philosophies).
« Last Edit: March 06, 2010, 09:15:44 AM by TEPaul »

Joe Bausch

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #31 on: March 06, 2010, 09:32:54 AM »
What is the earliest any of you can recall seeing the phrase "scientifically bunkered" or something very similar?  I've seen it as early as 1907 describing the bunkering at Baltusrol.  But I'm thinking it goes back even earlier.
@jwbausch (for new photo albums)
The site for the Cobb's Creek project:  https://cobbscreek.org/
Nearly all Delaware Valley golf courses in photo albums: Bausch Collection

Melvyn Morrow

Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #32 on: March 06, 2010, 09:38:47 AM »
Tom

May I suggest that you learn all about the early designers first before making statement like that. The problem with your argument is that the very lack of knowledge on the 19th century guys destroys your case before it even starts.

Scientific can apply to a large portion of architecture, including the simple additions and control. Look at the study of the humble earth worm; also of adding sand to the grass in controlled ways; the list goes on.

The other problem with your argument is that because not many produced books on the science of green keeping/design pre 1890's you seem to have condemn them to ignorance. Just because you have not found a quote or article does not negate the actual work done by many of the 19th Century guys.

This then goes on to further undermine you point, in that pre 1890s there were not many Americans involved in design let alone green keeping, so how can you lay credit at the door on the 20th Century Americans.

Sorry, Tom but I feel your case is so riddled with holes it will sink quicker than the Titanic.

Melvyn

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #33 on: March 06, 2010, 09:39:48 AM »
Joe
Thats a good question. I'm under the impression the term originated in Britain around the turn of the century, but I'll have to see if I can dig up the proof. Despite its British origins I think it became a very popular American idea or concept, although not exclusively American, you'd still see the term occasionally in Britain.

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #34 on: March 06, 2010, 10:07:55 AM »
 8)  and perry maxwell .. "of pure scottish blood" as an early practitioner as an educated man..

see http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v031/v031p131.pdf
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #35 on: March 06, 2010, 10:08:56 AM »
To what degree do you think we spend time here debating scientific architecture, or proposing it?

Any time you offer an opinion about what works or what doesn't is that not actually a scientific premise (whether based on if bunkers are placed correctly or even the visuals, since the hunan mind and how it works is actually a science?)
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #36 on: March 06, 2010, 10:11:53 AM »
The science behind all sport seems to have been of real interest around the turn of the 20th century as many articles make reference to it. It was applied in this manner to golf by Willard Morse, M.D. in an 1887 article:

 "Wherever Scots have come to congregate in any numbers Golf Clubs have sprung up. All nations seek a national game, all seek and find, and pay the claim of outing. And seeking, Americans pitched upon the old British game of rounders, and developed baseball, and there is virtually no reason why Americans may not come to a thorough knowledge of Golf, or why it may not be delegated an American game. Since it has come to Canada its friends there have found its calculation fascinating, its promptness of execution unqualified, its scientific features praiseworthy, as promoting mental enjoyment, bodily health, and the best worth of real good-fellowship. It is true that on first observation it may not seem to have the life and entertainment of baseball; and not being perfectly easy to acquire, it admits of no very brilliant promise. But, in this country, as in Scotland, it is safe to say that no game stirs a keener enthusiasm in those who have committed themselves to a serious practice of it, or who have permitted the sway of its extreme fascination. Not as slow as cricket, and not as fast as baseball, it still has the peculiar merit of adaptation, and may be the pleasure of exuberant youth, of strong manhood, of gentler days of age, and even of women, who are able to prosecute it to the attainment of no mean proficiency.."

No stripping out of any particular feature like bunkers, but an overall nod to science.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #37 on: March 06, 2010, 11:51:19 AM »
This is the earliest I've been able to find so far (Golf, July 1900)....that is scientific relating to golf architecture. The term 'scientific' was used fairly often earlier on to describe scientific play or scientific strokes.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2010, 11:57:56 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #38 on: March 06, 2010, 11:57:50 AM »
Jim Kennedy:

That is an interesting quotation of Willard Morse, certainly considering the date of it (1887). However, while reading it and the details of the quotation, it strikes me he was talking more about the actual game or playing of golf and other games rather than specifically about the actual architecture of golf courses, as a number of golf course architects did around the turn of the century and into the 1920s, and particularly with the terms "Scientific Architecture" or the seemingly close synonym "Modern Architecture."

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2010, 12:50:11 PM »
Here are a couple of more examples, this time from 1901.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2010, 12:59:42 PM by Tom MacWood »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #40 on: March 06, 2010, 02:09:46 PM »
TEP,
I agree, but I think it does show that golf was soon to be looked at in the same manner as all other sports, and that is scientifically, which shows up in the last example that TMac posted, where it says "The course is scientifically arranged...  "
« Last Edit: March 06, 2010, 02:12:15 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #41 on: March 06, 2010, 02:44:07 PM »
TEP,
I agree, but I think it does show that golf was soon to be looked at in the same manner as all other sports, and that is scientifically, which shows up in the last example that TMac posted, where it says "The course is scientifically arranged...  "


Jim:

I think you are exactly right about that with golf at that time and in that vein. I have just always loved Max Behr's pertinent analogy and reason for that when he mentioned that just after golf first began to emigrate out of its original home of golf, Scotland and the naturally occuring linksland sites, that frankly pretty much preceded man-made architecture, to other parts of the world like first inland England and Ireland around 1850 when the railroads were beginning to come in.

Behr said that Man had taken the game out of Scotland and home with him in name only without even realizing or understanding the natural random spirit of the physicalilty of its original natural-course and feature home (linksland) and at that point they began to take the pieces of the game apart to analyze them and then pack all the pieces and parts of the game and its architecture with logical ideas. Behr said, that was the time and the way in which the game began to lose its pre-existing natural innocence.

Don't you just think his thoughts are so apropos to the beginnings of this time and thing we are now talking about----eg the "scientific" as it applies to architecture and golf itself?

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #42 on: March 06, 2010, 03:55:13 PM »
Behr saw that golf was going to be put under the microsope, along with everything else under the sun at that time. Maybe he realized that all the analyzing and logic would help turn golf from comity to commodity.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

TEPaul

Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #43 on: March 06, 2010, 05:31:33 PM »
"Maybe he realized that all the analyzing and logic would help turn golf from comity to commodity."


It seems you are feeling quite alliterative today.


But seriously, there was obviously a good deal about the tendency towards "scientific" architecture in the minds and philosophies of some to advance the popularity of the game of golf by accommodating the shot tendencies of more golfers and a more comprehensive spectrum of the levels of playing ability.

Some may've thought of the term "scientific" as applied to golf and its architecture as some form of a tendency towards greater  mathematics or formulae or standardization and necessarily thought it unbenefical and even thought of the term (scientific as applied to golf and its architecture) perjoratively.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #44 on: March 07, 2010, 12:51:54 AM »
Speaking of mathematical here is an article from Garden Smith in 1905.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #45 on: March 08, 2010, 03:49:46 AM »
For what its worth, my take on scientific design can easily mean modern design as in a course is properly planned and BUILT.  I would be very surprised if it meant adhering to some formula such as par 72 & 7000 yards. 

Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #46 on: March 08, 2010, 08:22:49 AM »
My sense is that "scientific" meant at the time nothing more than that hazards were laid out in accordance with a pre-conceived plan. The utility of the term was in distinguishing hazards that were created by "nature". The contrasting terms "scientific/natural" functioned within a larger set of contrasting terms built around the old inland v. links/seaside course distinction.

It all sounds delightfully anachronistic today. Which, of course, it is.

Bob 

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #47 on: March 08, 2010, 08:24:31 AM »
My sense is that "scientific" meant at the time nothing more than that hazards were laid out in accordance with a pre-conceived plan. The utility of the term was in distinguishing hazards that were created by "nature". The contrasting terms "scientific/natural" functioned within a larger set of contrasting terms built around the old inland v. links/seaside course distinction.

It all sounds delightfully anachronistic today. Which, of course, it is.

Bob 

Bob

Yes, placing the bunkers is part of "building" a course.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Melvyn Morrow

Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #48 on: March 08, 2010, 08:32:41 AM »

Bob

With respect again I ask what do you or others know about the way the 19th century designers went about their business. Scientific relates in my book to tests and studying various methods to develop a course, not just the location.

Studies re worms would prove to me that theses guys did undertake studies. As I said I thing Tom has shot himself in his foot on this subject and to claim it was mainly Americans in the 20th Century I feel is just plain incorrect. But then that only my opinion.

Melvyn

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: "Scientific architecture!?"
« Reply #49 on: March 08, 2010, 08:33:06 AM »
Bob/Sean
All true, but you can find articles that prescribe the proper length that a hole should be, the proper length of the course overall, the proper number of 3s, 4, and 5s, etc., that suggest more than just natural v scientific.   
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon