"Scientific architecture!?"

[BCrosby]

Jim -

There was a lot of that. At one time the lengths of non-par 3 holes - Hutchinson called them Procrustean Axioms - had to always require two or three full shots. So the math could get quite precise. But the term "scientific" was used in many other contexts to mean something less specific. But in all of its uses it meant building architectural featues according to a plan (whatever the content of the plan).

Bob

[Sean_A]

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.    

Jim

I am not sure what you are asking.  From my perspective we can read "scientific" to be positive and negative.  On the positive side, archies were able to build good holes where they didn't exist in nature or tweak nature to their ends.  On the negative side, once building courses becomes the norm, an awful lot can be repeated and I don't think any archie of the Golden Era is completely innocent of this.  Nor do I think archies are innocent of this today.  That said, if a guy is gonna build 50, 100 or 200 courses there HAS TO BE SOME CONCEPTS USED OVER AND AGAIN and this may be why Fowler stands out to me - he wasn't as prolific as Colt - the guy I mark down as the standard for the era.  I am one to believe that there is little, if anything new out there for archies to "discover" and I think it has been that way since probably the 1920s.  Where archies can differentiate is in their style and this is where the Golden Age archies did very well in distinguishing themselves.  Even so, it was dead easy to slip into the style of another archie.  This is perhaps the reason I like Fowler best of this era.  IMO, he is the guy who best blended modern architecture with using the land (natural architecture) to create courses which really never had a style that could be ear-marked.  The one exception I can think of is the Berkshire - it looks like Colt could have designed and indeed, perhaps Simpson had more to do with the shaping than Fowler did.  

I would also point out that there could be a world of difference between what was written and what was designed.  Writing is heavily based on the ideal, designing is heavily based in reality.  For instance, some believe Braid was a very penal archie because of his writings, yet I can find no course that Braid designed which I would call remotely penal.   

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Sean

Its down to how we define 'Scientific' - a systematic approach based upon previous encounters with a good dose of hindsight might fit the bill and reflect upon the development of GCA since the mid 1850's. Some seem to be doing what the so call Golden Age designers did re the 19th Century guys, dismissing them and their efforts without taking time to understand their MO.

The modern GCA starting with Allan Robertson, it has continued to grow and develop, yet I feel we have just about run out of ideas and some seem happy to fall back into the arms of technology to keep the movement going, rather than being creative in their own right.

I believe that scientific design started in the mid 1850’s,  maybe it was in its infancy but it rapidly developed with courses not being designed AM and played PM but on average taking the best part of 3 months. This kicked in the learning process which was pushed forward by repeated test and checks which I believe was and is part of a scientific process.

The old designer in the 19th Century returned to many of their courses afterwards to check and tweak them over the first few early years including the installation or adjust of bunkers. All this well before the Haskell ball.

Certainly the ‘later’ Golden Age designers moved it forward and yes their methods also developed as well, but so did their budget.

Let’s view the whole picture before coming to a conclusion otherwise we may get it wrong and there may not be any big world order whatsoever.

Melvyn

[Tom MacWood]

Melvyn
How was the term 'scientific' used in respect to golf architecture in the 19th C? Could you cite some examples of its use back then?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I will give you my take on it......

Scientific vs natural simply recognized that they had to build bunkers, etc. rather than find them, as was done on the original seaside courses.

Once you place hazards on a golf course, the question arises as to exactly where to put them.  You can throw them any old place, or you can study/measure where golfers hit the ball and place them relative to that, at perhaps 150 yards back then to create challenge, and perhaps strategy., to put them where they do the most good. Most designs today are still done in this fashion, eh?

I am not sure it was as earth shaking a concept as some might.  In fact, I take it to be mostly a marketing claim/angle, not unlike minimalism today.  Why hire any old gca when you can hire a more scientific one? I have always beleived that gca follows other trends in society as much as having developed its own unique "follow the land" culture.  So,I wonder how much the term scientific architecture was influenced by the incredible feats of guys like Thomas Edison and all the new fangled inventions that sprung forth in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

The term Scientific is not what matters, it was the approach that was scientific in the sense that it was checked and the studies noted.

As I said it depend on what your definition of Scientific actually equates to. For me it is the detailed approach and development, noting the various changes and directions an action takes. There are two that stand out in the 19th Century which I have already mentioned grass and the study of worms to the point of calculation the numbers of worms to the square yard.

I suppose the study that the Rev Gosset did in the early 1860’s in taking into account of every players score at Westward Ho working out an early form of par was not a scientific study. Nevertheless he undertook it in a detailed and methodical manner, updating and adjusting the records as they came in, is that not a scientific approach.

Again we need to take in the bigger picture, before jumping to conclusions. The important part of this is not the specific word but the scientific process.

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

"Quote from: Jim_Kennedy on Today at 07:33:06 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.    


Jim

I am not sure what you are asking.  From my perspective we can read "scientific" to be positive and negative."




I just read through this thread again. It's a good one, I think, particularly before about the seven year hiatus in it. But after the seven year hiatus, when Tom MacWood brought it back recently, he also included some very interesting articles from around the turn of the century----something this thread did not have the benefit of back in 2003 when it was begun. I think those articles were quite declarative about what they meant by "scientific" compared to what they felt came before it or before they began to first mention and use the idea, philosophy, term etc.

This thread may begin to drift into a discussion of whether WE TODAY think the emanation and evolution of "scientific architecture" was positive or negative and of course we have the benefit of almost a century to consider that which those who coigned the term and used it back then did not have.

So my interest is still in understanding as well as possible what they thought of the idea, philosophy, term etc back then and whether THEY thought it was a positive or negative departure in golf and golf architecture from what had come before it. Or even whether they really did view the idea, philosophy and term etc as a real departure from what came before it.

Again, reading those old articles on here and many others that use and explain the idea, philosophy and term ("scientific" or "modern" architecture) it seems they certainly did see it as a departure from what came before it and generally a very positive one that would logically help popularize the game as well as perhaps creating something of a more over-all "shot-testing" context for golfers via scientific architecture.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom

The term Scientific is not what matters, it was the approach that was scientific in the sense that it was checked and the studies noted.

As I said it depend on what your definition of Scientific actually equates to. For me it is the detailed approach and development, noting the various changes and directions an action takes. There are two that stand out in the 19th Century which I have already mentioned grass and the study of worms to the point of calculation the numbers of worms to the square yard.

I suppose the study that the Rev Gosset did in the early 1860’s in taking into account of every players score at Westward Ho working out an early form of par was not a scientific study. Nevertheless he undertook it in a detailed and methodical manner, updating and adjusting the records as they came in, is that not a scientific approach.

Again we need to take in the bigger picture, before jumping to conclusions. The important part of this is not the specific word but the scientific process.

Melvyn

This discussion is about the term as it applies to golf architecture. I don't doubt there were educated men who approached golf design scientifically in the 1890s or before (I profiled a number of them in my essay), but that is not what we are discussing here.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom

So was I  - by definition  - clearly the phrase is more important than the sum of its parts.

Enjoy you debate

Melvyn

[TEPaul]

"This discussion is about the term as it applies to golf architecture. I don't doubt there were educated men who approached golf design scientifically in the 1890s or before (I profiled a number of them in my essay), but that is not what we are discussing here."


I agree; I think it is the term as applied to golf architecture this discussion is about. I think it is the term as THEY saw it back then and what that term meant to them back then philosophically and actually in a GCA application.

I have read your essay you referred to and will read it again today or tomorrow and then make a point on here that I think your essay makes, even if you may not have been particularly aware, when you wrote the article, of the point I will make.

[Tom MacWood]

The zenith for the use of the term seems to be the late teen through the 30s, with a little spill over in the 40s and 50s. The term was synonymous with an American philosophy of golf architecture that was prevalent during that period.

[TEPaul]

Can anyone find any particular commonality or similarity or common thread in the type of people in those early years (late 19th century and early 20th century) who were using that term and discussing and proposing it and being quoted in print about it?

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
I have not found a 19th C example of the term being used in association with golf architecture.

[Norbert P]

 Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :
 
"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique, technology, or practice, from which a good deal of randomness in outcome has been removed.[1]

In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes called experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs—although the two are commonly interconnected.

Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.

The ability of the general population to understand the basic concepts related to science is referred to as scientific literacy.  "


  Luddites be damned.
 

   "Without plastics, life itself would be impossible."    (An actual plastic manufacturer's ad slogan.)



There's always been head-butting with the value of science but its main rival has always been religeon.  In this pivotal era of economic and environmental troubles we really do require more science to make this world livable and sustainable.  Involving it with nature, we need it just to feed the hungry lot.  Involving it with golf is becoming more and more essential for a course's viability and existability.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
I have not found a 19th C example of the term being used in association with golf architecture."


That doesn't surprise me at all. I don't recall that I have eiher. I also don't recall any example of a comprehensively "built" golf course much before the turn of the century, arguably inland, that looked much of anything like the architecture looked that would come to be referred to in perhaps beginning in the first decade of the 20th and certainly by the teens and 1920s etc that was often referred to as "scientific" or "modern."

Flynn's architecture was often referred to "scientific" or "modern" and of course Tillinghast sometimes used the term---at least I remember him using the term "modern" architecture for his own philosophy probably beginning in the teens.

[Tom MacWood]

Here are some examples of the term, and all relating to Princes interesting enough:

Henry Leach (1911): "Now during the last two or three years there has been given an enormous stimulus to the study of links' architecture in this country. It has been made the most exact science, and is studied as such. There are, as one might say, professors and students. All the old theories and practices have been overhauled, and in most cases condemned. New courses are being made on entirely new principles of length and bunkering. It no longer does to put a short hole in just where it seems convenient, as they did in the old days at St. Andrews and Prestwick. It must come at the right place, and be bunkered according to the right theories. And so forth. Whether the new courses that are being made, and to the points of which all these new theories and results of study are being applied, are any better or more interesting to play upon is a question which we need not discuss. It is after all largely a matter of temperament. Certain it is that some of these new  courses are really very perfect from the scientific point of view. Good shots get their reward, bad ones are punished, and the golfer is tested at every point of the game and made to learn all the different ways of doing the same thing."

H. Mallaby-Deeley (1914): “No course, however difficult, can be a good one if it is unfair and I notice that the latest tendency is to make things difficult by making them unreasonable in respect to hazards and the position of the hole to the green. This may produce high scoring, which seems to be the object of many golf architects, but it is not scientific course construction.”

Max Behr (1915): "Very different is the first short hole at Princes', the new and scientific course next to Sandwich. There the green is heavily bunkered in front and on the sides and is not more than thirty feet wide at any point although it is at least sixty feet long. Also the green is plainly visible from the tee, which is the most essential feature of the mashie pitch hole. It is plain that if the player succeeds in placing his ball anywhere on the level part of such a green he has a good chance of getting his two. He does in fact play for a two. And if he makes the stroke correctly he ought to have a perfectly sure three; but if he makes an indifferent stroke which still leaves him on the  green more than six or seven yards from the hole he ought to have a very difficult long putt, and a good chance therefore of taking a four."

[Tom MacWood]

Arthur Croome used the term here in 1925 to explain why the casual visitor (especially if he be an American) would not appreciate the subtleties of the quirky Dowie at Hoylake, "especially if he be on American accustomed to scientifically constructed courses of his native country."

[Tom MacWood]

Here is a quote from an article written in 1927:

“AW Tillinghast, dean of American golf architects, is a staunch advocate of the theory that America’s supremacy at golf is founded on the scientific bunkering and contouring of our greens. ‘You’ll notice,’ says Tillinghast, ‘how imported British professionals improve after they’ve played a few years on our correctly designed courses. Most of the historic British links were designed for the old gutty ball, the expansive greens are wide open, offering an inviting target. A player such as Bobby Jones can’t very well miss those enormous carpets. The approach to those British greens is often left unguarded.”

[Tom MacWood]

Here a quote from Walter Travis in 1920:

"Moreover, the fairways are then not of that adamantine character met with in July, August and September, when the ball "runs a mile" and spoils the legitimate playing qualities of the holes, converting three-shotters into two-shotters and ordinarily long two-shotters into a drive and a mashie, and so on, to say nothing of almost completely setting at naught the proper values of hazards, no matter how scientifically arranged."

[Tom MacWood]

Glenna Collett in 1925:

"On the whole, I consider the American courses more difficult, although they offer very different playing conditions. Being for the most part by the sea the British links are flatter and very rugged and have more natural hazards. The fairways are narrower, and the ground is very rolling—especially at Sandwich, where it is almost bumpy, and your ball is apt to glance off in any direction. But in layout our courses seem more scientifically designed to prevent low scoring. There are longer and more difficult par four holes. All my scores while I was there were better than what I can do at home."

[paul cowley]

I think you have to rely on science when the site has little to offer....but rely on nature when the opportunity exists.

The biggest struggles are in the grey areas.

I think that the earliest designers in America were trying to scientifically define the grey as they found it....while adding nature as an effect.

[Kyle Harris]

Are there any references to the methods employed by Macdonald, Raynor or Banks as "Scientific?"

[Kyle Harris]

I will give you my take on it......

Scientific vs natural simply recognized that they had to build bunkers, etc. rather than find them, as was done on the original seaside courses.

Once you place hazards on a golf course, the question arises as to exactly where to put them.  You can throw them any old place, or you can study/measure where golfers hit the ball and place them relative to that, at perhaps 150 yards back then to create challenge, and perhaps strategy., to put them where they do the most good. Most designs today are still done in this fashion, eh?

I am not sure it was as earth shaking a concept as some might.  In fact, I take it to be mostly a marketing claim/angle, not unlike minimalism today.  Why hire any old gca when you can hire a more scientific one? I have always beleived that gca follows other trends in society as much as having developed its own unique "follow the land" culture.  So,I wonder how much the term scientific architecture was influenced by the incredible feats of guys like Thomas Edison and all the new fangled inventions that sprung forth in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?

Not sure I agree here, Jeff.

There was still that little matter on how exactly one constructs a bunker and how that construction reflects upon the challenges of the game.

[Tom MacWood]

Here is a quote from 1925 regarding Oakmont:

"From every tee. and for every second shot the player looks out upon a disfigured surface, upon up-thrown earth works, exposed deposits of grey sand, and other yawning chasms which invite disaster to the timid, but in between these artificial hazards, carved in irregular formations are acres of absolutely perfectly groomed fairways upon which no poor or indifferent lie is ever found. Herein lies one of the greatest charms on this scientifically built, and very exacting course."

[Tom MacWood]

This is from a 1927 article:

"The writer is convinced that our scientifically trapped courses breed accurate approachers. If Britain were to send her ten best players over here, we feel sure that at the end of two years they would be winning their share of major champioships. Were it not for the omnipresent hazard of wind, many of the old links abroad would be easy for the top-notcher. Bobby Jones' spectacular 285, taken in conjunction with the many astounding rounds turned in by comparative unknowns, demonstrated how the modem ball has "softened up" St. Andrews. Anxious to glorify Jones' triumph —a victory that needed no gilding—a newspaper correspondent called St. Andrews the "hardest course in the world." Actually, the "auld gray links" is a less severe test of golf than Oakmont, Flossmoor, Lido, Pine Valley, The National, Inwood,and many other American links."