Post by: Ran Morrissett on October 17, 2001, 04:54:00 AM
As submitted by Geoff Shackelford, the following 'Art in Golf Architecture' selection by Behr talks about the joys of golf in a natural setting where the hand of man is at a minimum. Of course, many writers have said the same but Behr delves much deeper into the subject. For instance, he writes:
"Its recognition is revealed in the efforts now being made to achieve naturalness in construction of the various features that go to make up a golf course. The straight line has well-nigh disappeared from out bunkers, tees and greens. They are acquired curves. Without doubt this phase is more pleasing to the eye. But the arbitrary manner in which we continue to deal with these components makes them manifest an individuality apart from their surroundings. We have succeeded in prettifying them, but we remain under the delusion that what is pretty, or picturesque, is beautiful. "
How true is that?!
Geoff has a follow-up article of his own which we will post this weekend.
Cheers,
Post by: T_MacWood on October 17, 2001, 08:41:00 PM
If Behr was still alive today I wonder what he would make of the current state of affairs, would he still believe the golf architecture of his day had yet attained maturity as an art and was primitive?
Post by: Jeff_Mingay on October 17, 2001, 01:27:00 PM
Perhaps Max Behr [and a few other intellectuals of the era] is at least partially responible for the style and philosophies of "The Golden Age" falling out of vogue. It's quite possible guys like Robert Trent Jones couldn't understanding what he was getting at 
Post by: TEPaul on October 18, 2001, 12:26:00 AM
There are answers, many of them, in that article, to so many of the architectural questions posed on topics on this website from time to time.
As an analysis on what constitutes "medium", "structural integrity", "maturity" and maybe even "truth" in the art of golf architecture, again, the article is fascinating.
There are some instructive analogies to the principles of landscape architecture, and a quote from Repton that seems generally applicable. TomMacW, I read your comment on that and I think I might know where you have a hard time with Repton's quote--something to do with what he says in his first point about hiding that in nature which might not be perceived as beautiful!
Strictly as an analysis of the art of golf architecture the article itself is exceptionally beautiful.
There is, however, a subject that Max Behr refers to late in the article as 'that modicum of necessity which golf demands'. It would be doubly fascinating if Max Behr had delved deeper into that subject. And maybe he did. There are other articles by Behr about things like hazards that I've read or read pieces of--and I hope Geoff will submit those too.
But what I would have liked to have seen Behr address is how the golfer (of any era) perceives that 'modicum of necessity that golf demands' because that perception could be the largest impediment to arriving at the "maturity" (or even the "truth") in the art of golf architecture that Behr may have envisioned.
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on October 18, 2001, 04:32:00 AM
This banner is being made for two of the following reasons:
1--I have always wanted to be in the Guiness World Book of Records for something, so why not the biggest banner ever made.
2--So the members of Hacienda* can see what complete nincompoops (Word ruthlessly stolen from Redanman)they were in the care of their golf course, from 1962 on. And never more true then in 2001.
*Hacienda Golf Club is Behr's first course with Billy Bell.
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on October 18, 2001, 04:34:00 AM
Post by: TEPaul on October 18, 2001, 05:31:00 AM
It would probably be a Herculean task anyway to get the members of Hacienda G.C. to understand what they have done to their golf course since 1962 in the context of the art of architecture or Behr's and Bell's original design intent. But if you think you are going to get them to understand what they have done by first getting them to understand Behr's article, "The Art of Golf Architecture" your task will be about 1000 times more Herculean! But in the attempt you may go into the Guiness Book of Records for the biggest banner!
Post by: T_MacWood on October 18, 2001, 06:53:00 AM
I'd suggest you not hang the banner over the entry, it would create safety issue with many dazed members driving their cars off the road. I'd hang it the club-house tavern where they might leasurely contemplate Behr's words. There would still be a lot of bewilderment, but at least they wouldn't hurt anyone and it might result in increased liquor revenues.
Post by: Ran Morrissett on October 18, 2001, 08:52:00 PM
How about this quote from him in The Art of Golf Design: "The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."
I think I'll stick that one on the front page of this website!
Post by: BCrosby on October 18, 2001, 09:52:00 AM
Behr's stuff is as extraordinary as it is unknown. Unknown to me at least, until very recently.
The GCA may be the place where Behr can get the exposure he deserves.
I hope you will continue to post his pieces as you come across them. I hope others will too.
Post by: Geoff_Shackelford on October 19, 2001, 04:20:00 PM
I can't even imagine what Behr would do with golf today. I'd guess that he probably would not even bother to try writing or educating people because he'd find it so backward. However it would be great to have him here to write about the work Fazio and Hootie are doing at Augusta, everything they do is basically what Behr feared would happen to the architecture, and what would ultimately undermine it's chance for popularity and for design to reach its potential.
Tom Mac, I understand your trouble with the Repton quote, and agree with TEP that it's probably the initial comment on natural defects that is bothersome. True? I've been racking my brain trying to remember at Rustic Canyon when we've altered a "natural defect." We did eliminate a weird wall of dirt on our 18th fairway so the players could stand on the tee and see into a big pit full of scalebroom, cactus and snakes, because it's pivotal to how the tee shot is approached, and if you couldn't see it, the hole would be less dramatic and the options less interesting (or maybe not even evident). The dirt from the defect was used to accentuate some features to our eighteenth fairway because it was pretty flat and now hopefully helps reward the more aggressive tee shot. So in a sense those were natural defects we changed to lend a bit more of an intelligent purpose to the hole. Still, I understand your point.
Geoff
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on October 19, 2001, 09:15:00 PM
The amount of earth NOT moved at Rustic Canyon will be one of the rare treats in all of modern Calfornia golf. The ground is that natural.
Post by: Tommy_Naccarato on October 19, 2001, 10:01:00 PM
Of course this was all because of El Nino -condition that had occured, causing the course to drain a little too slowly. It did very little damage other then made the course unplayable for a few days after the condition had stopped.
One of the more dramatic holes that has changed was the somewhat downhill-doglegging left, par 4, 13th which featured a very craggy ditch area to the left that was to be avoided at all costs. It was in play, but getting out of it was the task as the green was in sight, and it made one really try to bang one out of there only to flail-away and come up extremely short.
The next killer of Hacienda is the trees which have overgrown to proprtions that could waken Bill V. from the deepest of slumbers, with visions of a knife-wielding Freddy Kruger or Chucky.
The damn trees are beautiful, but they have ruined a good golf course. Yes, this is one of those clubs that has cataloged their trees and varieties where many of the members feel they are long lost friends in another dimension.
But the biggest killer of them all is the newer members of this once respectable club. These are the people that feel that a new clubhouse is in the best interest of the members and not rejuevnating the golf course which is in dire need of it.
The green committee is just another one of those, "In for two years/Out in two years" type of committtees that can't make the rest of membership happy because they are all so divided and undecided.
One of the first things I have found on the course was in very typical MacKenzie-style, the 1st and the 9th used to be one huge gigantic fairway with a couple of bunkers seperating them. The grass remained at the same length as there was little/no rough grass.
From the pictures I have seen, all of thebukers had a chaacter that was very unlike their current state, and even worse, many wild green contours had been smoothed out by the Great Robert Trent Jones.
Another great hole was the short 15th which featured a down-hill shot into a Pine Valley-like #10 green complex set into a lake of sand.
From early aerials, Hacienda was just another average course in a decade of great ones. This of course means that it far exceeded many standards. today most of the bunkering has that look of evolvment in the completely wrong direction as the bunkers were ill-maintained and suffered mass build-up and wasn't properly attended to. the green areas have shrunk to extremely small sizes when compared to their earlier days and of course, once again, lack of understanding of contouring of putting reens that may have been pretty special at one time.
I haven't even mentioned anything about the holes Ted Robinson got to, so I must be in too good of a mood tonight!