Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: TEPaul on October 29, 2009, 07:11:08 PM
-
...... and architectural evolution in the highest regard and preserved it, recorded it, and explained it the best throughout its existence?
I suppose I am looking for some of the older clubs throughout the world with the most significant and respected architecture but frankly at this point, any will do. I'm not talking about preserving its course or architecture just the history and evolution of its architecture!
-
Oakmont?
-
1. Old Elm
2. Oakmont
3. Shoreacres
-
As you would expect from the club that set down the rules, The Honourable Company (Muirfield) has done a pretty good job of keeping records ... they have maps in the locker room of different iterations of the routing between 1891 and 1926, plus Simpson's letters to the club, etc.
Garden City has done a good job, but not outstanding -- there are records of Travis' suggestions but it is hard to follow exactly what of them were implemented. Merion of course has great documentation going "almost" back to the beginning. ;) Pine Valley has been pretty thorough, too.
-
No matter what the club is, it's great to see them maintaining records and hanging lots of old photos of the evolution of the course.
Two good examples are Eugene Country Club and Columbia-Edgewater (Portland), both in Oregon.
CECC has a ton of framed photos of the early A. V. Macan course (no trees!) and you can see the forestation over the years. The routing is essentially the same as 1925, although the first hole became a par 4 when the old clubhouse burned across the main road and was relocated to an area that included the old first tee (now #10).
Eugene has two really good routing maps, same size and scale, hung side by side in the clubhouse. On the left is the original Chandler Egan routing. On the right is the RTJ remodel that pretty much reversed the routing within the existing corridors. Very cool to trace the old course.
-
TE,
Our hardcover book celebrating the 100 year anniversary of the Denver Country Club has a comprehensive history of the architecture of the golf course, which is quite interesting because of the sheer number of people who were involved to some extent (Foulis, Ross, Flynn. even Tilly and much more recently Bill Coore). I've found that not all of the history in the book is spot on accurate, but it's close enough. The course also went through several re-routings typical of a course in a changing urban setting during the first 60 years or so. There are renderings of the different routings in the locker room.
-
Tom,
If better records were kept this site would have less arguments. I think the problem may lie in that the older courses did not understand that their designs were making history. Ergo the history of construction and changes were not kept.
Anthony
-
Tom,
I've written about this before, but I worked closely with the last 3 Hackensack club presidents to locate, display and explain our architectural history. This includes "good, the bad and the ugly" changes that were made, all as part of a steady restoration process.
It became a bit of an obsession for me and the last president...but we now have all the old plans displayed throughout the clubhouse, including an old sprinkler plan (in reverse) that was used by William Gordon to make changes in 1960. Prior to this, we had no proof of what Gordon did, but once we solved the mystery, we had our full architectural history.
We also made some cool discoveries. For example, many people attributed Hackensack to Raynor, or at least the routing. (George Bahto's book lists it for Raynor, and a famous NJ sports writer, Red Smith wrote the same thing in the 1960's) But by pouring through old newspapers and club minutes, we proved that we did not acquire the land in Oradell to build our new course until July of 1926. After a tax dispute with the City of Hackensack, we made a pretty quick merger with the very small Kinderkamack Club, and Raynor had already died in January of 1926. So this was clearly Banks first solo design!
Another cool thing: from the time I was a kid our logo was a white unicorn. Well, we found a letter written in the 1899 on a piece of old stationary and the logo was a blue golf flag with HGC in gold. Very classic look, so we created a "member's only" logo collection of merchandise in the pro shop and the members loved it. By speaking with some very old members, we learned that a powerful president in the 50's had an artistic daughter and she created the unicorn logo so he implemented it at our club!!! (Turns out this guy carried the club by paying members's dues during previous tough times.
So now the old blue and gold flag has returned and we are fazing out the unicorn.
-
TEPaul,
Some clubs, which chose to produce a club history seem to have done a decent job, although, some of those histories aren't architecturally oriented, and even when they are, they're not always accurate.
Better yet are the golf clubs that have mostly preserved their architecture with few amendments, other than lengthening.
Mt Ridge is one of those clubs.
A 1929 Donald Ross that's mostly intact.
Fortunately, the club has the 1929 drawing/plan prominently displayed, and very little has changed over the intervening 80 years.
-
TE Paul - judging by a meeting with secretary a few years ago, Kennemer in Holland (Colt) have a good record of the club's history and continue to give it priority, hence the post of club historian.
-
1. Old Elm
2. Oakmont
3. Shoreacres
Bradley
Could you elaborate on how these clubs have preserved, recorded and explained their architectural history?
-
Alwoodley apparently have detailed records, including MacKenzie's original plan for the course.
Nick Leefe (Club historian) or Mark Rawlinson (author of Alwoodley's Centenary book) would be able to tell us more.
-
Alwoodley apparently have detailed records, including MacKenzie's original plan for the course.
Nick Leefe (Club historian) or Mark Rawlinson (author of Alwoodley's Centenary book) would be able to tell us more.
Nick was actually carrying the original, hand drawn map of Alwoodley around in the boot (trunk) of his car when I saw it in 2005!
-
Ganton and Rye might be two good candidates for England. Both histories include details of who did what and when. Additionally, Ganton's contains a c. 1908 photocopy of meeting minutes addressing architectural issues.
-
I think both Alwoodley and HCEG are excellent suggestions.
-
Tom
This is a very good question in one regard (i.e. trying to see which clubs have been the best in recording and tracking down facts regarding GCA), but a less satisfying one if one is trying to find some sort of meaning from the these facts.
Virtually all of my "knowledge" in these areas relates to mostly "great" courses in Great Britain and Ireland, and the more I look and learn at these courses, the more I believe that any "attribution" as to what they look like and play like today is far more due to the activities of and visions of golf club committees (collectively, over time) than any individual architect (or even architects).
To know how and when and by whom and why any individual changes were made on course X or course Y is mostly a trivial pursuit. In VERY rare occasions, Club X or club Y might use such trivia to make a point as to how their course might be improved today, by going back into the future, as it were. Maybe the ~ 2000 Merion 1930 retro look project is a good example of this, or the fairly recent remodelling of Lahinch as Mackenzie would have wished it, or Tom Doak's work at Pasatiempo and SFGC. However, even though this is probably a good use (if properly designed and skillfully executed) , it is also an idiosyncratic one, based on the visions of the committees of those clubs, as they were constituted at that time they made the decision for retro-change.
I find all the old facts which are uncovered on this site, by people like Melvyn Morrow, Niall Carlton, Sean Tully, The Mackenzie Project, Tom MacWood, etc. to be fascinating, but I am a trivia junkie. Only a small percentage of them actually has any influence on the enjoyment of the golf courses which I play. For example, to know that such a hole as "Sandy Parlour" at Deal once existed, and to be able to locate it even today, is a cool fact, like seeing a plaque in London saying that "This was the spot of Sid Vicious' first public puke." But, I've been by Sandy Parlour 5-10 times (mostly recently) and nobody I have played with there has ever tried to convince me why that lost hole deserved anything more than a tip of the hat in passing.
Or to put it more bluntly, Tom:
Who cares who designed Merion or Myopia or Cruden Bay and if so, why?
Ricardo
-
Who cares who designed ... Myopia
I agree, Rich. Pretty shortsighted if you ask me...
-
True, Scott, but as both of my parents (and even me!) were born and grew up within a mile of the place where the Myopia Club was established and first situated (hint, it is 30 miles or so from the current location in Hamilton), I get a free pass on that one!
Hope all is well
Rich
-
Merion doesn't get a vote?
Yes, yes, yes, I know - the whole MacDonald/Whigham/Barker/Wilson thing.
Other than that possible ambiguity, the whole archives project at MGC in the last eight years has spawned much detailed research into the evolution of the East Course since 1912.
Is this thread about to get hijacked?
-
1. Old Elm
2. Oakmont
3. Shoreacres
Bradley-
We've agreed on this in that past, but I'll go ahead and agree again on Old Elm. The course literally hasn't changed at all in it's history, and I would assume that is directly related to the membership likeing it exactly as is and knowing enough to not screw around with it. Through the years they haven't even changed the par on the course...so it's a par-73 on the card, when really it could easily be played as a par-69 course for a zero handicap. Just a great place.
I would also add TCC-Brookline to the discussion. The membership takes extreme pride in their history including their golf course(s) and can tell you all about the evolution of the course.
-
this is kind of off topic, but as an architect, how difficult is it to obtain these documents? Say a club asked you to renovate/restore/redesign a course, would they provide all pertinent materials? or does it fall on the firm to gather such materials?
-
Rich -
I agree with you to a point. Attributions are often unclear. Sometimes inherently so. For the reasons you give. As Tom D. has mentioned several times, there are lots of courses about which we will never have definitive evolution histories. That is true not just of minor courses, but also any number of important courses. Like you, I think those debates aren't very interesting.
But problems with nailing attributions for certain courses does not mean that attributions never matter. I think they do matter when two things are true: (a) the attributions are reliable, and (b) the designs on the ground are intended to put into practice articulated design ideas.
Let me flesh that out a little. We know what various architects said about their design objectives. Attributions (when reliable) have real value when we can look and see how architects implemented their stated objectives. Attributions matter when they help explicate the linkage between design ideas and actual built features (whether or not they still exist).
Architectural theories and how they were implemented have both changed over time. They both evolved and there are a number of historical threads. Understanding those threads is what it means to understand the history of golf architecture. (You do think gca has a history, I assume; that it was more than just a series of chance occurrences.)
But all of that is important for another reason. That historical data is (or ought to be) an incredibly useful resource for current architects.
Agreed that some courses design attributions are a big, sloppy mash-up. But on some courses that is not the case. When you can link what a designer tells us about his design ideas and with what he actually did, you have mined historical gold. Again, it is gold not just in some abstract historical sense (though I think that is very important). It is also an important (and free ;)) tool to be used by modern, practicing architects. Sadly, I think that tool often goes unused these day.
Bob
P.S. I wonder if some of this isn't the very different ways that British and American clubs view their golf courses. I'd guess that British clubs tend to take a much more ad hoc approach to design changes. Which create bigger attribution headaches than you get on American courses. But I don't know.
-
True, Scott, but as both of my parents (and even me!) were born and grew up within a mile of the place where the Myopia Club was established and first situated (hint, it is 30 miles or so from the current location in Hamilton), I get a free pass on that one!
Rich
Yup, it was actually established as a baseball club of all things by the four glasses-wearing sons of Mayor Prince of Boston. If you get stuck in the mud while on the way to the former site, you might need a Winch to pull yourself out... ;)
-
Rich,
The people who care are the ones who write their club histories, are interested in restoring their course, finding more about their family history, recovering lost golf courses and getting funding to do so, and others.
-
ForkaB
That is a masterful effort, far more impressive than the ham-handed albeit sinfully delightful approaches of the departed JakaB. Sadly and indicative of the new GCA.com, I suspect it will range far beyond many newbies' faculties to comprehend, or the interests to comment.
Fortunately there's still Bob and I to rise to the bait. And so in response I ask two questions of you: how can we know intent without first documenting action? And absent this documentation, why do green committees and Pooh Bahs feel the need to create historical intent?
Dead Harry is doing a bang-up job designing the new holes at Wentworth.
-
MarcakaBou and Bob-Cat (Brother of "Harry" aka Bing)
When most of the writing of the ODG's was postmortem (or at least post facto), it is hard to correlate what is in the ground (architecture-wise) and what is in the ground (architect-wise) without a lot of imagination. Speaking of which, I miss Barney too.
Rich
-
TEPaul:
Having visited both clubs this past summer, Chicago's Beverly and Flossmoor have done a very good job in this regard. Beverly's history, written by GCA contributer Tim Cronin, is very good for a course that's had an interesting history, including a major re-do by Ross. And the book also delves into some interesting, not-strictly-golf aspects of the club that are worth reading. In addition, the clubhouse is full of some wonderful photos of the many top golfers who have played at Beverly over the years, a project overseen by GCA contributer Paul Richards.
Flossmoor's history is being written, I believe, as we speak, with contributions from some here among the GCA crowd. The bits I've seen of it so far are quite good -- another course with some interesting architectural history.
-
this is kind of off topic, but as an architect, how difficult is it to obtain these documents? Say a club asked you to renovate/restore/redesign a course, would they provide all pertinent materials? or does it fall on the firm to gather such materials?
Not a surprising answer I suppose but "it depends." Some courses like I suppose Beverly have pretty good documents at hand; others may not as their courses just changed over the years through work of committees and such.
-
North Shore Rich -
To paraphrase L'Inspecteur Renault in the penultimate scene in Casablanca, "But Ricky, imagination is my least vulnerable spot."
Bob
-
Tom
This is a very good question in one regard (i.e. trying to see which clubs have been the best in recording and tracking down facts regarding GCA), but a less satisfying one if one is trying to find some sort of meaning from the these facts.
Virtually all of my "knowledge" in these areas relates to mostly "great" courses in Great Britain and Ireland, and the more I look and learn at these courses, the more I believe that any "attribution" as to what they look like and play like today is far more due to the activities of and visions of golf club committees (collectively, over time) than any individual architect (or even architects).
To know how and when and by whom and why any individual changes were made on course X or course Y is mostly a trivial pursuit. In VERY rare occasions, Club X or club Y might use such trivia to make a point as to how their course might be improved today, by going back into the future, as it were. Maybe the ~ 2000 Merion 1930 retro look project is a good example of this, or the fairly recent remodelling of Lahinch as Mackenzie would have wished it, or Tom Doak's work at Pasatiempo and SFGC. However, even though this is probably a good use (if properly designed and skillfully executed) , it is also an idiosyncratic one, based on the visions of the committees of those clubs, as they were constituted at that time they made the decision for retro-change.
I find all the old facts which are uncovered on this site, by people like Melvyn Morrow, Niall Carlton, Sean Tully, The Mackenzie Project, Tom MacWood, etc. to be fascinating, but I am a trivia junkie. Only a small percentage of them actually has any influence on the enjoyment of the golf courses which I play. For example, to know that such a hole as "Sandy Parlour" at Deal once existed, and to be able to locate it even today, is a cool fact, like seeing a plaque in London saying that "This was the spot of Sid Vicious' first public puke." But, I've been by Sandy Parlour 5-10 times (mostly recently) and nobody I have played with there has ever tried to convince me why that lost hole deserved anything more than a tip of the hat in passing.
Or to put it more bluntly, Tom:
Who cares who designed Merion or Myopia or Cruden Bay and if so, why?
Ricardo
In order to document and study of golf architecture history, architecture history, landscape architecture history, art history, etc. you need to know who did what when and where.
-
In order to document and study of golf architecture history, architecture history, landscape architecture history, art history, etc. you need to know who did what when and where.
Possibly so, Tom, but what is the purpose of all that "documentation (sic)" and "study?" For example, does it really change our understanding or appreciation of the game to know that a certian bunker at Pine Valley was sited and/or built by Crump, or Colt or Wlson, or Flynn?
-
If you are studying architecture at the university studying architecture history is a requirement, the same is true with landscape architecture and art. The theory being I suppose is that by studying history you can learn lessons from the past, what worked and what didn't work, and why they worked or didn't work. It is also possible to gain inspiration from past artists, historic works or artistic movements.
-
"For example, does it really change our understanding or appreciation of the game to know that a certian bunker at Pine Valley was sited and/or built by Crump, or Colt or Wlson, or Flynn?"
Rich:
If one can analyze enough of it with some good solid historic documentation and attribution perhaps it doesn't change our understanding or appreciation of the game but it may help our understanding and appreciation of some of the differences and distinctions of the architectural thinking and architectural applications between Crump, or Colt or Wilson, or Flynn.
Some of us are sort of into trying to understand and appreciate those kinds of architectural differences and distinctions. On the other hand others may not be interested in looking at things like that and considereing them; they may be more interesting in overlooking them and just aiming at flags. It's a great Big World out there in golf and architecture and there really is plenty of room in it for everyone. ;)
-
In golf course architecture there are many factors to consider when documenting the history of a golf course or an architect or a period, including economic issues, technology, aesthetic trends, environment, geography, societal pressures, maintenance, and strategic theories.
Pine Valley is a very interesting case study, considered by many to be the greatest golf course in the world, its architectural history is one frustration and failure after another (economics, technology, maintenance, environment, aesthetics and strategic theory all were factors), which ultimately resulted in the demise of the fellow who inspired the whole thing.
-
As always, I, like apparently a number of other thoughtful golf architectural historians on here, would prefer to see that last sentence written not like this; 'which ultimately resulted in the demise of the fellow who inspired the whole thing.',
but like this:
"......which ultimately MAY HAVE been some of the reasons that resulted in the demise of the fellow who inspired the whole thing."
The fact is neither Tom MacWood, nor anyone else on here, or anyone else anywhere else at any time in the past had any idea what Crump's reasons were that resulted in his tragic demise. Had he left a suicide note as to his reasons perhaps then we might have some good idea but if he did that no one ever revealed it PUBLICLY. :-X
-
If you are studying architecture at the university studying architecture history is a requirement, the same is true with landscape architecture and art. The theory being I suppose is that by studying history you can learn lessons from the past, what worked and what didn't work, and why they worked or didn't work. It is also possible to gain inspiration from past artists, historic works or artistic movements.
Yes, Tom, but we are not at University. We are just a bunch of wing-nuts who enjoy golf, including some of its "architectural" aspects. Another thing a lot of us enjoy is the history of golf--courses, players, designers, etc. I deny none of that. My point is that only a very few of us take what we know about GCA history and apply it to anything more than just an accumulation of trivial knowledge, and the warm fuzzies that devie from such accumulation.
-
Tom Paul,
As you probably know, Oak Hill has preserved much of its architectural history over the years. We are currently trying to piece it back together. As for the membership holding Oak Hill's architectural history in the highest regard, that is a different story...
-
"For example, does it really change our understanding or appreciation of the game to know that a certian bunker at Pine Valley was sited and/or built by Crump, or Colt or Wlson, or Flynn?"
Rich:
If one can analyze enough of it with some good solid historic documentation and attribution perhaps it doesn't change our understanding or appreciation of the game but it may help our understanding and appreciation of some of the differences and distinctions of the architectural thinking and architectural applications between Crump, or Colt or Wilson, or Flynn.
Some of us are sort of into trying to understand and appreciate those kinds of architectural differences and distinctions. On the other hand others may not be interested in looking at things like that and considereing them; they may be more interesting in overlooking them and just aiming at flags. It's a great Big World out there in golf and architecture and there really is plenty of room in it for everyone. ;)
I agree, Tommy, but taking the specifc example above, what do you know about the "distinctions of the architectural thinking and architectural applications between Crump, or Colt or Wilson, or Flynn," and what is important (to whomever) about these differences? If any knows the answer to this, you should!
Thanks
Rich
-
Rich
You asked why it was important.
The wing nuts document the history; those designing and making design decisions take the lessons and inspiration.
-
Rich
You asked why it was important.
The wing nuts document the history; those designing and making design decisions take the lessons and inspiration.
What evidence do you have, Tom, for this remarkable statement? Ou sont les wing-nuts d'antan?
-
".....but taking the specifc example above, what do you know about the "distinctions of the architectural thinking and architectural applications between Crump, or Colt or Wilson, or Flynn," and what is important (to whomever) about these differences? If any knows the answer to this, you should!"
Rich:
Well, I know from what I have read from some of those architects what they were attempting to do and why. Often some of those things differ and sometimes markedly from other architects. I know from what I consider to be an incredibly important docucment---eg the so-called "Remembrances" hole by hole by his two close friends Smith and Carr some of the things Crump wanted to accomplish and why at Pine Valley. Some of it gets into some specific detail on holes and features and such about WHAT he was trying to do and WHERE and those documents even get into his reasons WHY.
I just think some or all of that is so interesting because it really appears to be a window into an interesting architectural mind that has been left to us. Not to even mention the fact that Crump was a guy who very much had some very unique ideas about architecture (or at least his one and only attempt at architecture, although he did say he was going to built another couse at PV) that were most definitely controversial compared to most to all architectural thinking or writing of the time. In that specific vein (which I haven't even identified to you yet), I'm not aware of any other like him of his time with the possible exceptions of Leeds and Fownes, two men he certainly knew.
-
Tommy
If you can write that book (or even just an article), drop the Flynn manuscript at Wayno's doorstep and get cracking!
All the best
Rich
-
"Ou est les wing-nuts d'antan?"
Reeeshard:
Are you absolutely certain that's how you spell wing nuts in French?
I have always been under the impression if the nuts on wings are not of decent quality then the aeroplane may not fly or fly very well. I know this first-hand, as the last time I flew the wing nuts failed and both wings fell off the aeroplane and I got a very serious bimp on the head that appears to have increased my daftiness which was not insignificant before those wing nuts failed.
-
JNC:
BINGO! Oak Hill. They've done an awesome job apparently with the preserving of material and the tracking of their architectural evolution. Or as far as I know they have but we should realize that Tom MacWood has not yet begun his expert independent research on the club and course to tell you how and how much your history is wrong, so at this point Oak Hill may not really know that much about their "actual" ;) architectural history.
And Goll-dang-it, JNC, you are that KID I was talking about on another post but you have to understand that most on here are kids to me I'm so old.
-
"My point is that only a very few of us take what we know about GCA history and apply it to anything more than just an accumulation of trivial knowledge, and the warm fuzzies that devie from such accumulation."
Richard The Wise:
You are completely right about that statement. Most all of us on here are nothing more than a herd of "arm chair" architects and sniveling architectural sycophants! Unless and until we actually get out there and have some of our concepts put on the ground and in play we will never be anything but "arm-chair" architects and sniveling, sniffling sycophants.
To date, I have two of my concepts on the ground and both of them opened to such controversy I feared for my already repulsive reputation. Thankfully, things seem to be quieting down some now. And I have been told by two architects at either end of the country that some kind of concept I suggested on two courses were a high-rising all around success with everyone but for the life of me I never understood or remembered what those concepts specifically were they say I suggested. On the one in Georgia, I think I said: "If we put the pig back into Pig-Latin then that green will really have some strategic import and philosophically optional challenge but if you or this shaper fucks up that clearcut architectural suggestion and application this hole will be on the order of the lowest troglotye under the bridge of a slim-infested Crick."
-
JNC:
BINGO! Oak Hill. They've done an awesome job apparently with the preserving of material and the tracking of their architectural evolution. Or as far as I know they have but we should realize that Tom MacWood has not yet begun his expert independent research on the club and course to tell you how and how much your history is wrong, so at this point Oak Hill may not really know that much about their "actual" ;) architectural history.
And Goll-dang-it, JNC, you are that KID I was talking about on another post but you have to understand that most on here are kids to me I'm so old.
Tom Paul,
Oak Hill has had the advantage of having two fantastic club historians in Donald Kladstrup and Fred Beltz. We also have the advantage of having many major championships. Thus, the club has made painstaking assessments of what sorts of changes are needed to ready our East Course for championship play. As a result, we have pretty definitive records of what architect did work at Oak Hill. By contrast, the history of our West Course, the more "pure Ross" of the two courses, is a little bit fuzzier. It is still undetermined who built the current ninth green.
Our main shortcoming in architectural history concerns Ross's original layouts for the East and West courses. For example, many people assumed that the 16th Hole on the West Course contained bunkers on the inside of the dogleg left. The area is currently a series of mounds. The original Ross plans show bunkering, and the hole layout is in multiple books on Golden Age architecture. However, a 1930 aerial of the golf course does not show any bunkers where people thought there were bunkers. This conflict is still unresolved.
Of course, Oak Hill was probably built by Willie Watson anyway, so why does this debate matter? ;D
I understand your perspective on age and "kids." Of course, I am more of a kid than most on this site.
-
"By contrast, the history of our West Course, the more "pure Ross" of the two courses, is a little bit fuzzier. It is still undetermined who built the current ninth green."
JNC:
Really? Then my suggestion to you and to Oak Hill would be to just go with either C.B. Macdonald or HH Barker because we have been told in no uncertain terms by two of our best and most expert researher/analyst/historians on here that they were best and second best architects in America at one point and perhaps always. If you can find any old train schedules around Rochester we should be able to pretty much nail down the architectural attribution once and for all. ;)
"Of course, Oak Hill was probably built by Willie Watson anyway, so why does this debate matter? ;D"
Oh bullshit, what do you know? I think you have your Willies confused anyway. You must mean Willie Campbell; he was at least closer than Watson.
-
TE,
1927 is not so distant a year in golfing history, but surely the history and architecture of both course and club house at Morfontaine is a paean to style and good taste.
Bob
-
"For example, many people assumed that the 16th Hole on the West Course contained bunkers on the inside of the dogleg left. The area is currently a series of mounds. The original Ross plans show bunkering, and the hole layout is in multiple books on Golden Age architecture. However, a 1930 aerial of the golf course does not show any bunkers where people thought there were bunkers. This conflict is still unresolved."
JNC:
Well then, you and Oak Hill are going to have to get into a bit of good old fashioned "architectural archaeology". Whereever you think those old bunkers might have been just do some really deep core samples. If there were ever any sand bunkers there the sand will show up in the core sample strata. If there is none at all just stick with the mounds under the educated assumption that Ross changed his plans from bunkers to mounds.
-
BobH:
Tell us about Morfontaine. The more detail the better.
-
Rich
You asked why it was important.
The wing nuts document the history; those designing and making design decisions take the lessons and inspiration.
What evidence do you have, Tom, for this remarkable statement? Ou sont les wing-nuts d'antan?
Let me rephrase my statement - the historians document the history, and some of the golf architects learn the lessons, hopefully.
-
TE,
Re Morfontaine, I pinched this from Top 100 Courses in the World.
http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/productdetails.asp?id=461
For an appetizer or desert their Valliere nine holer is superb treat before or after the main course.
Bob
-
Rich
You asked why it was important.
The wing nuts document the history; those designing and making design decisions take the lessons and inspiration.
What evidence do you have, Tom, for this remarkable statement? Ou sont les wing-nuts d'antan?
Let me rephrase my statement - the historians document the history, and some of the golf architects learn the lessons, hopefully.
Tom
Do you really believe that golf architects care more than a tiny rat's arse about what the "historians" think, even assuming that there are such animals as golf architecture historians....? :o
-
Rich
You asked why it was important.
The wing nuts document the history; those designing and making design decisions take the lessons and inspiration.
What evidence do you have, Tom, for this remarkable statement? Ou sont les wing-nuts d'antan?
Let me rephrase my statement - the historians document the history, and some of the golf architects learn the lessons, hopefully.
Tom
Do you really believe that golf architects care more than a tiny rat's arse about what the "historians" think, even assuming that there are such animals as golf architecture historians....? :o
Sad or not, Rich is right. Far too much history is up for grabs to really be used for any constructive purposes. More likely is that historians and/or archies grab on to something which fits their idea of what was or "should have logically been" and push it to death. The meat of any of this matter is what is in the ground now and why it is good or not so good, but then I am no so called gca historian.
Ciao
-
"The meat of any of this matter is what is in the ground now and why it is good or not so good, but then I am no so called gca historian."- SeanArble
A 'so-called' historian of golf course architecture might find out that the not-so-good you have on your ground at present was previously very-good.
-
"For example, many people assumed that the 16th Hole on the West Course contained bunkers on the inside of the dogleg left. The area is currently a series of mounds. The original Ross plans show bunkering, and the hole layout is in multiple books on Golden Age architecture. However, a 1930 aerial of the golf course does not show any bunkers where people thought there were bunkers. This conflict is still unresolved."
JNC:
Well then, you and Oak Hill are going to have to get into a bit of good old fashioned "architectural archaeology". Whereever you think those old bunkers might have been just do some really deep core samples. If there were ever any sand bunkers there the sand will show up in the core sample strata. If there is none at all just stick with the mounds under the educated assumption that Ross changed his plans from bunkers to mounds.
That sounds like a good idea. Like I said, I'm pretty sure there were never bunkers there. Photos don't lie, and if there were no bunkers there in 1930, four years after the course opened, I doubt they were ever there. Of course, the argument that "those mounds look like they were bunkers so they must have been bunkers" might stand up. ::)
-
Sad or not, Rich is right. Far too much history is up for grabs to really be used for any constructive purposes. More likely is that historians and/or archies grab on to something which fits their idea of what was or "should have logically been" and push it to death. The meat of any of this matter is what is in the ground now and why it is good or not so good, but then I am no so called gca historian.
Ciao
The meat of any of this matter is what is in the ground? What does that have to do with documenting history? Is history and appreciating what is on the ground mutually exclusive? I don't think anyone would be interested in the history of golf architecture if wasn't for what they experienced on the ground. Please explain what is more compelling about documenting the history of architecture, landscape architecture, and art as opposed to golf architecture, or are just opposed to history in general.
-
Tom
Do you really believe that golf architects care more than a tiny rat's arse about what the "historians" think, even assuming that there are such animals as golf architecture historians....? :o
Rich
I'm having difficulty figuring out which you hold in lower regard golf architects or golf architecture historians.
-
Sorry that I've been troubling you, Tom.
The fact is I hold anybody actively and honestly engaged in any profession in respect, and those who are very good in what they do in very high respect. I do not think that different professions necessarily have any significant relevance for each other.
-
Rich
You don't think history and golf architects who specialize in restoration of historic courses have any relevance?
-
Tom MacWood,
I've always liked your concept of restoring to the architectural high water mark.
That process is impossible unless you delve into the architectural history of the golf course, hence history or historical research is critical
The only difficulty I have with your concept of the "architectural high water mark" is defining it, and defining it in such a way that there's little or no dispute about it. That's the hard part.
But, without historical research, ascertaining where the "architectural high water mark" is, is impossible.
-
Rich
You don't think history and golf architects who specialize in restoration of historic courses have any relevance?
I didn't say or even imply that. Please reread my last post.
Rather than asking silly questions, why don't you spend the time to tell us what you think about this issue and why?
-
"Tom MacWood,
I've always liked your concept of restoring to the architectural high water mark.
That process is impossible unless you delve into the architectural history of the golf course, hence history or historical research is critical
The only difficulty I have with your concept of the "architectural high water mark" is defining it, and defining it in such a way that there's little or no dispute about it. That's the hard part.
But, without historical research, ascertaining where the "architectural high water mark" is, is impossible."
Pat:
I agree with you about the so-called "architectural high water mark." First of all that concept and goal is most certainly not Tom MacWood's. A number of clubs have had restoration projects that tried to identify an "architectural high water mark" long before GOLFCLUBATLAS.com or anyone knew of Tom MacWood or any of the rest of us researchers. Probably the most visible example was Merion that decided to go back to 1930 as their "high water mark" (architectural and otherwise) for various reasons.
But given all that, you are right, picking what constitutes a "architectural high water mark" for any club or course is something that is and can be pretty subjective and it is probably something that should be done in conjunction with a really good restoration architect who is willing to do a lot of architectural analysis with the club. To do that the details of the course's architectural evolution is obviously extremely important because it can and often does answer the WHENS, WHYS and WHERES of what was originally done and changed over time.
-
"Please explain what is more compelling about documenting the history of architecture, landscape architecture, and art as opposed to golf architecture, or are just opposed to history in general."
Tom MacWood:
Excellent point!
I see nothing remotely wrong with any club trying to get as detailed as they possibly can about the architectural evolutionary history of their golf course. Of course if and when that is done the next step of figuring out what to do about any of it is pretty much the real hard part.
A very good example of the latter was with my course where we pretty much figured out all the WHENS, WHYS and WHERES and even BY WHOMS of everything that happened with our architecture over our 85 year history. Then we hired Hanse to do our restoration. We had researched what happened to all our Ross top shot bunkers and even the WHEN, WHY and BY WHOM of their removal. Gil wanted to put them back because even if they were not particularly strategic for most anyone he just loved the look of them and their sort of perspective aesthetic. I remember well when his plan to restore them all was discussed during the app. 30 meetings of our 18 month Master Plan committee meetings. One person asked how much it would cost per bunker to put back app. 20-30 top shot bunkers and Gil said about $8,000 per bunker. That person who asked the question who was pretty authoritative on that commitee just responded "NO WAY" and that was the end of the restoration of our top shot bunkers. Gil was truly disappointed and so was I despite the app. $160,000-$240,000 additional construction cost (not to mention the ongoing maintenance cost of them).
-
One of the challenges of recording golf course architecture which is not common with the others arts is the latching on to big names. As an example Columbus CC has Donald Ross on their scorecard - Ross had nothing to do with the Bendelow design. Old Tom Morris, Donald Ross, AW Tillinghast, and James Braid are some of the names that club's like to latch on to, and this not modern phenomenon, this has been going on for hundred years. There is also the legend phenomenon that you find at Pine Valley, Merion and Myopia.
-
"There is also the legend phenomenon that you find at Pine Valley, Merion and Myopia."
Tom MacWood:
That statement is historical bullshit on your part and if you don't know that at this point I guess you never will. Once again, I just think it is so much the supreme irony that you try to convince people you know the details of the architectural histories of those three courses but yet you have never set foot on any one of them and consequently never really familiarized yourself with those golf courses or their archives and particularly their pretty comprehensive administrative records even from their beginnings! ;) ???
-
1. Old Elm
2. Oakmont
3. Shoreacres
Bradley
Could you elaborate on how these clubs have preserved, recorded and explained their architectural history?
-
TEP
Those clubs may have done a fine job preserving their architectural history, but they've done a poor job recording and explaining it - the legend phenomenon.
-
"TEP
Those clubs may have done a fine job preserving their architectural history, but they've done a poor job recording and explaining it - the legend phenomenon."
Apparently only in your opinion, at this point. This so-called "Legend Phenomenon" seems to pretty much be only Tom MacWood's schtick.
I think Oakmont's history has been well explained by the recent history book by Marino Parascenzo, particularly the part about the life and times of the Fownses.