Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Mac Plumart on February 06, 2010, 09:53:02 PM
-
I make it a point to really listen to people when they talk about golf and their opinions on golf, especially if they are a good player, a professional in the business in some area, a historian, etc.
So, I am having a conversation a few days ago about golf course architecture over a burger and a coke. The people I am talking with are big Tom Fazio fans. And they mention that he wrote a book regarding his thoughts on golf course architecture and they mention that in the book he says that the "Golden Age" architects had to utilize the natural lay of the land because they had no other option and that today things are much different because the architects have much more technology available to them. So, to rely on the older methods of building a course is antiquated and lacking.
Based on this comment, I ordered his book and will read what he has to say.
Three more follow ups on books...
#1--has anyone read this book. Any other interesting things to look out for?
#2--I also ordered George Thomas' book. I am sure it is in line with Mackenzie, Hunter, and MacDonald...does anyone notice any huge differences among the ODG's ideals?
#3--Colt's essay's are on my list. Does anyone have a great place to buy these? Donal listed an archive link, but I can't seem to find them anymore. EDIT...I got this one!
Thanks,
Mac
-
Mac,
I hope you enjoy Captain Thomas' GAIA. It is the best book I've read on the subject yet. Doc Mac had some good one's, Bahto's Evangelist is an inspiring volume, Doak's Anatomy is a primer for all aspiring wannabes such as myself. But none of those match GAIA in my opinion.
To answer question two on your list above; Thomas writes about the concept of half shots and pars (I think it's late in the book). Basically it's an alternative way to count strokes. Full shots for everything but putting, where it would become a half shot. A par three made with the tee shot, bunker shot, and one putt would be a 2.5. But hit the GIR and two putt, it's a 2.0. I won't expound too much on it here, but his reasons are pretty convincing.
-
Mac, you can finds Colts Essays on Amazon.
I think a University Library re-printed this book. They re-produced it with scans, very readable. And only 16 dollars.
Here is the link: http://www.amazon.com/Some-Essays-Golf-Course-Architecture-1920/dp/1112282459/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I3C8E8YPTTASAX&colid=1P3TAKQ1TYBVB
-
Thanks guys.
I can't wait to read these books/essays.
-
I believe I have read the Fazio book you are talking about. I dont have it in front of me, its packed in a box in ny and im snowed in in virginia. Its mostly a glorified picture book and doesn't get into much detail about any architectural concepts.
here is the link on amazon
http://www.amazon.com/Golf-Course-Designs-Tom-Fazio/dp/0810967170
-
Jaeger...
Ugh! Although I did have a fear that the book would have little substance, but I was/am hoping for a little bit about what Mr. Fazio's ideas on architecture. I've read quite a few books (http://www.mrpgolf.com/books.html (http://www.mrpgolf.com/books.html)) and hearing an architect who has a totally different view on what a golf course is would be neat to read. Whether I agree or not is a different story...but nevertheless fun to read.
I've also stumbled across a website called An Anarachist Guide to Golf Course Architecture (http://aggca.blogspot.com/ (http://aggca.blogspot.com/)) Thus far it is interesting to read...especially his opening post.
Thanks,
Mac
-
The ODGs may not of had today's equipment but they did have cheap labor to move earth and were free of the environmental restrictions that many modern sites have.
I agree with Ben Sims that Golf Architecture in America is the best book on golf architecture.
-
Enjoy Fazio's comments on framing. Two others that are really good by the old masters are Hunter's "The Links" and Simpson and Wethered"s "The Architectural Side of Golf". I know you have read Doak's "Amatomy" which is quite good as well.
-
Mac
I admire your determination of reading and trying to understand the thoughts of others. The only drawback I see is that you might arm yourself with so much conflicting information and details that you lose sight of what has been driving you.
Please do not misunderstand my comment, its great to accumulate a forest of books and the perceived wisdom of many but ultimately what matters is your take and stance on the game of golf. No one has come up with all the answers, although many have strong supporter who believe their guys have come close.
The underlining lesson that many do not learn is that we all judge yesterday men and women with modern attitudes. We give them no slack (I think that’s the word you use) to past generations due mainly to the fact that we can’t or do not want to understand their living and working environment. View all books as aids but remember that golf course design is still technically in it early stages, its just around 160 years old (give or take).
Many of the top golfing historians still do not know how the 19th Century Designers worked let alone their design construction procedures. Many still talk of AM designs/PM games and courses open with days. They have failed to understand the Modus Operandi of these guys and the basic knowledge of the new clubs and golfers of the day. It not really their fault, it has just been accepted and gone down in legend that a course was designed AM and the first competition played PM on the belief that the site was so well suited to golf. The real truth is that on average a course still took the best part of 3 months to prepare and it kept on improved over the first year or so. Many designs projects are documented but its just the case of listing the sequence of events in their correct order not forgetting any. Yet I must say that I am surprised that many of the second generation early 20th Century designers failed to remember. Whatever their reason there was a defined MO to the earlier designs which were used and improved upon by later generations.
If the second generation of designers decided not to praise their predecessors, with some even dismissing the design content of 19th Century guys how can later generation be relied upon to produce their thoughts based upon this questionable lack of serious historical information.
Nevertheless, I am not advocating dismissing the comments or writing of 20th & 21st generation authors, but just look carefully at their source material as it in itself may not convey the full story. So I suggest that you workout that which is important to you and why and follow your feelings.
I will not talk about my usual dislikes but I will mention that some golfers love the deep green well manicures golf courses, others feel that if we wanted these types of finishes they would be playing Snooker or Billiards upon them. Some dislike a browning green course insisting on well watered courses, yet many just want the more natural look that blends into its surrounding believing that was the origins of the early golf courses and feel that they do not want to play on what looks like a contrived chocolate box image.
Read all the books but be true to what you seek from your game. My friend, I do not think you will find the real sprit of Golf let alone of St Andrews in a Book, it is in you and how you approach your game.
Melvyn
-
Mac - By all means, get more books.
Fazio's book is bizarre. First, it's the only book I know that purports to be about gca generally but whose illustrations all come from holes designed by the author. Which suggests that Fazio's marketing agency had a larger role than usual.
Second, Fazio, god bless him, is candid about his goals. Holes/greens should be "framed" in their settings. It's hard to know what he thinks distinguishes a landscaper from a golf architect. As I recall, the notion of "strategy" does not appear in the book. The issues that MacK, Thomas, Hunter, Behr, and the whole Golden Age cohort worry about in their books and essays are virtually absent in Fazio's book.
Finally, he is remarkably dismissive of his GA predecessors. It's not so much that he criticizes them, it's that Fazio seems to think that they have very little to teach him. Which I find an odd attitude for any practitioner in any profession.
Bob
-
Great stuff guys!
Per Bob's comments (and Sheldon's), I am excited to read Fazio's book as it seems that a few nuggets pertaining to his style and thought processes will be in there.
And Melvyn, I could not agree with you more. If I could play all the time, I would...but alas it does get dark every single darn night and I take to reading and studying about the game and its history as it fills my time in a fairly productive way.
I also like what you say about "feelings". I remember a quote from Herbert Warren Wind concerning golf holes. He said that no one every describes a golf hole correctly. THey say things like...it is a 350 yard par four with a dog leg left into a sunken green that is surrounded by bunkers and fronted by a stream. HOWEVER, he says what they really need to do is describe how the hole makes them FEEL. With this I agree concerning a hole or a course...or for that matter the game itself. Do you love it, do you like it, do you hate it, does it frustrate you, challenge you, intrigue you, etc.
I've also heard TOm Paul and Adam Clayman talk about this "feelling" time and again. And I think they are right.
Anyway, thanks again. I truly appreciate you guys sharing your thoughts with me. I let you know whatI think of these books when I finish them!
-
Thanks Kelly, I'll check it out!
-
Mac,
You may as well add Tillinghast's "The Course Beautiful" to your list. At just over 100 pages, it's a nice collection of some of his articles on golf course design. I think you'd enjoy reading it.
-
Mac:
Nobody ever recommends it as a golf architecture book because that is not what it is intended to be, but I would still recommend reading "The Match", the classic story of the match between Hogan and Nelson and Venturi and Ward played at Cypress Point during the 1950's.
Take note of the clubs played and the distance of shots. If ever there was a clear illustration of how pointless the golf technology arms race is, this book is it. "The Match" makes clear that making courses ever longer to accomodate ever longer balls doesn't really produce more exiting golf.
-
Mac:
Nobody ever recommends it as a golf architecture book because that is not what it is intended to be, but I would still recommend reading "The Match", the classic story of the match between Hogan and Nelson and Venturi and Ward played at Cypress Point during the 1950's.
Take note of the clubs played and the distance of shots. If ever there was a clear illustration of how pointless the golf technology arms race is, this book is it. "The Match" makes clear that making courses ever longer to accomodate ever longer balls doesn't really produce more exiting golf.
Tim, As I recall from a previous thread last year,this book has been found to have several inaccuracies throughout its story. It was a fun read but one should not take it as the gospel truth. Hopefully Bob Huntley will weigh in as he has personal knowledge of said match and as I recall played in a game or two with Mr. Ward back in the day.
Wish you well, Jack
-
Mac,
In a few short weeks when we unveil the newest updated Tillinghast Association website I believe that you & everyone else who has ever expressed an interest in Tilly & golf architecture will be amazed, thrilled and satisfied! For example, we will have EVERY PGA Course Consultation Tour letter available for reading, and in several different formats. By date, one-at-a-time and even as a slide show...
And that's just one of the improvements...
-
Well, my Fazio book arrived. "Golf Course Designs"...and frankly, it is already a classic!!!
Say what you will about him, but he is a pretty solid, if not very good, architect. Is he my favorite? No. But he gets/got enough work, that he has to have some skill.
Nevertheless, and enough of the P.C. disclaimer...
In Chapter #1, he has a section called "Using vs. Creating Terrain". Now that to me IS totally Fazio. In fact, isn't his claim to fame creating something out of nothing...Shadow Creek?
Furthermore, he goes on to say that if he builds a course in the rugged mountains, he wants it to be a flat course. And if he builds a course on flat land, he wants create contours and hills. This is totally different from everything I've studied previously (to see the books I've read/studied see the link in a prior post) and, therefore, very interesting.
He also says/implies that if Ross and Mackenzie lived in our time they would embrace Fazio's style.
Wild!!
I'll keep you up to date on my reading...as I am sure you can't wait to hear more from me!!! ;)
-
Mac:
I have them all and have read them all---many times, and considered them all very, very carefully. Yes, I think there is a big difference and by that I am not implying any necessary value distinction as to quality, style or worth at this time as far as the opinions of golfers generally are concerned or should be concerned. It's a "Big World."
-
Mr. Fazio would have quite an argument with Charles "steamshovel" Banks! Or McDonald and Raynoe in the building of Lido.
-
I agree with Ben Sims that Golf Architecture in America is the best book on golf architecture.
Why is this book so expensive? I assume it is out of print?
-
George...yes, I believe it is out of print. The one I got is an original one from 1927 in mint condition that cost $8,000. Just kidding.
It is 1997 reprint, but still wasn't too cheap.
What is kind of funny is that I bought Brad Klein's Discovering Donald Ross maybe a year ago for $50. Now it sells for $125ish.
This recession has pushed up the price of out of print golf books? Hmmm....
FYI...check out this link...http://www.archive.org/index.php (http://www.archive.org/index.php)
I don't know if Thomas' book is on there, but I downloaded the Colt essays from there.
-
Well, I just finished the Fazio book.
Interesting and quick read.
Top takeaways for me...Fazio's attitude regarding "Using vs. Creating Terrain"...it is a section of the book and a recurring theme.
The book also highlights his business process more so than the golf course design process. I found this unique and interesting.
The first things he considers include (starting on page 159)...
what is the concept for the course? public, private, resort; real estate based or stand alone;
What will be the handicap of players playing the course?;
Where will the clubhouse and entry roads be located?;
Is the financing sound?;
He also talks a lot about "fairness" of the course and the beauty of the course and the holes and how to "frame" views to attract the golfers eye. He mentions his routing centers on taking advantage of views and variety. And he pounds the table that meeting schedules and budgets for the client is vitally important.
In my opinion, he has the business process down to a tee. He has big time client focus. And he really tries to make the experience of the course enjoyable for the golfer. "Fair", fun, and beautiful rounds of golf. He knocks the ball out of the park on these elements.
Given that I hadn't heard any of the "Golden Age" greats talk along these lines, I thought the book was/is worthy of a read.
-
I know everyone is talking Pebble Beach right now, but I just wanted to drop a quick post on George Thomas' book, Golf Architecture in America.
Simply reading the foreward got my fired up and excited. And then reading the first chapter tonight almost overwhelmed me due to his enthusiam for golf course design and his love for the game.
As much as Fazio's book was interesting and unique, I sensed a marketing/business angle to his thought process...and you know what I think he does that well. He is a huge success.
But Mr. Thomas certainly appears to have a deep down fire burning passion for golf and specifically golf course architecture. I won't type any passages from the parts of the book I've read thus far, as it would be too much to type. I will simply say this, it is my belief that due to people like Mr. Thomas golf is in a much better place today than it would be without his contributions.
If I stumble on any worthwhile sectoins that deserve a post, I'll pass it along. I am sure y'all can't wait!!! ;)
-
...
He also talks a lot about "fairness" of the course and the beauty of the course and the holes and how to "frame" views to attract the golfers eye. He mentions his routing centers on taking advantage of views and variety. And he pounds the table that meeting schedules and budgets for the client is vitally important.
...
What I got from Fazio was that people like pretty, so it is his intention to give them pretty. That is an accurate paraphrase of what he wrote.
My thoughts on that -- I can get pretty without having to pay Fazio course green fees to get it. But then I live in an area designated to be a National Scenic Area.
As far as fairness is concerned, we've been over that. Fairness is a misnomer. Every one plays the same course, so it is fair by default. The better word is predictable, and you have shown me pictures of predictable boring courses followed by unpredictable interesting courses by, for example, Pete Dye.
-
Garland...
Excellent point on the pretty part and the big fee.
On the "fairness" part of it, that is a word that Mr. Fazio himself used over and over. Frankly, I had Crane/Behr flashbacks...but decided to spare you guys with another post of that. However, it is my opinion that most golfers deep down in their psyche side with Crane AND I think Fazio knows that and embraces it. He then uses this fact with another fact, that people like stunning beauty, and he has combined the two to make one hell of a golf course design shop.
But regarding your points on "fairness" and "predictability", I agree 100%...but as I said those were Mr. Tom Fazio's own words.
-
David Moriarty started many interesting discussions about the Fazio book when it first came out. They were hilarious because he almost always simply posted Fazio's words and then various Fazio defenders would come on and rip David and say that's not the way Fazio's courses are.
But then Fazio has always drawn controversy on this site.
If you are looking for excellent modern books, I highly recommend the following Shackelford books:
The Golden Age of Design
Cypress Point Golf Club
The Captain, which is a biography of George Thomas
Geoff's other books are excellent as well, but those are my favorites.
Of course, you can never go wrong with Anatomy of a Golf Course by Tom D, don't know if anyone on here is familiar with it....
-
Mac:
Regarding your comparison above about Fazio's book and Thomas's book and the fact that you assume Fazio's might have been motivated by business and perhaps Thomas's wasn't----you are aware, aren't you, that apparently Thomas never took a nickel for anything he did directly with golf course architecture?
Whether the reason for that was simply just because he loved it so much or also because he happened to be Goll-danged rich as hell anyway is of course one open to some interesting discussion. ;)
By the way, Thomas probably truly did love golf course architecture or at least for some time it surely appears to have fascinated him and his ample curiosity and imagination but are you aware he did voluntarily give it up and went back to a thing or two that apparently interested him even more?
One should also probably fairly ask why Macdonald essentially gave up his interest in golf and architecture (other than NGLA) as early as he apparently did.
-
Quick plug...feel free to use the Pay It Forward link below for amazon. I'll add direct links to the books mentioned as well.
Amazon Listmania List - GCA Books: http://bit.ly/gcalist
-
Jim Colton...I actually got pi$$ed at myself for forgetting to use that link. MY BAD. I will try to remember next time. Sorry!
Tom P...Yes, I knew some of that about Thomas. He loved growing roses, right? And he went back to that, I believe. On MacDonald, you bring up a point that intrigues me to no end. Here is my thinking on that...
CB MacDonald goes to St. Andrews/Scotland at a young age, then comes back to America where the golf environment SUCKS! So, he goes on a mission to bring the environment "up to speed". Involved in this mission is his trip to the UK to find the best holes in the world. He develops his template, which he thinks is the magical key to creating great golf courses. Others seem to like it, as is evidenced by him and Seth Raynor getting more golf course design jobs...BUT, they don't seem to think it is the magical key that he does. Other architects don't copy his ideas, they don't overly praise him for his work to the extent that he thinks he believes he is due, and he gets pi$$ed off and essentially secludes himself from golf. Oh yeah, he doesn't get the pull in the USGA that he wants either. And he isn't as good a competitive golfer as he wants to be either. He seems to have been hugely influencial on golf in a contemporary sense and historical sense, but I believe his ego kept him for being even greater.
At least that is my take. Thoughts?
-
CB MacDonald goes to St. Andrews/Scotland at a young age, then comes back to America where the golf environment SUCKS! So, he goes on a mission to bring the environment "up to speed". Involved in this mission is his trip to the UK to find the best holes in the world. He develops his template, which he thinks is the magical key to creating great golf courses. Others seem to like it, as is evidenced by him and Seth Raynor getting more golf course design jobs...BUT, they don't seem to think it is the magical key that he does. Other architects don't copy his ideas, they don't overly praise him for his work to the extent that he thinks he believes he is due, and he gets pi$$ed off and essentially secludes himself from golf. Oh yeah, he doesn't get the pull in the USGA that he wants either. And he isn't as good a competitive golfer as he wants to be either. He seems to have been hugely influencial on golf in a contemporary sense and historical sense, but I believe his ego kept him for being even greater.
At least that is my take. Thoughts?
Wow. That is quite a synopsis. Next stop is urinating on his grave ;) ;D ;D ;D
-
Thomas was a brilliant architect, botanist, and writer (among other talents that he had). Doak's Anatomy of a Golf Course is clear and comprehensive with excellent illustrative drawings that helped me to play a better, smarter game. I love Tillinghast so much that I can't be objective... the three books containing his work from Golf Illustrated and American Golfer are as time worn and tattered as any on my shelf.
The one book that I didn't see mentioned was Paul Daley's Links Golf. Daley is very clear about the purpose of his writing, "The purpose of this book is fourfold: (1) to investigate the unique features of linksland and (2) to celebrate them, (3) to examine the enduring traditions associated with links golf, and (4) to defuse any complacency that may exist on their collective welfare."
I play courses. I don't design them (unless we count my extensive collection of sketches on the backs of napkins, menus, and placemats. When I read a golf architecture book, I want to understand the designer's thinking better but I'm also hoping to draw from the tome, something that will affect my play in a constructive manner. It's not just an intellectual exercise. I'm too practical and selfish.
Mark
-
Mark...thanks!
Also, on learning to play better by understanding architecture. I agree. I think there are 3 main golf games. The first is the man vs. man stuff...stroke, match, whatever. The second is golfer vs. architect (or course). The third is golfer vs. himself and his own mind.
Your point on learning architecture to play better is great for all three games. Knowing what the architect is tempting you to try and the risk/rewards decisions available can help you with all three games. And if you fail one of those risk/reward shots but you knew the options and the risks...can help you with game 3, which can help you keep your cool for game 1.
Anyway, great stuff!
-
Mac,
I agree having read all those books twice that the Thomas one is the classic of the bunch. In it, he parades out some ideas that many gca's over time and today use, but can't articulate as well.
A few of the best specifics - long and narrow greens downwind because the wind straightens shot and reduces backspin, i.e., shaping the green to make the shot doable. (actually Faz does this, too, but doesn't articulate it as well)
Fairway behind the greens, esp. on long par 4 holes because isn't a shot that goes past the pin actually better than one that comes up short of the green? So, why give the short shot a fw lie into an uphill green slope and give the over the green shot a downhill green from a rough lie with less spin?
He writes of nursing slopes, and I wish I could see more examples like LANorth No. 11 to see what he actually put into practice.
He recommended steep upslope on greens for wedge shots, to help them check up, and flatter slopes on long approach shots since they would roll out more. For a while, I thought this was backward for modern play, but then I started adopting it.
Fazio does talk more about aesthetics than strategy. I think his book is a fair reflection on his priorities. Plus, if his target client is aging corporate execs who can afford high dollar clubs, one has to wonder if all the work one puts into strategy is largely wasted on that crowd anyway? That said, have played a lot of Faz courses and the rap for repetitiveness isn't really as warranted as some here seem to think. I have seen LOTS of experiemental and funky Faz holes.
As I have said before, he made his name (intentionally, I believe) as the signature gca with the fairest and easiest courses as a direct result of reaction to JN and Pete Dye. It was just as successful as TD or CC building their name as minimalists or early American stylists, and just as valid. Aging corporate execs really don't want super hard courses, as its too hard on their knees and their egos......IMHO.
JN doesn't really touch on strategy as much, either. He gives an example of a hole with an "L" shaped green and suggests he would play up the left or right depending on where the pin was.
In essence, strategy is a hard thing to conceptualize and write about. As many of you know, I have tried it. And the first reaction of most is "it doesn't have to be that way" and "its formula" even though somehow, when the old guys wrote about it, everyone accepts it as gospel, even if they sometimes engage in a bit of puffery, too.
-
Mac-
There's something profound in your observations about the three levels of "game". I play that first sort of game all the time. I win money or I lose money. I have bragging rights or I give them up. Man versus man can be exhilirating... frustrating...
Man versus course is why so many of us find as much pleasure in a solitary round as in the most sprited match. Achieving the extreme forced carry, keeping the ball on the proper shelf, allowing the cant of the green surface to funnel my ball closer and closer to the hole. Playing the architect, is very real for me. Can't tell you how many times I've landed myself in a bunker, only to lament, "From 90 years out, Donald Ross saw me coming. That's why he planted that bunker exactly there, under my ball. Kelly Blake Moran, who I think had something to say on this string earlier, put a couple medial bunkers that I must contend with every week. I can almost hear him saying, "So what's it gonna be this time?"
The greatest game, and maybe the hardest game to master, is the mind game... that part of my game that's known only to me (and I don't always understand all that I know). It's everything from Dirty Harry's challenge, "Do you feel lucky?" to Bob Jones (at least I think it was Jones) brilliant observation that golf is a game of inches, especially those inches between my ears.
Adele Invergordon had maybe the grandest golf course of its time to arrange a match between Bobby Jones, Walter Hagen and Rannulph Junuh but the brilliance of the story of Bagger Vance was in that highest level of challenge Junuh vs. himself, what you call the third level of the game.
That's why this NEVER gets old.
-
Mac:
I think your take on C.B. Macdonald in Post #29 is a pretty good one and deserving of a considered and detailed response. I'll get back to you with one on that.
On Fazio's book and ideas compared to Thomas's book and ideas I would say that in my opinion neither one of them may be necessarily right or wrong in a general sense even if and even though they may be quite different regarding the same basic subjects. It's a "Big World" out there in golf and architecture and it apparently always has been---don't you know? ;)
I suppose, if that is true, what is important for us to know and what is important for us to discuss is why those differences are important to different people who have different tastes and different perspectives and different opinions on some of the same basic subjects to do with golf course architecture.
-
Mark...thanks!
Also, on learning to play better by understanding architecture. I agree. I think there are 3 main golf games. The first is the man vs. man stuff...stroke, match, whatever. The second is golfer vs. architect (or course). The third is golfer vs. himself and his own mind.
...
Was that a priority order? If so, some of us knuckleheads think your number 3 should be number 1.
Also, it is rumored that PD wanted to elevate your number 3 to a position of high importance.
-
Garland...
Good question. I think reverse order is the most appropriate. First, get your mind right and understand your capabilities. Second, understand what the architect is doing with each and every hole...then apply what you can do on each and every shot to that specific hole. Third, if you do that you should be able to compete in the man vs. man games to the best of your ability.
Nice one!
-
CB MacDonald goes to St. Andrews/Scotland at a young age, then comes back to America where the golf environment SUCKS! So, he goes on a mission to bring the environment "up to speed". Involved in this mission is his trip to the UK to find the best holes in the world. He develops his template, which he thinks is the magical key to creating great golf courses. Others seem to like it, as is evidenced by him and Seth Raynor getting more golf course design jobs...BUT, they don't seem to think it is the magical key that he does. Other architects don't copy his ideas, they don't overly praise him for his work to the extent that he thinks he believes he is due, and he gets pi$$ed off and essentially secludes himself from golf. Oh yeah, he doesn't get the pull in the USGA that he wants either. And he isn't as good a competitive golfer as he wants to be either. He seems to have been hugely influencial on golf in a contemporary sense and historical sense, but I believe his ego kept him for being even greater.
At least that is my take. Thoughts?
I think your theory is seriously misguided. I wonder how you developed it.
Specifically:
1. You said that CBM "develops his template." What do you mean by this? Do you think that he had one basic template that he used for every course he designed? If so, which courses of his have you seen or studied that confirmed this conclusion?
2. You imply that CBM got angry because other architects did not "overly praise him" or copy his ideas. How did you conclude he wanted other architects to copy him? Would he have expected them to use "his template" that you mentioned?
3. If CBM secluded himself from golf, when did that happen? How old was he then?
-
John...
you seem angry. I hope I didn't anger you with this post. If I did, I apologize.
Concerning CBM, he is my favorite designer. I will be playing my first CBM course in May, but I have played a Raynor course and frankly it had a HUGE impact on me.
As I've stated many times in the past, I am new to the game and even newer to architecture. In the CBM post, I clearly stated here is what I "think" occured and asked for input and specifically "thoughts" after I concluded. If I am in error, please point them out as I am here to learn.
Concering his template, it is my understanding that he toured the UK and got ideas for a bunch of holes. I have read and heard he had a quiver of 22 template holes (short, long, redan, alps, etc) that he used to guide his work. Of course, he didn't copy them directly but tried to use them as a basis to test certain things in a golfers game. Frankly, I think this is a truly great idea and, in fact, I wrote about this in my write up on the Raynor course http://www.mrpgolf.com/lookout_mountain.html (http://www.mrpgolf.com/lookout_mountain.html)...if you want to read about it.
The second part of your question is pure speculation by me. I think he loved golf so much and he dedicated a lot of his time and money to bringing it to the U.S. And I think he thought he found the magic secret to designing golf courses. Which, I personally think he might have. Note my thread on groundbreaking and revolutionairy golf courses. He is by far the top guy on that thread and that was based on the thoughts and opinions of people on this site...whom I respect very much. BUT others didn't seem to copy him and I think that hurt him or took some wind out of his sails. I THINK this did. If you have something I should check out to refute this, I would love to read it as I am trying to learn.
When did he seclude himself? Perhaps I used a poor word. But I think he withdrew a bit from golf and gofl course design. In fact, I have read and heard that Raynor did a lot of the work on some of the courses credited to MacDOnald/Raynor. But experts like Mike C, TOm M, Tom P, etc would know more than me on this one. My understanding is that this occured aournd the 1910's-early 1920's...he would have been in his 50's I believe.
Again, I hope you are not angry. Frankly, I love talking about this stuff and learning and/or being forced to recall what I have already learned. But most importantly, if I am in error on something let me know...as if I want to learn I've got to get it right.
EDIT...please note my response regarding CBM ins in response to Tom P asking why I think CBM withdrew from golf when he did. He asked me to offer my thoughts and opinions. i have learned not to speculate on hisotrical based threads when the experts (Macwood, Cirba, etc) are really getting into the nitty-grutty of history. This thread is not that at all. I was asked to offer my thgouths and opinoins why someone a long time ago might have taken the actons he did.
-
"CB MacDonald goes to St. Andrews/Scotland at a young age, then comes back to America where the golf environment SUCKS! So, he goes on a mission to bring the environment "up to speed". Involved in this mission is his trip to the UK to find the best holes in the world. He develops his template, which he thinks is the magical key to creating great golf courses. Others seem to like it, as is evidenced by him and Seth Raynor getting more golf course design jobs...BUT, they don't seem to think it is the magical key that he does. Other architects don't copy his ideas, they don't overly praise him for his work to the extent that he thinks he believes he is due, and he gets pi$$ed off and essentially secludes himself from golf. Oh yeah, he doesn't get the pull in the USGA that he wants either. And he isn't as good a competitive golfer as he wants to be either. He seems to have been hugely influencial on golf in a contemporary sense and historical sense, but I believe his ego kept him for being even greater.
At least that is my take. Thoughts?"
Mac:
First of all, for a bit more detailed history, when C.B. Macdonald returned to the United States from his school years at St. Andrews the golf environment over here didn't suck; it basically didn't exist at all for about the next twenty years he referred to in his biography as his Dark Age. It was technically not until the Columbia Exposition in Chicago in 1893 when some British golfers came to Chicago that he was able to first get any Americans interested in creating a golf course and playing the game.
After that golf began to explode in popularity and certainly Macdonald said he was hugely disappointed in what he saw being built (even though the famous remark he made about the state of golf architecture in this country---ie “It makes the very soul of golf shriek” was not actually written by him until 1926 leading one to wonder what era of golf architecture in America he really was criticizing so severely). Obviously that inspired him to go abroad just after the turn of the century to study and create templates for excellent classical holes to be built over here in what he felt would be the first really good eighteen-hole course over here, or seemingly anywhere. It is important, at this point, however, to note that Macdonald did say that previous to NGLA even though there were some respected courses and "classical" holes abroad none of even the best courses abroad actually had EIGHTEEN good and respectable golf holes, in his opinion!
Was the latter aspect somewhat of a shock and put-down to the authorities on golf abroad? That's a very good question; it probably was or at least was a revolutionary thought to them. To actually try to copy holes from abroad over here was also sometimes fairly well misunderstood (most apparently thought he intended to copy them far more comprehensively than C.B. himself apparently ever intended to).
So how was his revolutionary ideas with NGLA received over here and over there? I think we can tell that many, probably most, felt it was a remarkable idea and golf course and many felt it truly was the best in this country at that time and perhaps the best in the world.
But did other architects from the teens on into the 1920s totally embrace his essential idea of emulating "classical" holes from abroad into an amalgamation of courses of eighteen great golf holes? I think we can see that a few did but mostly the rest did not for various reasons.
If that is true to say, the question is raised, why not? And the next question is, if others didn't to the extent Macdonald may've hoped and wished how did that make him feel as time went on? Did it in some ways, great or small, contribute to his decision to essentially pull away from what had been a very active participation in not just golf architecture, but the playing of golf and also as a central and important person in the administration and philosophical and practical work of developing golf architecture, agronomy and golf and its administration over here? Or were there some other reasons he chose to drop out? Were there some other problems, perhaps personal, that had little or nothing to do with golf? Did perhaps Macdonald rub too many people and too many important people in golf, the wrong way? And if so, what was that all about? Who were those people and what happened?
Did Macdonald accomplish what he hoped to and wanted to in his career over here with golf and architecture etc? It's a great question. Most I think know him more in the context of golf architecture not completely understanding how close he was to the heartbeat of golf administration over here. For instance, at the very beginning of the USGA, a national governing golf body he recommended and helped create, he was an original vice president and it seems he held that position for a few years and was on the board until 1899 when he got off the board even if he continued to serve on the association’s nominating committee for a time and certainly on their Rules Committee for many more years. It might be instructive to us to understand better some of the resolutions Macdonald apparently wrote for the USGA on such things as Amateur Status, and certainly on the important issue of who should actually be regular member clubs of the USGA.
Why did he not become the president of the USGA? Does anyone really think he didn't want to be that or that he would not have accepted it had it been offered to him? Why wasn't it? Since it apparently wasn't did that begin to disappoint him early on; after-all, at that point, he was in his mid 40s?
Some on here think I'm attempting to criticize Macdonald for even raising these kinds of issues and questions about C.B. Macdonald. I think not. The only reason I do is because to me, with the possible exception of Behr and Mackenzie, Macdonald very well may be the most interesting albeit complex man in golf during these seminal years of the game in this country.
Clearly he was a most complicated man with complex and diverse and perhaps potentially unpopular opinions on a whole array of things to do with golf and architecture and society and the administration of various things to do with it.
Does he deserve to be glorified by us for the things he did and thought in the over-all area of golf in this country? Probably, but if he does, what he really deserves, in my opinion, is that we look at him as he really was, and not in some sanitized or truncated version of how and what he really was.
As for Macdonald's own significant book, "Scotland's Gift Golf," I even think that also needs to be looked at and analyzed by us in some ways we may not have heretofore looked at it and considered and discussed it. For instance, how about the very timing of it? What was going on with him when he finally decided to write it?
-
Mac:
As you have seen in the past and can probably see on this thread as well, it sometimes makes some people angry if one even tries to analyze and discuss Macdonald and his life and times and thoughts in particular ways. I suppose they must feel it is critical or disrespectful or something of him and his legacy. Personally, I don't think so at all, not a bit, in fact probably just the opposite. I guess I could understand that had the man not been the significant albeit complex force he truly was in early American golf and architecture. Right or wrong or something in between he most certainly did contribute to making the tapestry rich in golf and architecture in the early years.
-
Tom...that was truly great and I thank you. That is exactly the type of stuff I am wanting. I look forward to continuing this type of discussion now and into the future.
On the second post you submitted, I can't get bogged down in the type of stuff you reference. I didn't try to offend anyone in my post and I tried to further enforce that fact in my response to John. But like you said, if we are going to study people, places, and things that are important to golf and its history we've got to talk about and study them honestly. Furthermore, if errors are made in research and analysis we've got to admit it quickly, recitfy the situation, and move forward.
Anyway, I will push forward on my education and research with no agenda other than learning. I will re-iterate I have no agenda and am not trying to offend anyone.
-
Mac,
You did not anger or offend me. You just posted some ideas that aren't supported by anything that I've read about CBM and I was wondering how you developed them. I wouldn't expect you to go out and do a lot of primary research, but it seems like you haven't read much about the guy at all so your speculation about him doesn't make sense to me.
Tom Paul,
As I explained to Mac, nothing about his post made me angry. The closest I've ever gotten to angry was reading a post of yours about WM urinating on CBM's grave. I now understand it was just a tasteless attempt at humor.
I think discussing CBM's role in golf is certainly fair game, warts and all.
-
I love it when the CBM's and the Flynn's battle for the rights to golf architecture history :)
in all seriousness, it ends up being a great learning experience for us all.
-
"On the second post you submitted, I can't get bogged down in the type of stuff you reference."
Mac:
Actually on your own post (#39) you asked a few questions and raised a few significant points that arguably need some getting into and perhaps far more in depth discussion about them than I believe has ever been dedicated to them on here or perhaps anywhere in modern times.
-
"I love it when the CBM's and the Flynn's battle for the rights to golf architecture history. ;)"
JC:
I'm not too sure what you're referring to when you mention the CBMs and Flynns battling for the rights to golf architecture history. I doubt you're mentioning any particular battles between CBM and Flynn themselves because I don't think that ever really happened, at least not actively or in print or anything of that nature. So I guess you're referring to some battles on here between contributors on GOLFLCUBALTLAS.com who might loosely be categorized as the proponents of CBM and the proponents of Flynn.
-
Jason...you are so right concerning the educatoin.
Tom...I specifically meant I can't get bogged down in worrying about bringing up a topic or airing an idea or opinion because someone might get angry. I am all for talking about the topics brought up in post 39. ALL FOR IT.
EDIT...I just saw John's latest post. I actually have read about CBM. I've read Scotland's Gift, I've studied NGLA, I've read up on the Lido, I've read about Seth Raynor, a little about Banks, I know about CBM's golfing career, his USGA association, his work at Downer's Grove and Chicago GC. I haven't read the Evangelist of Golf...but that will come before my round in May. So, am I am expert...no...but I am a little up to speed...but certainly I would like to know more.
-
Tom,
I am referring to the latter with respect to posters here on the site. Please note it was meant in total jest.
-
JC:
But if there was some battle between the likes of CBM and the likes of Flynn, I suspect it was nothing much more than something of a philosophical difference to do with golf architecture. And even in that vein, it very well may've been extremely conceptual in a philosophical sense and perhaps even due to the use of some general terms or phrases or broad approaches.
For instance, Macdonald appeared to condemn (albeit seemingly in his autobiography that was written some years later in 1926) the entire idea of "innovation" in golf course architecture and he said just that in no uncertain terms. He seemed to defend and support and perhaps limit the only truly useful concepts in golf course architecture to that of the "classic" holes or principles etc, etc.
Whether it was merely a misunderstanding of terms or phrases and such or a real conceptual and philosophical difference between some of those architects of that early time it does appear that idea did rub some of the burgeoning and increasingly successful American architects of the teens and 1920s the wrong way. Some actually mentioned it but it seems most didn't, including Flynn. It doesn't surprise me if most chose never to directly take Macdonald on philosophically. Why piss him off even more than he may've already been?
-
JC:
As you probably know, I'm a huge fan of total jest even if I appear not to directly admit it which I believe is all part and parcel of the "jestin'" process.
When I think of the latter I think of the final scene in "My Cousin Vinnie" when Marisa Tomei is driving the Cadillac convertible out of Alabama after Vinnie has won the case, and she says with her hair blowing in the wind and the vestige of a poker smile on her face---"From now on you keep on winning cases but with someone actually helping you; Oh My God, what a f...king DISAASSTA!