Questions on architectural accuracy and attribution

[TEPaul]

I'm asking this question only in the context of architectural accuracy and architectural attribution.

There have been a number of historic hole photographs posted and presented recently---clearly a good and very interesting thing to have on here.

So, what would this site like to see as the modus operandi of establishing the architectural accuracy and the attribution of the architect responsible for the architecture in those photos or even some of the little architectural details in those photos??

For instance, on a thread discussing how talented Donald Ross was or wasn't, Tom MacWood posted a photograph of extremely geometric and artifical mounds that he attributed to early Donald Ross on Pinehurst #2.

Personally, I don't believe those highly geometric artifical mounds were Donald Ross or even remotely representative of any style he ever had, early, middle or late. But I only say it's just ME that doesn't believe it, and so perhaps it'd be far more accurate and beneficial if a guy like Brad Klein who recently wrote a book on Donald Ross, or some of the architects familiar with the work of Ross would weigh in on that question and the accuracy of that architectural attribution!

Tom MacWood also attrbutied bunkering on a hole at Minikahda in 1927 to Donald Ross (or architecture Ross had taken responsibility for due to comprehensive redesgin of Minikahda) which had a look about it that wasn't remotely like anything I've seen from Ross at any time (although it may have looked like the style of Willie Watson at a particular time).

Since this is a website and discussion group that's capable of real detail in research material and architectural analysis, particularly of old architecture and architects, it seems important that we on here try as hard as possible to get our facts, and historical facts as straight and as accurate as possible, particularly so architecture won't be attributed to the wrong architect and thereby start to mislead people with inaccurate information and opinion in the future.

My recommendation would be that we attempt to label architectural attribution as;

1. Possible
2. Probable
3. Provable

even if that labeling is just during the course of a discussion.

Tom MacWood:

I hope by asking this question and also asking you to perhaps try to prove (or explain how you think you're going about proving it) some of the things you say on here about historic material, including photographs, you don't think I'm attacking you personally.

I do think you're very good at finding extremely interesting historic material, and you're also getting very prolific at presenting it on here (to everyone's delight and interest), and I know you fancy yourself a very fine researcher, so I don't think it's too much to ask you to really try to prove, as best you can, some of the things you say and attribute on here or at least admit that you're not really able to do that. And I hope you don't take some personal offense either when you're asked a series of tough questions on some of the things you assume, conclude, say and attribute. And the same questions and tests should certainly apply to anyone else who attributes historical material. Eventually, this kind of thing may result in more accuracy on the ground---certainly the ultimate goal of restorations, preservations etc.

I just think this website, because of what it is and the fact that some out there might rely on it's accuracy either now or in the future, it's important on here to do the very best we can to be accurate about the things we show and say. In some ways it's not that different from researching the historical accuracy of the evolution of a classic golf course in preparation for an attempt at a good restoration.

Again, what would this site like to see as the modus operandi of establishing the architectural accuracy and the attribution of the architect responsible for the architecture in those photos, and other historic material, or even some of the little architectural details in those photos??

[A_Clay_Man]

Being more gullable than most, I do respect and appreciate a qualifier.

In the very little gca research that I've done, it was heavily reliant on recollections from elderly individuals. So how accurate or objective is that?

During our presentation by Mr. Cooper at Jasper Pk. he made a very good case against too much accuracy, or handcuffing, in restorations, to a specific exact date, or time. Grant it, Jasper Pk was fortunate to have it's creator tinker and perfect her over the years, and may fall into a special category, when analyzing this issue of proveability because they had many pictures and the changes from the inception were significant. (at least to my untrained eye)

Tom- I don't know how off base, or tangendential this post is, but I thought I'd start the ball rolling.

[TEPaul]

"Tom- I don't know how off base, or tangendential this post is, but I thought I'd start the ball rolling."

Adam:

I appreciate that but I'm not referring to something like a club deciding to restore to an exact date or not. That's another matter altogether and that's their choice and has virtually nothng to do with establishing chronological accuracy and the accuracy of who it actually was (architects) who did things that makes up the evolutionary architectural history of a golf course. I can't imagine why anyone would want the latter not to be as accurate as possible.

What I'm referring to is something exactly like the example I initially gave. Those highly artifical-looking geometric mounds at early Pinehurst are an architectural feature that's been attributed to Donald Ross on here. I assume the entire reason that photo was posted was to show not only that they were Ross but also how geometric, rudimentary and radical even Ross's early architecture could be!

I, for one, don't believe mounds that look like that were Ross. I certainly doubt an immigrant linksman with a pretty solid architectural tutelage behind him in the old country would design or create something like that. And if for some reason he did I think that's truly remarkable and something I know I, for one, would most definitely like to know about because I'm most interested in really understanding how, why and by whom the styles and types of architecture did evolve, particularly in the early stages from the so-called "rudimentary" to the "geometric" eras to the far more naturalistic era to follow!

I'm not saying I know those geometric mounds in that photo are provably not Ross, I'm saying I seriously doubt they are. It seems Brad Klein's book on Ross (which includes a fairly comprehensive history on Pinehurst) may indicate they aren't Ross because of chronological reasons. And so I'm asking the person (Tom MacWood) who posted them and claimed they are Ross, to prove it, and if he can't do that to admit it.

Otherwise people who view this website might get some impression of Donald Ross or an early style that's just wholly inaccurate and wrong. I doubt any of us on here who really are interested in architectural styles and eras including the entire evolution of architecture would want that type of inaccuracy on here.

There's nothing nuancy about the difference in the architectural style in that photo compared to what most know of Donald Ross, even early Ross. The difference is about as wide and perhaps one could even say as egregious as it could get.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

TE,
I thought you knew better then this!

You of all people should know that anytime one surmizes something in relation to Golf Architecture and its past, that one is more then likely going to be wrong.

While it feels good to speculate on what you think Donald Ross did or didn't do, just remember he had a learning curve too, way back in the days when it wasn't really an art yet, just more of of an identification of what was similar something similar to linksland.

It wasn't even really architecture persay, because it was stuff like this was created and not found naturally.

I also feel if you went through some of these old Golf Illustrated's and stuff, your head would spin a 360, ala the little girl in the Exorcist because they do reveal things you would never imagine about people most would love to categorize as a certain style or function. After all, we are talking about turn of the century stuff here and even slightly before.

[paul cowley]

no tom paul ,you are right about the PH#2 photos ....ross was never that immature ,stupid or punkian to ever allow those mounds as strategic creations.....tomw is pulling your something [chain ,leg etc.]
....ross was a design business with making money a prime purpose , not creating  some avant garde testing ground of the day !

[TEPaul]

"no tom paul ,you are right about the PH#2 photos ....ross was never that immature ,stupid or punkian to ever allow those mounds as strategic creations.....tomw is pulling your something [chain ,leg etc.]"

PaulC:

To date, you and I seem to be the only ones on here who are seriously calling out Tom MacWood on this particular specific issue! This both surprises and concerns me! Is everyone else so blase or unconcerned or lacking in basic architectural understanding, even if old or historical in this case, and even if those photos were up to 100 years ago, not to have noticed this possible inaccuracy?

I can almost guarantee you with 100% assurance that Tom MacWood is not pulling my chain or leg or anything else---he actually believes what he said about those photos he posted and Ross's style or intent!

That's what really concerns me and is the basic reason I thought of this thread subject. I hate to be blunt because Tom MacWood seems to take it as a personal attack but my opinion of him is he's truly brilliant at producing the historical material he does but when it comes to analyzing the meaning and evolutionary context of it which necessarily includes it's accuracy he's becoming a virtual disaster with some examples, in my opinion!

This thread however, is not directed at Tom MacWood, although he obviously thinks it is---it's extant with even some architects it seems. I got some emails today on this specific subject and thread from some well known architects who also believe those geometric mounds at Pinehurst and perhaps even in that bunker at Oakley really may have been Ross and what he intended in that very early era.

My only mission here with this thread is to prove that to be true or not true by really almost scientifically investigating this subject.

I think it's important to do in the ultimate understanding of  not just a recognized great architect's entire career but also the evolution of early golf architecture!

[paul cowley]

.....tomp ,on a more personal level, lets fast forward to GCA 100 years hence.....[posted by tom mac IIII ] " even from the grainy digitals ,its remarkable to see how cowley et al were able to incorporate their designs amongst old ruins ,forts and even rice fields !...those olden agers sure knew how to integrate what they found with what they could create "......

[paul cowley]

.....those geometric mounds , depicted in the photos from different threads and attributed to ross ,were piled or conveyed by an overhead method ....that much is sure ...but i can only guess what type of equipment availiable in those days might have been responsible for creating the angle of repose that these mounds exibit....

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

And I'm bringing this thread up too in hopes you might have something interesting to add or subtract from the subject, but if you choose not to respond I suppose I understand, perhaps it seems to much like a personal attack to you as well.