What would they debate?

[Mark_Fine]

If you could put the best of the Golden Age Architects on a panel, what would they argue about when it came to golf course design?  Would it be much different then it is now?  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tillinghast was constantly writing and talking about technology as the reason golf courses were being lengthened. I am certain that this issue would have been at the forefront for him.

[T_MacWood]

Bourbon or Scotch?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You probably are right    

Philip,
Most did talk about the increasing distance of the golf ball.  Same issues, same problems.
Mark

[wsmorrison]

I believe if the dead guys woke up and sat on a panel, to a man they wouldn't be talking architecture first.  They'd marvel at the dramatic changes in the agronomics of today and the advances that make playability so consistantly fine.  

Though they probably would remark about how soft and green things are and want to know how to turn off the water on their classic courses so their architecture could shine through as intended.

The majority would wonder what happened to their courses, why they were changed so dramatically and what's with all the trees.  If they saw John Hurley from Nebraska step up to the tee and belt one out there 340 on the carry they'd quickly get a sense of what else changed beyond their comprehension.

Some architects would then brag about how their courses remained intact or changed less than others.  Who do you think these men would include?

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Good points.  However, I meant back then (in their time).  What would they argue about amongst themselves?
Mark

[wsmorrison]

Oh, sorry.  They would have met at George Thomas's house.

Macdonald would have argued with everyone about everything but he would have conceded one thing only; that is Shinnecock Hills was improved by Flynn though he would insist that the seventh was an original Macdonald and the sixth had to be Flynn's homage to his Channel Hole.

Flynn and Tillinghast would have been happy drinking on their own ignoring Charlie and then going outside to piss on Thomas's roses.  

J.B. McGovern would have been stomping his feet and saying "I am too a good architect, don't listen to that mean Billy Flynn."  

Ross would not have shown up but he would have mailed in his debate points.  

Mackenzie would be arguing for fewer bunkers and less penal rough.  

Crump would have debated Colt as to who should get credit for Pine Valley.  

Then at the end of a long evening the naturalists, led by Max Behr would have beaten up Macdonald, Raynor, Langford and Banks for producing such engineered works.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Sounds pretty much like the same debates architects are having today.  Only differenece is that I don't know any that like to grow roses?
Mark

[TEPaul]

What they'd debate about is probably all reflected in what they wrote about---eg distance problems, efficiencies of construction, strategic ramifications, interest, enjoyment and fun for the golfer and occasionally ramifications of challenge for the expert player on courses that were to be considered "championship" caliber etc, etc. They'd probably debate about the issue of fairness too, as they wrote about that too sometimes. What they'd debate about probably is little different than what we debate about today.

I was reading some Max Behr yesterday and what he wrote about in specific detail is exactly as if it was written yesterday. Frankly, it's spooky. It makes one realize the regulatory bodies will probably never really listen unless and until enough people begin to complain. So far, and for about the last one hundred years unfortunately that has just not happened.

It probably makes one realize an unattractive truth and something about which a Max Behr may've been wrong all along. It appears he thought the everyday golfer (most golfers) would really care about most of the things he wrote about. About the last seventy five years may've shown us that most golfers really don't care about much of anything---that the everyday golfer (most golfers) will pretty much accept whatever they're given in golf and in golf architecture.

And what was truly spooky is how accurately Behr wrote 75 years ago about the position of the ball and implement manufacturers that they didn't really care a damn about the game---only profit and hoodwinking the golfer into buying what they said was the latest and greatest particularly as it related to distance.

I think I can guarantee one thing with certainty though. If those old guys from the 1920s could see how far some of these expert players today are hitting all their clubs they would be totally horrified! If they could see that who would they blame? They'd probably blame people like C.B. Macdonald who spoke vociferously against standardization of equipment and who maintained there was never a distance problem in golf because the game was so hard anyway!  

[Kyle Harris]

Wayne,
Sounds pretty much like the same debates architects are having today.  Only differenece is that I don't know any that like to grow roses?
Mark

Mark,

George Thomas was first and foremost a Rose grower (is there an official title for this?) I believe he is credited with several new varieties.

[Mark_Fine]

Kyle,
Yes I know about Thomas and his love of roses.  I was talking about architects today (I don't know any who love roses that would compare to Thomas).
Mark

[TEPaul]

"What would they argue about amongst themselves?"

Mark:

There's no question about it---they be arguing amongst themselves about who was getting the best and the most on the side. It doesn't matter what era you're talking about chauvinists pigs of any era are all the same in the end.

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

  Now you're talking! What do you prefer on the side? I usually like a little coleslaw , but I want alot of potato salad.