Did GCA in America lose it's way as it distanced itself from it's UK roots ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

Yes, I know they were connected, but I see real differences in their work from their models and still believe American architecture STARTED with a disconnect from GBI designs for a variety of reasons.

Actually, I have always felt that Muirfield in 1892 was the first "modern" course over there. It looks pretty much like the modern pattern that courses have followed since then - the better Golden Age courses and/or even modern courses have many similarities in scale, hazard placement, etc.  

So it could be that there really is no disconnect, just a long, slow evolution over many centuries, as you would expect in looking at all forms of human endeavors. Perhaps the whole timeline is really just too complex to dissect in one of your pithy sound bite thread titles, although I like the idea that you encapsulate the basic thread idea as well as you do.

Even with the well known break from the Golden Age to WWII, its certain that those gca's were at least somewhat aware of the classics and chose to provide a new design paradigm, rather than copy what had been done before.  

I think its a perception issue here - if Tom Doak comes on and says "I don't want to copy what's been done before" he is considered a freakin genius and its gospel.  If RTJ said the same thing (and I will bet he did at some point) its pure crap because the style he chose doesn't curry current favor.  But it was as popluar and more influential for a long time as the minimalists are today.

I think your premise is somewhat flawed, because it assumes that achitecture lost its way when it started creating courses that Pat Mucci doesn't currently like, even if this is presented as a historical analysis......

Here's a personal question - Did you ever like some Post WWII courses, or hold them up as paradigms of good design?  Now that your thought has evolved to liking a newer style/fad/trend does that mean you were really a dodo bird ;)back then, or is it possible that you - and the gcas practicing then - were simply evaluating architecture using the tools and knowledge available to them at that time, and the conclusions you/they drew were essentially correct for then?


Tom,

As I wrote the, I was aware that there were square greens and artificial features in GBI, but wonder why with those examples and classic links like Muirfield, they would choose those?

Was Bendelow a Scottish Pro? I don't think its a universal statement that our early courses were ALL laid out by UK pros. I really think its because, similar to urban planning which imposes grids over any type of topography, our early designers really weren't talented our caring, even if they were from Scotland. Maybe they just wanted that $50 bucks for a Sunday afternoon as a quick payday (numbers change, but attitudes among pros designing courses doesn't seem to have)  

[T_MacWood]

I don't believe I said ALL the courses were laid out by UK pros. Bendelow was a Scot, so was Willie Dunn, and Willie Davis, and the Foulis Bros, William Watson, Tweedie (GB), Whigham, Findlay, Norton, Way and JD Dunn were all from the UK and very active in laying out courses in the US.

Whatever the reason or reasons these early courses turned out the way they did, the problem was not isolated to the US...it started in the UK.

The Muirfield of 1891 is not the Muirfield of 1920 or 1928. I think the first major redesign occured sometime in the 1900s.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think its a perception issue here - if Tom Doak comes on and says "I don't want to copy what's been done before" he is considered a freakin genius and its gospel.  If RTJ said the same thing (and I will bet he did at some point) its pure crap because the style he chose doesn't curry current favor.  But it was as popluar and more influential for a long time as the minimalists are today.

Jeff,

I agree with that.
Sometimes timing and/or authorship are the deciding factors when determining merit.

Unfortunately, we can't conduct blind or double blind tests.[/color]

I think your premise is somewhat flawed, because it assumes that achitecture lost its way when it started creating courses that Pat Mucci doesn't currently like, even if this is presented as a historical analysis......

I didn't use my personal likes or dislikes in drafting the premise.
But, it would be difficult to disengage or ignore my preference for architectural styles when crafting an opinion.[/color]

Did you ever like some Post WWII courses, or hold them up as paradigms of good design?  

Yes, most certainly.

I happen to like some of Pete Dye's work and Dick Wilson's work.  I've stated for years that I thought that Dick Wilson's courses were underrated and that he didn't get the accolades he deserved.

Despite Tommy Naccarato's chastizing me, I liked Tokatee, a Ted Robinson design.  I thought it was good and that it could be even better.

It's too easy to say that I like C&C's work, or Doak's work, or David Kidds work, but, from what I've seen, I find it appealing.
I also loved Wild Horse.
I liked Shadow Creek and Gallaway National.

I'm sure that there are a good number of Post WW II courses and new courses that I'll like, but, in general, there seems to be an overwhelming number of "Golden Age" or "Classic" that I find very appealing.

I like Rumson Golf Club, Deal and Spring Lake Golf Club and many other "Sporty" courses that are sprinkled throughout the Metro NY area, they have a certain comfortable and sporty feel that I just don't find with many modern designs.

When one looks at the Golf Channel's preview of this weeks British Open, you can't help but admire the golf course, the bunkering, the greens, the tees and how seemlessly they seem to blend together.

Now I understand the benefit of a wonderful links site, but, with all of the modern earth moving equipment, I just expect more out of today's architects, lending ample consideration to the environmental burdens they face.[/color]

Now that your thought has evolved to liking a newer style/fad/trend does that mean you were really a dodo bird ;)back then, or is it possible that you - and the gcas practicing then - were simply evaluating architecture using the tools and knowledge available to them at that time, and the conclusions you/they drew were essentially correct for then ?

In the context that the evolving architects HAD to know more than their predecessors, yet, their products, in many cases were inferior to their predecessors, would seem to indicate that their additional knowledge was of NO benefit in designing and building a golf course.

That would seem to indicate a repudiation of prior principles or a belief that they were far better at their craft than their predecessors, despite the proof not being in the pudding.

One of the dangers in any sport is to start believing the headlines to the exclusion of everything else.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
It's conflicted to say that the depression caused a 10-15 year hiatus on the creation of new courses, but, a flurry of activity on altering existing courses."

Patrick:

As usual, you exhibit a real comprehension problem. I didn't say the depression necessarily CAUSED a flurry of activity of altering existing courses but the facts, the records, and the histories of clubs and courses proves that a flurry of alteration activity occured beyond any question. There most certainly was a flurry of alteration to existing architecture during the entire decade of the 1930s

One who doesn't look at the history of golf architecture very carefully might assume little to nothing could have been done to existing courses during the depression and it would seem somewhat logical to assume that since it was a severe economic depression.

Ron Prichard, who would be in an excellent position to know pointed out once the reason why it was so. Money was not as available amongst clubs as it had been previously but those who had some most certainly realized the utility of getting people to work for sometimes as little as 5 cents on the dollar. Some, or perhaps most of the alterations to existing courses may have been for economy measures as well. One can not deny that a Tillinghast, for instance, under the auspices of the PGA had more than a full list of clients. Perry Maxwell did a ton of redesign during the depression.

Don't try to just wing various subjects on here simply for discussion sake, Patrick, at least check the facts and the fairly clear history of various eras of architecture first.  

The more I participate on this website and the more I read the threads of other, the more I realize how valuable Ron Prichard's take really is on so many interesting elements of golf architecture of the past.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I agree with you with respect to Ron Prichard, but, for you to posture that during the depression, club's spent money they didn't have, just to put people to work is counterintuitive.

There might have been SOME activity, but, to describe the depression era as a flurry of activity in the area of alteration and redesign is foolish.

It would also indicate that the clubs held their courses in low esteem, reworking them for the sole purpose of employment, totally disregarding the quality of the original product, which, at the time, was very new.

Most clubs in existance in 1929 were built between 1910 and 1929, only 19 years at the most, and 1 or 2 years at the least.

Would you have mechanics remake and alter your brand new car just to give them work ?

Actually, maybe you would.

[Paul_Turner]

Nevermind America losing its UK roots, the UK itself seems to have lost them.

[T_MacWood]

Paul
I agree with you and posed that question on the first page of this thread.

It was not strictly an American phenomenon. Architects like Fred Hawtree, John Harris, CK Cotton and Henry Cotton were producing modern designs that appeared to have lost their UK roots as well. It was an international-wide roots misplacement.

TE & Pat
There was not a lot of architectural activity in 1930s compared to the previous decades...there was little money for such activity. In fact the later named this period the Depression.

[Paul_Turner]

Although one big difference in the decades after WW2 was that the UK was broke (food rationing well into the 50s) and the architects had a pittance to work with.  

I assume the architects in USA had much more money to work with.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

If you're answering me about architectural activity in the 1930s (the Depression) please get your terms straight for starters. What I said was there were a helluva lot more alterations done to existing courses in the 1930s than most realize, and there was.

Wasn't it you who about a year ago mentioned that Tillinghast recommended the removal of something like 10,000 bunkers in the mid-1930s and compromised his architectural principles in the process?

To me that, that alone doesn't sound like there were few alterations to existing courses in the 1930s. One shouldn't skew facts simply for the benefit of some present point one is trying to make.

My golf course is probably not unusual. There were three separate rounds of redesign by Perry Maxwell in the 1930s, probably more alterations to the course than in any other decade of its 90 year existence.

"TEPaul,
I agree with you with respect to Ron Prichard, but, for you to posture that during the depression, club's spent money they didn't have, just to put people to work is counterintuitive."

Patrick:

Apparently there's a good deal about the facts and history of golf course architecture that seems counter-intuitive to  you but that won't change the facts and history of golf course architecture.  

Prichard did not say that times weren't bad economically for most clubs during the depression. What he said was that times were worse for the available labor force who were willing to work for almost nothing. I agree with him and obviously that alone inspired far more alterations to existing courses in the 1930s than many realize even if a good deal of those alterations were also for economy measures. In case you also failed to make the connection, most of those alterations for economy measures were to reduce operating costs.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I differentiate between bunker removal and redesigning a hole.

Removing a bunker and allowing it to grow to grass, or filling it in and allowing it to grow to grass isn't the same as redesigning a hole.

I understand the desire to reduce maintainance costs during and after the depression.

It also occured during WW II.

Bunker removal represents micro adjustments to me, redesigning holes and rerouting holes is more along the lines of substantive alterations.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I agree with Pat. New design or redesign is design activity...having a broke touring golf architect recommend removal of half your bunkers as a free service is something else altogether...more like a design-ectomy.

I wonder what percentage of those clubs followed through on Tilly's recommendations. Saying the 30s was a period where there was a ton of design activity is skewing the facts IMO.

Do you think the membership (and their disposable income) at Gulph Mills was similar to most clubs in the US during the Depression?  

 

[TEPaul]

"TE
I agree with Pat. New design or redesign is design activity...having a broke touring golf architect recommend removal of half your bunkers as a free service is something else altogether...more like a design-ectomy."

Tom MacWood:

What are you talking about? What difference does it make what you or Pat want to call the alteration (design or redesign) of existing golf courses in the 1930s or if those who did them were broke or not? What difference does that make? The fact is a whole lot of courses were altered in the 1930s.

How many bunkers across America were actually removed on Tillinghast's recommendations during his long and comprehensive PGA Tour? It was you who speculated a year or more ago that it may've been around 10,000. That is not exactly a drop in the bucket on existing golf courses around America, and that was just Tillinghast.

How much money did GMGC's membership have in the depression. I have no idea. What do you suppose I've done---researched the net worth of ever member of GMGC in the Depression.

GMGC was made up of some very rich people and it still is but both back then and today, no matter how much money they seem to have they definitely don't like to spend much on the golf course. If I'm being politically correct I'd call the club frugal, if I'm not being politically correct I'd say they're basically downright cheap.  

[T_MacWood]

TE
Trying to claim that the 30s was a period of great architectural activity is wack.

Recommending wholesale removal of bunkers in one step above recommending removal of 9 holes....and that ain't redesign either. What happened on his PGA tour was design removal for economic reasons.

And recommending is one thing (at no cost I might add) actually removing the bunkers is another...it takes some money to hire people & equipment to plow over bunkers. I asked you what percentage of these clubs followed through...perhaps Phil the Author has the answer. I don't have precise number. Off the top of my head I know Bel-Air didn't...thank God (of course later architects with misplaced roots would make other changes).

Whatever the case Tilly's PGA tour is unprecidented in golf architecture history and should be placed in a completely different catagory IMO. A dark catagory if you ask me.

By the way some of his recommendations during the Depression regarding elimination of all Duffers Headaches carried into some of the design philosophies of the 50s and 60s.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom's Paul & Macwood, you wrote and asked, "How many bunkers across America were actually removed on Tillinghast's recommendations during his long and comprehensive PGA Tour? It was you who speculated a year or more ago that it may've been around 10,000. That is not exactly a drop in the bucket on existing golf courses around America, and that was just Tillinghast." and also, "What happened on his PGA tour was design removal for economic reasons.

And recommending is one thing (at no cost I might add) actually removing the bunkers is another...it takes some money to hire people & equipment to plow over bunkers. I asked you what percentage of these clubs followed through...perhaps Phil the Author has the answer. I don't have precise number."
 
I'm presenting the following not to debate merits of the tour or it's recommendations and accomplishments; rather to educate on exactly whatTilly during this time.

By their own acconts (Tilly & the PGA), in the first 15 months he had inspected 370 courses and recommended the removal of 7,247 bunkers. He would continue on for another 10 months.

Despite these numbers, the large majority of his recommendations were of a much different work. Here is a breakdown of his first 6 weeks (8/15 to 9/30 of 1935).

Courses visited - 52 (with the following recommendations)
New Holes - 10
Hole Redesigns - 37
Re-routing of individual holes - 3
Green Redesigns - 6
New Greens - 29
Rebunker holes - 1
DHR Holes - 7
New Tees - 7
Mound removals - 3
Complete Course redesign - 1
Complete Green redesign - 1
Complete Course Exhamination Only - 6
Inspect land for new course - 1
Design of additional 9 holes - 2

It is the goal of the Tillinghast Association to have a detailed summary of this tour on our web-site sometime this fall. It will include a day-by-day breakdown of every course visited and the work recommended at each.

This will expand the accounting that I put in the Tillinghast biography. At the time of writing, a number of reports in 1937 were still missing and have now been found and so these can be added in.

As for how many of these recommendations were actually done, it appears from letters received by the PGA during this time, that well more than half (possibly even as much as 70%)was done.

This amount should come as no surprise as every stop and course visited was at the request of the course &/or head pro with specific problem areas to be examined and discussed.

I hope this is helpful.

[TEPaul]

"Recommending wholesale removal of bunkers is one step above recommending removal of 9 holes....and that ain't redesign either. What happened on his PGA tour was design removal for economic reasons.

Tom MacWood:

That just could be the most preposterous statement you've ever made on this website. What really is "wack" is your bizarre personal revisionism of the history of architecture, now apparently including a new definition or two no one has ever heard of before. Now we have a design subsets known as "design removal" or "design removal for economic reasons", do we?  

You're priceless!

[T_MacWood]

TE
I think it is the duty of every middle-aged white guy to use the term 'wack' in a statement as much as possible.

I'm not really sure what 'revisionism of the history of architecture' might be since most of golf architecture history is undocumented (or under documented) but I do know what to call the claim that the Depression was a period of great architectural design & redesign:

Wide of the mark (or 'wack' for you hip white guys).

[ForkaB]

Although one big difference in the decades after WW2 was that the UK was broke (food rationing well into the 50s) and the architects had a pittance to work with.  

I assume the architects in USA had much more money to work with.

Yes, Paul, but you did have, in the 1946-50 period:

1.  The redesign of Turnberry (Ailsa)
2.  Southerness
3.  The new 6-11 at Dornoch
4.  Others I'm sure (Ballyliffin Old?)

Granted, they had good/great land to work with, but so did the USA at that time.  We had rationing during WWII too, but we got over it.......