Something Else To Read

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

David
And what if we all had eight arms, wings and an urge to skip? And the game was concieved in my bath tub by a group of Shriners? I'd struggle with that too! You lost me.

RJ & Jeff
I'm not sure I'd agree with your interpretation of the author's spirit of the game. And from my reading the book, the author did not advocate any preferred style or aesthetic. In fact the exact opposite. The book is one of the most interesting written on the subject of golf architecture and is not outdated IMHO.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Tom:

I think the writer clearly implies the concept of beauty in their statements.  The statement about lines is sophomoric, and probably just something they heard and repeated without given much thought to its meaning.  At the time the paragraphs may have been enlightening but I do not think the words reveal much today that we did not know before Tommy posted it.  

I can not think of anything that has vitality and energy that is not beautiful.  So, the words may not be synomous but they work well together.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Kelly
Doing good deeds produces vitality and energy. A religious experience may produce vitality and energy. Meditation and contemplation can produce vitality and energy. Exercise can produce vitality and energy. Surprise, danger, adventure and success can all produce vitality and energy. None of these actions has anything to do with aesthetics, nor are they directly related to visual beauty. Great golf courses do have vitality and energy, part of it is related to beauty and aesthetics, but it also has to do with surprise, danger, adventure and the thrill of success.

One of the authors was an artist, the other was an art and literary scholar. I'm sure your theories on art are superior to their own, but I doubt they picked them off the back of a cerial box or in casual conversation. I think if you read their book you would understand what emphasis they placed upon beauty -- you might be surprised. But then again it might be a bunch of old fashioned crap....  

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Gee Tom I would assume you really do not believe my theories on art are superior so I guess that was a put down.  However if you do believe my theories are superior  I have more that nobody else will listen to so I would love to pour it all out to an adoring fan.

I was not trying to insult their "cereal box" theories.  And I was not focusing just on visual beauty, in fact when I was giving some thought to this I was thinking of some people whom have vitality and energy but not in a visual way, but they are beautiful.  Good deeds, religious experience are absolutely beautiful.  In fact that type of beauty may be the highest form of beauty in the world.  I beleive Goethe and Emerson addressed beauty in a similar way.

I have not read the book and have made attempts to find a copy.  It does not even come up searches at Amazon so it must be way out of print.  I doubt it is old fashioned crap...I will leave that judgement until I can read the whole manuscript.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Kelly
Good try.  "Beauty is in the composition, the shading, and refering to above as much as what is not done as what is done, not the lines."  It seems to me you believed the authors vitality was in a strictly visual context, which you equated with visual beauty. You also spoke of the curve and geometry, and nothing of vitality of experience. I think that might be where you misunderstood (and disagreed with) what the author was saying. It didn't jive with your current geometric design philosophy and your thoughts on beauty.

Your comment describing their ideas as sophmoric and hollow might be judged as an insult - but that's just me.

I'd give the library a try.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

No Tom you got it wrong.  My most recent comments on beauty were relating to your comments, not the authors of the book.  You are getting a little lazy in your responses.  You must be a lawyer because you are very effective at distorting a conversation like what we are having. I do not have a geometric philosophy, the geometric comment was used for illustration.  And I think from reading the paragraphs my ideas of beauty would be reinforced by their comments, I simply picked at the scab on an otherwise intersting piece provided by Tommy.  

I have tried the library.  Why don't you send me your copy:

609 Penn Avenue
West Reading, PA 19611

I will read it and send back promptly.  Thanks.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Kelly,
Have you tried the bookfinder service at your library? Ours just tracked down a copy of MacDonald's "Scotland's Gift Golf" for me. They found it at a library in Hartford and sent it to our's here. They don't even charge for the service which I thought was pretty neat.
Hope this helps.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Kelly
Ouch! My mother always told us not to mess with our scabs.

I'd send you my copy if I had a copy. I took it out of the library. If you get the chance give it a read, the book is very interesting. One of the reason's I enjoy the book other than its interesting perspective on golf architecture - is the author's humility.

[A_Clay_Man]

For the purposes of promoting further discussion I will state an observation and I certainly hope noone is offended should they take umberage. (this never works)

Please correct me if I'm wrong but, we have two modern archies commenting here and they seem to be devaluing some of the aspects of the passage in question. Not so much as devaluing, as perhaps downplaying it and seems that they maybe doing that to justify thier own works. ( I said may be)

The reason why noone can be wrong about this stuff is that it is all about feelings. The feeling I get when I etherally waltz thru a round is when every sense (mostly visual) is intertwined with all the physical realities and therefore is hieghtend by the naturalness of the experience. Juxtaposed to the feeling I get when there is refinery in the vacinity which tends to boil my ecological plasma or too many manufactured, be it straight or rounded, features which just don't fit the site.

To me, This is mostly why the Reeses of this world get bashed.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

ACLAYMAN:

Just to clarify because I think one of the modern architects you refer to is me.  I am not bashing the book to justify my own work.  I do not use GCA to promote or justify my work because I feel that would be a violation of the website's intent.  I started to fall into that trap a little bit when I first came on here, I got into an arguement with Matt Ward bcause he did not like my Hawk Pointe.  I spent considerable time justifying my work in public and it just was not right.  I realized it was wrong.  Once my course is done I do not like to revisit the decisions in a public forum.  You guys are smart enough to form your own opinions about it and you do not need me trying to influence you.  From me, you will never see an "Update from----" thread.  Persons on this site have asked me to send them pictures from what I have under construction to post on here and that will not happen. I think it is deporable when I see some architects promoting their work by posting pictures. Some have asked to accompany me on my site visits, and that will not happen because I have seen them post comments when they have visited projects under construction.  If the comments are positive then it would look like I were using certain persons on this site to promote myself.  If the comments are negative I would have to whoop their butts! So your assertion that my banter with Tom, whom I did not know was an architect, was for self promotion is wrong, I know you were not being malious.  But, I will add that my comments were very favorable about the passage Tommy N. posted.  I must tell you that Tom and possibly you have overreacted to my commets, and I suspect it is because this book may be considered holy to the classical architecture cardinals, and any preceived critisism or questioning of the holy books must be squashed.  I expect this is partly true, or I may be overreacting as well.  But I am certain your perception that I have bashed this article is way way off.  You should reread this thread if you still feel this way.  I know I used words like sophomoric which may have been too strong, but putting that aside I feel I gave the holy scriptures a good review.  God help me if I have sinned!

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Sorry ACLAYMAN,

But I must correct one thing. I did discuss one other of my projects, which shall remain nameless, after my posts about Hawk Pointe and that is when I decided it a little unseemly to be discussing my own work on this valuable website.  

Now, if an architect discussing issues, like MacWood and I were discussing (which I find enjoyable though irritating at times like when he inferred I am not humble and was trying to show off my art knowledge against the holy fathers that wrote the precious book) is thought to be self promoting then I would rather just drop in and scan the threads than participate.  I think it better to bow out and be a silent participant than to be preceived as misusing this website to self promote.  I don't mind mixing it up and bouncing ideas but I have little patience for bullshit like what you inferred by saying we were self promoting.  Anyway, have a nice weekend.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adam,

Even the most casual observer   would conclude that I am the second architect who you feel is devaluing the writings.  While I am not offended by your comments, I will take you up on your invitation to "correct me if I am wrong."  

I did't mean to do any devaluing, even though I was a bit glib - that was a wry (?) comment on how inelegant today's writings seem.  My other comments are that these writings are part of a continum of GCA thought.  Probably not a lot different than what is written today in substance, certainly different in style.  Of course, you may feel modern architects have wildly different philosophies, while I believe we have similar philosophies, and more technology at hand, so may very well get different results.  Of course, that's just my opinion, from a professional perspective.  

I agree no one can be wrong, talking about feelings and interpretations of classic golf writings.  I don't disagree with your assessment about poor surroundings, and even artificial work, and will even admit that some of my work would fall short for you.

I commend Tommy for posting such a positive and fun item for consideration and thought. I preferred the earlier exchanges, where various authors commented on the writing itself, rather than the writings of other posters.  Yes, that is part of discussion, but picking on small details or verbage , or making broad assumptionsump of someone elses writing shows how a thread can degenerate around here!  (Sort of like I'm doing here!) Don't depsair, Tommy, I really like the "new" Tommy N.

I have been posting here off and on for about two years, which I have enjoyed.  I do so to offer the occaisional professional opinion to those who want or need it, and to think out loud about design philosphy, just for my own education.

From time to time, threads center on my work, but I haven't often mentioned my own work, other than by way of example, or to answer a specific question.  I certainly didn't do it on this thread.

[A_Clay_Man]

Kelly, First, I never implied or felt that I was implying, you were promoting any of your work. The other archie was Jeff, not tom, who was, IMO, defending his look or style. I have never even seen a picture of your work and I would encourage you to ease up on your laws about access projects to other gca.com'ers. I find it ironic that what I find when I discuss things, people seem to think I'm complaining. Juxt to yours, thinking you talking about your work is nothing but self promotion. I never percieved it that way from anybody. I think it's an open forum and one should be prepared for criticism of the harshest kind, but still not back away from the discussion. I think it's healthy for everyone, healthy in an educational sense. So, let's further this discussion with you telling me what you find almost sophomoric about the piece?

[A_Clay_Man]

Jeff- Thanx for your well thought out comments. I know of your professional status and would not only yield to you on any subject, I would seek you out for advice, as you mentioned.

I realize I have the luxury of my ideals because I am not of a professional status, but the point I was hoping to convey was that there is an etherial element to golfing and a courses so called "aura" is a key intangible, which isn't so much as noticed, as it is felt. I feel it's the natural looking elements such as scruffy vegitation laced bunkers ala SH, or the hairy ones used at the 2000 open at PB, that make my etherial index go ballistic. I also know that the majority of the market (cash payin public and corp. outings) could give two road apples about it, either way.

I do sense a change in trend but my recent exposure to the middle of Nebraska has me a bit BIASED.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Kelly, You can find the book through George Lewis at Golfiana, who is a distributor for Flagstick Books which has done a good job of reproducing the book for an amazing price of some $25.00! You can find them at www.golfiana.com

I can only suggest further to all that this book is without doubt one of the best as far as the written word on golf architecture is concerned. For those who haven't read it, some of the most notable people that I know haven't read it either, and I'm going to hold them to it to make sure that they do! There is much more to this book then just the preface, and prematurely ahead of myself as usual, I have brought the opening chapter--Attack and Defence into it without actually posting it. Let this be even more reason to GET THE BOOK! And to go back to the orignal opening paragraph on this thread--After reading Geoff's donation of the Max Behr piece on THE BALL.

I appreciate everyone's honest take on this verse posted,and I don't want to see WW4 because of it. I really do think that there is something here that needs to be honestly looked at to BETTER ourselves. I do think at the end of the day, that most of us that do love golf courses do in fact have a lot more in common then we think, and I also hope that we can come to some sort of middle ground in hopes of making this website a peaceful place, to go with the other content that Ran has troubled himself in producing day-in and day-out.

What we need are OPEN minds, all of us, and I respect anyone that wants to follow me in the ranks of trying to make these discussions worthy. I do hope that all architects post on this and allow us YOUR viewpoints of the thread. In fact I welcome them!

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Tommy

Since I'm one of the people you have occasionally requested to do more reading of the likes of S & W, I did so of the snippet you provided, and will give you my honest and (hopefully) civil opinion, as requested.

In terms of your 3 questions:

1.  Agree with some things they say, disagree with others, not sure about others.  Since it's only a preface (and a pretty disjointed one, IMO) you're question is really hard to answer.  I'll make specific comments below.

2.  It doesn't change my perception of GCA in general.  Nothing which is written in the snippet you gave us should be novel to anybody who has sepnt soem time on GCA.

3.  There is not way anyone can draw any sort of conclusion from that snippet such as which you imply in your 3rd question, IMO.

Some specific comments:

--the first paragraph (which esentially says that any "truth" about GCA is relative) is anodyne, but hard to argue with.

The second paragraph loses me when they seem to contradict the first paragraph (and then themselves) by saying (in effect) while there are different standpoints, and they (S&W) are "catholic" (i.e. universal) in their views, the "classical" view is somehow better than some "modern design."  They talk about the "orginal Scottish models" without at all describing them and why the "modernists" have departed from them.  Maybe later in the book......

The next paragraph I like as it says exactly what I have always tried to say on this site , i.e. that golf courses are fields of play which open up strategic possibilities rather than beings which are "strategic" in and amongst themselves.  Overall the substance is good, but we all know about it anyway already, if w've read this website carefully.

The next paragraph, about "the artistic side" is pretty anodyne too.  Of course we should vote against "disfigurement."  I'm not sure how some of "our" favorite archies however, would like their statement that "overelaboration is destructive of unity."  I kinda like it though......

The "vitality" point is a good and ingtriguing one, as many posters above have noted.  It makes a very strong case for the primacy of links golf, as the exposure to the elements and the natural seasonal variations in "maintenance meld" does, IMO, allow for more interesting day to day variations in play for those sorts of courses.  How do you create "vitality" for an inland course?  Maybe this is what, in a practical sense, GCA is all about?

S&W should have stopped there, or explored that point in greater detail.  Instead, they move on to a bit of shameless self-promotion and seem to be trying to actively sell their services for remodelling existing golf courses .

The bottom line.  I do not find this to be good writing.  I find it not particularly inpsiring in what it says (or really doesn't say) about GCA.  I'm sure the book is an interesting historical artefact, but the preface does not inspire me to read any more.  If you want good writing about golf, read Darwin or Wind.  If you want to learn more about GCA, read this website carefully.  IMO, There is more meat in any week's worth of postings here (if you carefully and often painfully sort through the fat and the gristle) than is likely to be found in any of the Dead Architects's books I have read (and I've read more of more of them than you think, Tommy).    I respect others' points of view on this, of course.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich, Hard to beleive, but you were not in mind when I wrote this or that!:) Also, I have know idea what books you have read and haven't, but I would bet good money that the ones you have read more then thoroughly aren't about golf at all!:)(Meaning the bigger issues of life as you know it.)

All great points, but, I think that the book is a must read for all in regards to the art of both inland and links. As far as self promotion, I could see this exactly as that. A book on what their beliefs were, and they were just citing an example in the prefeace of what was going on through their experiences and travels in the young industry of building and desigining golf courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tommy,

After your thread, I brought my copy copy (the reprint of 1995) home to read during tonights Stars - Nucks game.  My analysis, after actually rre-eading the whole thing is....."He Shoots, He scores!"  No, seriously.....

Actually, I thinkg the book is terribly written.  As it published in 1929, perhaps all the good editors (and this one needs one) were busy polishing up the slew of "Stock Market Tips from a Shoeshine Boy" or something else....

More than half the book is dedicated to non architecture things.  In today's publishing world, instead of padding the book with other reminicincses,(sp) it would be edited by two thirds.

The content of the architecture section is good, but nothing new, even for 1929.  As your excerpt of the preface suggests, though, some is relevant, and familar today.  The ball is too long, in America, the ground game (imagine he thought American courses were too soft even back then) is gone, the precision with which American Pros hit the ball makes the game boring,  bunkers are not the biggest challenge for the American Pro,

In additon to bemoaning how the rubber ball makes the game to easy, at least he credits it with the rise of tournament golf.  He recognizes that without reasonably consistent equipment, there would be no point in identifying the best players in the game, and even less reason to watch them be identified.  He also credits tournament golf with furthering interest in the game, as it does today, but again warns of designing most courses to accomodate the "Tiger" or "Crack" player, who make up less than 1% of the game....

What struck me about is comments is the the margin of accuracy is getting narrower all the time.  Whereas an old generation "crack" player had a broad range of area to hit the ball and still get on the green, in today's game, the "gentle folds of ground" he discusses at length (referring to the front of St. Andrew's greens) formerly used to get the ball close to the pin are now in the greens themselves!  I guess that even with equipment improvements, design and impreved competion mean the game may be just as hard as ever!  

He picks an ideal 18, predating Dan Jenkins by 40 plus years, and makes some good points.  His hole examples are well drawn, and clearly indicate the thought process behind his favorite holes.

All in all, a good read, and some nuggets and useful perspective.  Still, of all the Golden Age books, Thomas' is still my favorite, followed by Colt.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff
I actually like the non-architectural sections of the book. The author's diverse interests may explain why Simpson produced such outstanding results. And although on the surface some of the subjects appear unrelated, the authors tied them back to golf architecture. I thought the chapter on the Ideal golf course was among the most interesting, where they dealt with their design philosophies and identified why great golf courses were great. Although admittedly there aren't as many pretty pictures as Dan Jenkin's book.  

What was terribly written? Could you give an example of their poor writing

[Paul Turner]

It's not exactly concise writing, but I think it's rewarding and colourfully written.  Kind of a chatty style.

How about the illustations?  Surely none better?

This question of a course's vitality is very interesting.  Both Mackenzie and Colt write about it; whether a course will live.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Paul is right, chatty is the word for it.  I didn't mind the other sections, but was alerting someone like Kelly that much of the book is non architectural.  They did tie it back in, just as promised in the preface.

[Tom Doak]

Kelly:  Sorry I violate your "rules of engagement" so much, but I'll share a copy of Wethered & Simpson if you want it.

The Architectural Side of Golf is one of my favorite books, and one of the few that I actually go back to read or to look at the diagrams from time to time.  (I know Michael Clayton has a few pages bookmarked in it for St. Andrews Beach, too.)

I have not seen too much of Tom Simpson's work, but I believe he was a minimalist well before any of us were a gleam in our parents' eyes.  What I have seen has some very unusual bunkering ... in-between shots bunkering in places I've never seen another architect put it!  I'm not sure I liked all of it but it sure made me think about what the hell I was doing.

[Paul Turner]

Throughout the book, Simpson draws pictures of his course Chiberta Biarritz.  I found one, small old photo of the place:

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Tom Doak,

You almost have to post about your projects because you have a large audience of people on this website whom have very high regard for your work.  If you took my course and did not post that might bring back the bad boy image, no.  I am kidding, I hate those smiley faces or I would insert one here.  You have a demanding audience so you have choosen to communicate your present work with them through this site.

I am finally able to call the company Tommy N. suggested.  Emailing them did not work.  Maybe I will take you up on your copy if I can not attain it. Thanks.

[brad_miller]

Recently got a copy of "The Architectural Side of Golf" from George Lewis at www.golfiana.com, don't know if he has any more left.