[Peter Pallotta]

Because the architects who participate here are all good writers and thinkers about their art-craft (as were most of the old greats), it's always useful for me to see pictures of courses under construction or renovations in progress. Those pictures remind me that golf course architecture actually happens in the dirt and mud and with shovels and big machines. In other words, while the golf architects here may be good at explaining their work with words, the actual work requires them to move and shape earth and trees and rivers like some combination of mining engineers and city gardeners.  From what I can tell, most of the architects here started 'from the ground up', working for others and working in the dirt; and most of them still get their hands dirty. But from what I can tell, none of the old greats did that, and didn't have that kind of apprenticeship.

What do you think about this? 

Why did working in the dirt and the apprenticeship process become an important (and almost standard) practice, especially since it doesn't seem to have been in the golden age? What do the modern architects (and their courses) gain from this willingness to get their hands dirty? Anything? Was Pete Dye the first big-name architect who got his hands dirty?  Please feel free to ignore these questions if you want to take the discussion in another direction.

Thanks
Peter 

[Mike_Young]

Peter,
I would think that many(of course there must have been exceptions) of the ODG archies were more of the "USGA" stereotype, blueblood, professional that did not want to get his hands dirty.  I also believe that golf at the time was sort of like I would see polo today.  As you probably know I  admire old classic golf courses but I don't care that much for some of the hype given to the ODG's themselves.  I think on the whole they probably were inefficient in the construction of the courses and I credit much of the "classic course" to the ability of the clubs and supts to keep at it until it was right.....In other words these old guys were great idea guys but getting it there was not their strongpoint.  JMO

[Adam Sherer]

I think that some of them did do "apprenticeships" in one way or another. Didn't Donald Ross apprentice under Old Tom at St. Andrews before he came to the US. And didn't MacKenzie serve in the war (granted he was a surgeon but certainly being in the "trenches" exhibits an element of getting his hands dirty); a similar path as modern day architect Dr. Michael Hurdzan.

Tillinghast, Macdonald, et al, may have been more of the "blueblood" polo types. 

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:

The simplest reason that most young architects today get their start in construction is because that's the only place they can help much.  We don't need their help sitting around the office brainstorming ... but if they can come up with an idea while they're out there building bunkers and greens, terrific.

There are plenty of architects practicing today that don't have that background and have never really gone out and gotten dirty.  We don't talk so much about them on this site, but they are certainly there.  Arthur Hills and Jerry Matthews and lots more in the ASGCA come from the landscape architecture side of things; Arnold Palmer and Gary Player from the player side.

I think that knowledge of construction today is much more important than before because there are so many parts of a course that weren't even in the budget 75 years ago ... heavy earthmoving, drainage, irrigation, cart paths, etc.  In fact there is so much of that, that some guys forget to design cool golf holes as in the old days, when the latter was the single focus of golf course design.

By the same token, there are many important construction guys whose roles in the old courses are not so well publicized.  MacKenzie relied on lots of construction guys around the world, from his Irish crew in California to Mick Morcom in Australia; Perry Maxwell had the Wood brothers; Fownes had Loeffler; &c.  The bottom line is that there are NOT many examples of great courses created without construction talent ... there are just some examples of the construction talent not getting any credit.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents.

Is it right to say that the modern sensibility sees a cool and good golf hole as the result of an integration of design and construction? If so, isn't it plausible to suggest that the best possible integration would come from an architect who had both the design and the construction experience (even if he's no longer wielding the shovel)? In other words, is something gained when the functions that in the golden age were mostly split into two (e.g. Maxwell-Wood brothers) can now be more integrated?
It's a honest question - I'm not trying to suggest that I know if one approach is better than another.

Peter
 

[Kalen Braley]

Peter,

I can only relate to how I see things in the tech world.

You have your techincal people who are good with the details and low level knowledge, but perhaps not so good in the human interaction and explaining things to others department.

Then you have the opposite who are great with people and can explain things but yet don't have much of a knowledge of how things actually work.

The keepers are the one who have enough interest in the technical side to stay current and informed and are also reasonably able to interact with others and explain on any level how it works.

I would suspect the same would be true in the course construction business.  But just because one has a construction background does not mean they can become a good architect, and visa versa.

[David Stamm]

While there were certainly arch's that "didn't get there hands dirty" during the GA, there were others that did. Billy Bell, for example, came from humble beginnings and was known to "get in the dirt". 


To go along w/ Kalen's comments, I think that's why the collaborations in California were so good. Thomas/Bell, Watson/Bell, MacKenzie/Hunter/Egan, Watson/Whiting etc. Some brought certain strengths to the table and it made the course the better for it, IMHO.

[Tim Nugent]

Several aspect have come to pass over the history of GCA.  In the beginning, it appears that it was more of a hobby than a profession.  People evolved into being GCA's, they didn't start out with that as a career choice.  Since, in the time B.C. (before computers) it could take upto 2,000 manhours to draft and revise construction plans.  Plus, those 'drafters' came mostly from the LA schools direct, without spending any actual time as a construction guy.  Labor unions precluded someone from just 'hopping ona dozer' - even if he owned it.  So you ended up with a couple of generations of  soft-handed college  boys. Granted, there are some who have had the right situations where they actually got enough 'stick time' to figure out how to shape and finish golf course features - but they would be the exception and not the rule.  
Now, with somewhat less rigid contracting practices and more 'design/build' arrangements, there may appear to be less of a division between architect and builder.  But, this only holds true for those who do one or two projects at a time (can't be everywhere at once).  
Now that we are in an era where drafting is a forgotten art, guys can hop of the computer and on a dozer all day long (since the laptop brings the office to the field).  So, if anything, I think there is evolving a generation of GCA's wityh a  much wider and deeper skill set.  This can help in the design process because now they know how easy or difficult something is to build, they can adjust their designs accordingly.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks much, gents - you put some meat on the stick-man that was my question.

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()