[Jeff_Brauer]

Most here acknowledge the Golden Age guys as great designers.  But, they couldn't be perfect, even if very good.  So, what were the weakest aspects of the designs/design philosphies of each of the following (in a nutshell, if possible):

Tillie? 

Ross?

MacK?

CBM/Raynor?

Maxwell (sr. and jr)?

Flynn?

Thomas?

Colt?


For what it's worth, here are a few of my takes. I haven't really fleshed out my opinion on all of them, and in fact, some are just opinions of others. I almost hate to put these in here. I feel a very limited discussion coming on with this thread and this group ( ) and hate to limit it any more by suggesting a preferred type of answer!

Tillie? - Said to be Par 5 Design  by others. I agree, esp. with the Hell's half acre concept.  Not that strong a quirky idea to push for, IMHO.

Ross? - Generally less flair than his contemporaries, and sometimes to frugal in frame of mind, leading to underscaled designs, IMHO

MacK? - The freak green

CBM/Raynor? - I guess the geometry, but I like it!

Maxwell (sr. and jr)? - For Press, overall quality not as good as his Dad's. In general, his greenside bunkering dwarfed the greens and became the main visual focus.

Flynn? - Less overall flair than others.

Thomas? - Actually can't think of any.  With his limited portfolio, all courses seemed pretty good to me! Some might say his quirk gimic of the bunker in the green (proposed again at LACC but not done) but if limited to one example, I say its great.

Colt? - Same as above. I don't recall a lot of real flash in Colt designs I have seen, but his subtle touches in green contouring are superb, among my favorites.

[Greg McMullin]

Jeff, While I don't have the knowledge necessary to answer the question you pose I do have a question related to your post. Many knowledgeable observers of golf architecture include Stanley Thompson in the group of greats from the Golden Age. Would you agree?

[PCCraig]

Jeff-

I would agree about Ross.

As for CBM/Raynor I would say not enough origional hole designs. Perhaps my favorite hole at Shoreacres is the Par-5 15th, a non-template hole. I wish they did more of them.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Greg,


Yeah, love Thompson, he is one of the greats, and should be on the list.  I'll let Ian Andrew figure out his weak points. 

[Tim Liddy]

I have never been a fan of MacK routings. Usually hit to a low then back up to the green. They look great from the tee but many of the approach shots into greens are a bit blind (or totally blind) in that you do not see the surface of the green of see your shot finish. There are many examples at Augusta.

[Philippe Binette]

Are Mack freak greens a strength or a weakness???

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

Don't you think many (or even most) architects tend to have holes that hit down to the fairway and back up to the green, so they can see where they're going for the next hole?

It's just not as noticeable if the land is flat as when one is dealing with dramatic terrain.

Actually the most dramatic "up and over" hole I have ever played is MacKenzie's 4th at Royal Melbourne (West).

[Kyle Henderson]

I should probably invest in kevlar first, but I'll offer a few possibilities.

MacRaynor: Too much reliance on templates.

MacKenzie: Overbunkering (too much of a good thing?)

Discuss.

[Tim Liddy]

Hi Tom,

Not a precise rule, but instead of playing from high point to high point across contour lines, I think golf holes flow better when routed parallel to contour lines.

Always better to mix it up but Mack tended to like the high point to high point.  This was easier when greens had more slope (and more visual) but as greens have gotten softer (flatter) they get harder to see from below grade. Of course some architects do not build softer greens ☺. I think you can argue that Mack's way does create more deception.

Kyle,

10 Hail-Mary’s and 10 Our-Father’s.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tim,

I always got the impression that Ross was a worse Down and Up offender than Mac, but as always, I could be wrong.  But good point overall - my list was more oriented to features but routing is sure important!

[Phil_the_Author]

In considering your question about Tillyone has to appreciate the time in which he (& the others) worked and just how much technological advances effected the courses they designed and built.

The modern game, which I think of as having come into it's own in the early 1960's is almost exclusively played through the air, especially here in America. Despite the technological advances gained in balls and clubs since then, the change in how the game is played was one of carry rather than control. I mean that in this sense, the ground game, and this manner of play was pretty much a thing of the past by then. Now it is almost non-existent. When was the last time you saw anyone play a hole by trying to run shots onto a green when there was no wind?

When Tilly began designing, this aspect of the game was paramount and yet the swift changes in technology that happened from the late teens through the twenties didn't take the ground out of play. Throughout his career he planned the green entrances as the first and foremost important aspect of his designs; he even wrote about this on a number of occasions.

It is because of this design philosophy that his medium-range par-5's are lacking somewhat.

Consider the other two types. First is the shortish three-shotter that allows for the heroic play. This was one of his favorite hole types. A wonderful example is the 12th hole at Winged Foot West. At 487 yards, the distance it played for the 1929 U.S. Open, it was reachable by many in the field with two very well-struck shots. The green entrance on this cape hole allows and rewards a ball that is drawn into it and bounds onto it. The surrounds punish those that came at it even a little off-line. A true risk/reward hole as were many of his short-fives. At 660-yards from the new back tee for the Open a few years ago, that aspect was totally taken out of it.

His long par-fives had green entrances and complexes designed for both ground entrances and a more aerial flight of the ball and have also held up over time.

It is the medium-length ones, those that were designed in the 510-530 yard range where he was weakest. The greens tend to be not as dynamic and are quite receptive to most shots. They tend to be larger and so the guarding bunkers more easily avoided. In today's game, unless they have been greatly lengthened they are not a major challenge today nor were they then.

[Garland Bayley]

After reading some of his writings, I believe Tillie placed too much emphasis on fairness in his design. Perhaps this is what Jeff was getting at with his mention of quirky.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Stanley Thompson didn't have a weakness... he's Canadian 

Actually, I can think of a few (from my perspective), but unfortunately I don't have time to articulate right now... more later.

[Willie_Dow]

I'm looking forward to my first trip to Augusta this year.  Not to watch the Masters, but to walk as many of the holes as my hips will acomodate.

I'll be back with my impression.

In the meantime:  William Flynn/Hugh Wilson combination were the real partners of the understanding of GCA for their time.

 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff,
This thread has the potential to be one of the most informative and revealing to ever make it onto the board. I hope the architects who have already posted some of their thoughts will consider adding more detail, and that we hear from others who have not yet made their opinions heard.

I think Donald Ross will take the most hits, if for no other reason than that he did the most work.

....as an aside, it's all about the dead guys, so noses should stay in joint.  



    

[Adam Clayman]

When was the last time you saw anyone play a hole by trying to run shots onto a green when there was no wind?

All the time.

[Ronald Montesano]

Agreed, love those runners.  Fast and firm demands the runner.

[David Stamm]

Are Mack freak greens a strength or a weakness???

Exactly, Phillipe. All in the eye of the beholder.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,
This thread has the potential to be one of the most informative and revealing to ever make it onto the board. I hope the architects who have already posted some of their thoughts will consider adding more detail, and that we hear from others who have not yet made their opinions heard.

I think Donald Ross will take the most hits, if for no other reason than that he did the most work.

....as an aside, it's all about the dead guys, so noses should stay in joint.  



    

In truth, handled correctly we could do it for modern guys, including those who particpate here.  Asking about the weakest points of a good designer isn't too hard to take........as long as the list stays at under a dozen or so!

I would say my own weakesses are or were over reliance on mounds. Also, Of course, Tommy N would say over reliance on catch basins, but my courses do drain!

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff,
This thread has the potential to be one of the most informative and revealing to ever make it onto the board. I hope the architects who have already posted some of their thoughts will consider adding more detail, and that we hear from others who have not yet made their opinions heard.

I think Donald Ross will take the most hits, if for no other reason than that he did the most work.

....as an aside, it's all about the dead guys, so noses should stay in joint.  
  

Exactly what Jim said.  

I can't offer anything from playing experience, just from photos. But when we're analyzing those who really know what they're doing in golf architecture, I think it comes down to personal tastes, e.g. Fowler, Colt and Flynn are pretty much my favourites, and in each case what is boring to some is understated elegance, sophisticated shot-testing, and early minimalism to me.

Peter

[Sean_A]

I think ROSS did an awful lot of drive down/approach up holes.  Though to be fair, I am not sure that was a weakness in his day as I think it had a lot to do with drainage.  However, with decent drainage these days I think the down and up routine does wear a bit.  I can't accept the flair business as a weakness - it was his style and we have to remember that ROSS had different sorts of commissions which demanded different amounts of time and detail.  IN other words, folks got what they paid for.  If we look at the best of ROSS I don't believe the flair criticism holds. 

Without a doubt for me, DR MAC's use of bunkering is his big weakness.  We see that most of his bunkers have been altered over the years and that is probably due to cost saving measures.  I am not sure the guy could keep his ego in check enough to build sensible bunkers for windy sites.  So in truth, I spose it was DR MAC's flair which was his weakness.   

COLT's weakness is probably akin to Ross.  He seems utilized the concept of plateaux greens to death.  Again, this may be a drainage issue, but on the heathlands one wouldn't have thought so.  I think the use of plateau was to avoid blindness, perhaps at the cost of some more low lying architecture that could have added variety to his designs.  The odd thing about COLT is that I believe when he reworked courses he was very mindful of fitting the new stuff in with the old to create a harmony. 

FOWLER'S biggest weakness is probably due to his insistence on using the land to its fullest.  This sounds odd, but I think the concentration on the land, at which I think he was the absolute best, left little room for creative bunkering in terms of shapes and placement. 

I haven't seen enough of the other archies to make any real evaluations.

Finally, I have always been surprised by the relative lack of centreline bunkering by the master archies.  If TOC was meant to be the mother template it begs the question of what happened to the concept of centreline bunkers? 

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean,

There really weren't many centerline bunkers in the Golden Age were there?

As to the down and up, wouldn't water drain across a fw as much as it would down it? I wonder if the down and up was more a function of the ball rolling out of control, although at 1" bluegrass fw, that can't have been that big a problem, compared to now, anyway. 

Good point on Mac....and its still a lesson gca's haven't learned yet!  What is our justification for those big flash bunkers? Well, in the words of Billy Crystal on SNL "They look mahvaellous, dahlink!"  But, he did set the path for bunkers to this day, when other styles would work better, if not look better.

I'll have to noodle on the Colt ideas and don't know Fowler.  I gather it is possible that he got in the "habit" of building up greens if he started in clay soils and perhaps missed a few opportunities to build on grade when he had sand.  Or, he could have had some fixed ideas on how deep bunkers ought to be and built up to get that depth.

[Paul_Turner]

   

COLT's weakness is probably akin to Ross.  He seems utilized the concept of plateaux greens to death.  Again, this may be a drainage issue, but on the heathlands one wouldn't have thought so.  I think the use of plateau was to avoid blindness, perhaps at the cost of some more low lying architecture that could have added variety to his designs. 

Ciao

Sean
To death?  You gotta be kidding, and this from someone who's played Whittington Heath .  Honestly how many of his courses have too many plateau greens and not enough grade level greens with run up shot options?

[Lester George]

Jeff,

Ross - too many reverse cambered fairways.  Usually when his routing need to "tie" other holes together.

CBM - Although I love the template holes, I wish they would have used a few more examples.

Flynn - very predictable in his par fives (might be a weakness) and his greens

Lester

[Mike Benham]

The green jacket ceremony in Butler Cabin.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()