[RJ_Daley]

In tribute to another fabulous historical documentary being presented this week, by Ken Burns, on WWII, I can't help but post the question of how much we are missing in our trying to understand the ODGs by missing the historical context.  

I mentioned this, and Phil Young makes that similar point in another thread, that takes on some of what seems to be a bit of discounting or attempt at debunking ODG's talents, and if they are more a legend and lore in the misty eyes of historical reflection by some folks than they were talents in their day.

Something that I thought during the only occasion I spent some brief time with Doak, was I saw a trait, or hint of an historically in-tune person, similar to what I see in interviews with Burns.

I am not just blowing smoke up D's butt, believe it or not.    But, I felt this vibe off D that I feel in watching Burns interviews.  He even looks a little nerdy historian like.    And, I had seen in my own mind a whimsical connection (though surely not an intentional one) of Doak calling his outfit Rennaisance, and Burns calling his production company, Florentine.  Well, it is eirie to me anyway....

But, this isn't really about Doak.  It is about those that do have a keener awareness of historical context, or like me believe there is a bigger picture to be considered of these ODGs with historical context applied.   In fact, I have maintained and written fairly often that I believe a fellow like Burns, if not himself, should consider a documentary on the history of GCA, as he did in his Baseball series.

Guys of a certain age like me, perhaps JK a bit younger, and others are boomers.  We grew up in a time well aware of WWII vets and that they were somehow to be greatly respected.  But, in those late 40s-50s years, the actual participants were back home to forget the superhuman feats, forget the horrors they endured, and out to create something for their families, etc.  As we are seeing in the WWII Burns oral history segments, and a relatively new light being directed at these people who won't be around too much longer, such as Brokow's attention focuser, we are just recently pondering the historical context, and what it was really like while it was happening.  

Couldn't the same be true with a movement of modern day golfers, in that much was passe and taken for granted as things evolved and migrated away from the ODG's original feats and stunning accomplishments, and just in the last decade or so, we are re-evaluating their greatness, due to some trying to grasp historical context?  

Yet, some will sit back and try to debunk, or demystify those great accomplishments.  Frankly, I can't understand the motive not to embrace the past greatness as inspiration to regain the art and craftsmanship that was achieved, when not that much technology was there to make things as easy as today.  I think that when we consider that in historical fact of rudimentary technology alone, the ODGs become more admirable, not to be dismissed as modern created legends of less than real substance.  I don't think we are over nostalgic in looking for genius in the craftsmanship and minutia of details, I think some are underappreciative of historical context.

... have at it, you debunkers of myth and legend.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

ASGCA has been doing video documentary of our older members for a while, so we have the basic tools necessary to put together a Ken Burn's type documentary.  We have tried to get cost effective proposals to do something along those lines, but for now the videos sit in a vault. I think some may be getting posted on that MSU site, and there is a new iniative with the USGA to find a place for them.

As to your other premises, I will repeat that I am not debunking anyone's talents, belittliing their work or saying they are false legends.  There has been some great architecture in all eras.  In fact, in re-reading your post, there are many dearly held assumptions driving it - that today's craftsmanship is lesser and has been lost, that the old guys were without question more admirable.  I disagree with those, and thus, must disagree with your premise - in fact, you are overly nostalgic when you set out such broad based assumptions as fact!

In short, you say some are trying to "de-mystify" the great architecture of the past. I think that (in broad generalities) today's hard core group of gca fans is "over mystifying" the Golden Age.  I get the impression that some look at the legend first, and that MAY overly positively taint their view of an individual hole, course, or era in the designers work.  Many nostalgically accept all their work as perfect and beyond change, when in fact they had their highs and lows.  

I don't know about you, but looking at them and their work as objectively as possible makes them more of a legend in my eyes, and not less.

I would like to see a move towards discussing more and more specific elements - like the half pipe bunkers at Pasa - might be more productive.  I agree with JK in that case - bunkers just don't work in highly erosive swales and they were probabl removed for a reason.  If Tom D has restored them, I presume he has used new drain pipe technology to assure that they won't wash out again, or perhaps only in the biggest storms.

Would an un-objective MacKenzie fan say that?  No. Is it probably way more true than false? Of course, yes.  Perhaps by discussing one bunker, we could reduce the amount of people who would resist speaking the truth in the name of preserving a legend or myth, no?

As to inspiration, haven't most current gca's have been quoted as saying the golden age is our inspiration - in particular MacKenzie bunkers, no?  Perhaps only a few are trying to mimic the Golden Age's exact style, while others, myself included, think that now we are building under different conditions and with different tools, that a new style that looks different that that is actually more "organic" or even sincere than one that looks to replicate the past.  For that matter, even looking different than past work might very well be a good thing in and of itself, no?

Even with GA inspiration, changing styles is most prevalent in almost all design fields.  Even the faux new old towns going up these days are using new building materials, and aren't exact replicas for a lot of reasons - but mostly to capture the best elements of the old style, and the modern conveniences of new technology, IMHO.  We have to do the same for our clients, as well.

As to Tom Doak being a nerdy historian type, yes, I see where you are going with that!  But, I was lucky enough to spend a day with him recently at CD, and in our discussions, we analyzed the course (and other gca trends) in a very specific manner, wondering why one part of the course was one way and another was another, rather than annointing it as perfect beause it was a Mac.  

Tom is very analytical in those types of things. We discussed whether Maxwell had ever used a reverse slope green like 12 at CD (yes, Melrose) how the two nines looked different and how much of that was attributed to the time on site, and things of that nature.  We would have never gotten past that had we had stars in our eyes.

Once again, and not meaning any disrespect, I don't always see the level of specificity in the analysis by others here, and your topic of "historical context" is so broad that IMHO, it can only lead back to "who gets it and who doesn't" conclusion we have seen here so many times before.

Frankly, its that attitude that I believe gets in the way of discussing architecture, as defined in Ran's mission statement.  

[Brent Hutto]

I'm afraid I'll also have to disagree with the original premise as stated.

A lot of things I personally like about courses of a certain vintage (for instance small town country-club courses built in the 1920's, 30's and 40's are often right up my alley) are artifacts of a set of contingencies of that period and setting. The courses tended to be walkable (because everyone walked them) the best of them are cunningly routed to lay lightly upon the available topography (because there wasn't budget or technology to push dirt around in large volumes) and they tend to be playable by all skill levels of player without being shoehorned into housing or wetlands (because there was plenty of land back then for building that style of golf course). Then on top of all that you have the fact that if it's still sitting there for me to play 75 years later it's probably at least a pretty decent course because the crummy ones would have gone NLE in the ensuing decades.

Let's say tomorrow we gave Jeff Brauer the land that Holston Hills is built upon, in exactly the circumstances that obtained prior to its being routed by Donald Ross, and asked him to build it under a reasonable budget for a bunch of walking golfers (no accomodation whatsoever for carts) who hit the ball maybe 220 yards and don't necessarily play an aerial game. And it has to be easy to maintain and suited for slowish (by modern standards) Bermuda greens. I doubt the resulting course would be all that similar to what Ross came up with but it would probably have a lot more of the important elements of the real Holston Hills than whatever course Jeff has built most recently under an entirely different set of contingencies.

I'll forbear the similar argument I could make for the "Greatest Generation" as creatures of their time, place and history rather than the morally, ethically and culturally superior species of humanity that Ken Burns tends to worship in his nostalgia-fests.

[Ken Moum]

I'm afraid I'll also have to disagree with the original premise as stated.

You make a lovely case for your opinion, and inmany ways it explains the love for the golden age courses.

They are different from what's being done today, and they were revolutionary compared to much of what was done in the US both before and after.

But many of today's courses are also extraordinary given the limitations the architects face.

Ken

[David Stamm]

Before I was into architecture and knew any names of architects, I would go to a course and know right away if I liked it or not. After time had passed, I would play courses from the GA. Again, still didn't know the names, just that they were old. For some reason, I enjoyed them more than any I had played previously. I had played Fazio's, Dyes, Palmer's, Jones, jr's, Robinson's etc. in the beginning and thought they were good. Some of their work I still think is good. But when I played Rancho Santa Fe, my first GA course, I knew there was something different, something more alluring about it. When I played Pasatiempo for the first time, the only thing I knew about MacKenzie as that he did AGNC and CPC and that was about it. But I knew that that course was unmatched in my experience. I've played others and hope to play more, but the point is, although I've played new courses as well and enjoyed many of them, the ones that I do enjoy employ many of the same design elements that appealed and continue to appeal to me from my experiences with GA courses. Are the GA arch's romanticized? Perhaps. But I know when I have the privilege to play a truly great course, regardless of when it was built, they almost invariably share many of the great characteristics which were first invented many years ago.

[RJ_Daley]

There has been some great architecture in all eras.  In fact, in re-reading your post, there are many dearly held assumptions driving it - that today's craftsmanship is lesser and has been lost, that the old guys were without question more admirable.  I disagree with those, and thus, must disagree with your premise - in fact, you are overly nostalgic when you set out such broad based assumptions as fact!

Jeff, here is where we get into a real problem of perceptions, and ascribing something in a post one has made that isn't actually there, it seems to me.  


When you say,  "...in re-reading your post, there are many dearly held assumptions driving it - that today's craftsmanship is lesser and has been lost";  aren't you implying that I am holding dear an assumption that todays craftsmanship (implying all of today's craftsmanshipt) is lesser and it has been lost?  Where did I say (all) of today's craftsmanship is not as good as all of the craftsmanship of the past era?  And where did I say craftsmanship as a practice of quality has been lost, in any absolute terms?  

I understand that we are both looking and referring to a same premise and coming up with different interpretations.  For my part, without having written and even more pedantic and run-on sentence than I already write, there are misinterpretations left to be made, I suppose.  

Where did I say, without question the ODGs were more admirable?

I said... "I think that when we consider that in historical fact of rudimentary technology alone, the ODGs become more admirable, not to be dismissed as modern created legends of less than real substance.

In otherwords, I am speaking of the historical fact that they had comparatively more rudimentary technology.  (I hope you'd agree with that) and if you consdier that alone, they BECOME more admirable.  (what unfortunately you see is that I compared them to modern architects among whom you naturally stand, and that you believe I said they are 'more' admirable than modern architects, which is what you seem to have injected or implied defensively, IMO.  

The mention of 'modern' is what has seemed to me to have occured in modern times from posts I have read by you and JK and others...  that somehow we have created ODG legends over real substance.  I just think that historical context helps us understand and appreciate practitioners of GCA in the past when we consider the times, conditions, society, economy and technology that they worked in, compared to now.

I'll try to write more specific;  if you don't make too many assumptions...  

I hope this helps...

[Michael Dugger]

Interesting thread.....I too enjoy Ken Burns, and I love the Baseball Docu.

In a nutshell what I have gathered from Jeff and RJ is the following:

Jeff doesn't think it is fair to say all GA architects did fabulous work, and he's probably right.  He also doesn't think it is fair to say every gca of the modern era stinks.

Correct once again he is!!!

RJ too does not believe every modern era gca stinks, but he does feel more romantic than Jeff about how ODG's did more with seemingly less.  

RJ's isn't claiming ODG's did better work than modern day guys, and he isn't saying every GA course is the shit.

To nitpick between PV and Sand Hills is splitting hairs, right?

Be it an Oregon Pinot Noir or a California Cab., surely I know either are better than wine in a box.

I do believe RJ is attempting to get a little jab in at the modern day guys, however, with the creation of this thread.  Basically his argument is going, "if the ODG's could do what they did in the GA with veritible blunt instruments, why can't every modern day gca meet that same level of greatness considering they are now equipped with scalpels, lasers and diamond coated bits?"

And I wonder the same thing myself quite often....and I come to conclusions like "because modern day gca's aren't passionate enough" and "golf has become too much of a business."

all historical context considered...

 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Micheal,

I tend to think that human nature hasn't really changed all that much, and niether has the 80-20 rule.  We can point to singular examples of how we may idolize the ODG and make points either way.  For example, whose business empire was bigger and more efficient (relative to the times) - Ross or Nicklaus?  At times, both probably had the same amount of courses going, no?

And yet, some would not even think to question Ross's passion, despite taking paper jobs where he never saw the property, and attribute all sorts of subtle details on courses he may have saw once during construction, while lambasting Jack for only showing up three or four times on one of his signature projects.

I don't get it, other than nostalgia for the good old days.

RJ,

You hit the nail on the head - its all about perceptions.  All 1501 of us here have developed some, and that's human nature, and so be it.  As above, you can look at Ross Pinehurst and attribute those characters to all his courses - while I haven't played them all (or even nearly so) I have seen enough to know that isn't so and be thinking of some other course entirely.  So, when we discuss Ross, we simply come at it from different references.

Would it be true that we just can't generalize about entire eras, esp. one with an incomplete historical record that spans two world wars?

As to craftsmenship, you might be thinking of P2 again, where Ross did spend years fixing it up to near perfection. I might be thinking of his middle half of jobs that had so much less detail.  And earthmoving - moderns range from 6K earthmoving at Sand Hills to god knows what.  Same is true of the Golden Age - albeit with more than likely reversed ratios (Think Lido and Sand Hills as counter points)

Short version - its easier to be romantic when you don't look too close at details.  

Hence my suggestion to compare holes or features or courses more than blanket coverage of eras.  IMHO, the range of architecture is so broad, that the more specific we can get, and the fewer generalizations we use, the better the analysis.

No, this is not Matt Ward typing!

PS- I still can't get why that would be a controversial opinion.

[Michael Dugger]

On a lighter note......

If a Ken Burns style documentary was ever created, wouldn't it have to be more about golf than gca exclusively???  

It would have to take in everything, but surely a healthy portion to gca would be epic.

I ponder sometimes who would be a great cast of characters for this endeavor.  Burn's Baseball Docu., for example, has some really neat characters to it.  People for all walks of life, but each adding a wonderful new layer of texture to the proceedings.

Consider....

Billy Crystal
Shelley Foote (the bloodhound guy from Best in Show)
Stephen J. Gould
The African American fella....Gerald something another
The woman....Martha something another, maybe?

If a golf docu. was done, who would be a cool contributor like that???  Any ideas, people?

Surely Jack Nicklaus would have to play a role

Jeff Brauer mentioned the ASGCA has been interviewing one another for years now.  I'd LOVE to see some of that stuff right about now.

I think Peter Alliss would have some wonderful input

Tom Doak would rock the house.

Ken Venturi

It's really too bad both Nelson and Hogan have passed away with in the past five or so years.  

ARNIE!  Palmer would have a lot to contribute I bet.

But who are some of those obscure "not golf" nor "sporting telecast" sort that you are aware have a deep passion and understanding of golf and gca???

Crenshaw would HAVE to be a part of it.  Pete Dye....Jim Nantz.......Geoff Cornish........

who are the total golf junkie actor types?  Anyone?  They could interview Bubba Clinton I suppose.  

Does Stephen Hawking like golf?  Alan Shepard is still alive, right!      

[RJ_Daley]

Well, almost Mike.  But you are also putting words in my mouth by putting quotes around your conjecture I said something, like:

"if the ODG's could do what they did in the GA with veritible blunt instruments, why can't every modern day gca meet that same level of greatness considering they are equipped with scalpels, lasers and diamond coated bits?"

I have never said things like "every modern day gca".

I will go this far to meet you however...

I believe that we in our times have an historical context to the future (maybe 75-100 years from now) that will go something like this....

There were many golf course architects of the 'rennaisance age of golf architecture period' (a period of rebirth of classic ideals from the golden age, circa 1990-2015) that were passionate about the classic era, and through reexamining of golden era principles, revitalized the discussion and appreciation for great golf course architecture, taking the profession to new and glorious heights.

I also think in comparative historical context that we can now say, as will our successors, that there were architects in all recognised eras that mailed it in, were very business oriented and high production oriented sacrificing attention to details/quality for quick openings and expediency(comparatively as per the era) and had over emphasis in visually bombastic over playability substance.  That could be said of the odd an seemingly grotesque geometric era to the flower gardened and waterfalled eras.  And, there are some examples of architecture in all eras where the questions might be asked, "did this architect even know he was designing for the long term playing of the game of golf rather than fast sizzle commercial sales"?
 

[Michael Dugger]

Of course I agree with you, Dick, we seem to see eye to eye on everything right down to the time when our entries into a little design contest we had around here had virtually identical routings!

Remember that!!  

You are your own man, of course, my version is simply my interpretation of what you said.

I like your thread.  You write fabulously.

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, I think it is positively exciting to think of the possibilities of such a documentary, and who would be the "reflectors" and historian commentators.  I would also have the obvious greats like Nicklaus and Tiger commenting on the game aspects, and Ben Crenshaw helping with the game and history, and Doak helping with the architecture and history.  We have all that great historical footage of Jones and by-gone era commentating.  And, the quirky, like Moe Norman, etc.

But, we must also get the characters representing the common man, the layman, on all aspects of golf as a game and its architecture.  That would include some of the suspects like TEPaul, Tommy Nac., and other fanatics, to discuss the importance of the multitudes of individuals who were characters and visionaries, from the historical like Wilson and Crump to modern Kaiser, Kohler, Bakst, Ramsey and the Mad Russian.  

It is a big subject and the possibilities probably even exceed the scope of the "Baseball" docu series because of the architecture. There are rich histories in both sports as to the characters of playing the game.  While the old stadiums each had an individual architectural character, they still don't equate to the variables that are to be considered in golf course architecture.  

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, I couldn't write my way out of an "I O U".  

[Michael Dugger]

RJ

Good stuff.  I like it.  

Before I vomit in my mouth, might I suggest Costner?  I wonder if he has any serious passion?

I was about to mention Tom and Tommy.  Moe Norman!  Love it.

Some crusty old caddy who like carried Walter Travis bag or something would add value.  

Maybe Dev Emmet's old gay lover!!!!!!

Good call on the developers like Kaiser.  

[Ken Moum]

PS- I still can't get why that would be a controversial opinion.

Maybe it's a product of the fact thhat so many here have almost unparalleled access to the best of the golden age courses, and therefor tend to ignore all the pedestrian efforts out there.

And of course there's the liklihood, as Hutto pointed out, that a lot of crappy courses disappeared in the years between  the golden age and the baby boom.

Anyway, I am very interested in your point about comparing actual details. Because I have mostly played on mundane courses in my life, I find that the characteristics of the slightly better ones do show up in the details.

For instance, I currently play a Ross course. (maybe... Dr. Klein apparently thinks he was never involved.) I make no claim that it really special--however much I love it.

And yet, it has some characteristics that make it stand out from the crappy courses most of us play, most of the time.

For instance, it was clearly routed with the prevailing wind in mind. When it blows the opposite direction, the course is not a whole lot of fun.

Also, despite being on only 120 acres, it's routing manages to prevent players being bombarded by balls from other fairways.

It drains pretty well, the greens lie comfortably on the land, the par threes are a decent mix of lengths, as are the par fours.

There aren't any holes that make you think WTF???

And the day after I played it for the first time, I could remember every hole.

None of which should  be remarkable, except that I play courses every summer that range in vintage from the golden age to the 1990s that seem to be unable to accomplish ANY of these simple things.

To me, this is the real test of genius.

If Ross was involved with my course, and I think he was, he clearly didn't spend much time on it--yet, in that tiny amount of time, he produced a routing that works and doesn't commit any of the gaffes seen on dozens of other courses I have played.

If every "simple member's course" was as fundamentally good as the one I play, the people who play them would find golf a much more enjoyable game.

Now, I know that you and the other architects who hang out here aren't building the kinds deficient courses I am talking about, but they are still being built.

So I am all in favor of your suggestion that we look at the details.

Ken

[Michael Dugger]

Ken

What you made me think of with your post is routing.

Damn if the "bones" of the course don't impact the overall product in a very profound way.

Almost like the individual holes play second fiddle to how they are resting upon the particular parcel of earth.

I am a routing junkie.   It's one of the reasons I think Tom Doak is such a genius.  He "gets" that the routing is like a foundation.  If the foundation fails the whole house falls.

[Ken Moum]

Damn if the "bones" of the course don't impact the overall product in a very profound way.

Almost like the individual holes play second fiddle to how they are resting upon the particular parcel of earth.

Nicely put.

Thatis exactly it. Here in NE Kansas, there are several pretty popular courses, both public and private that suffer from routing problems that they'll never overcome.

My home course isn't perfect, but it's routing is good enough to at least assure mostly decent holes.

Ken

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()