News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Bill Brightly

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #25 on: October 26, 2007, 11:58:07 AM »
Was the great architectual work performed the Golden Age strictly limited to the Northeast?

Of course not, California certainly had a few great courses built there. Too bad the Great Depression came along, more  great  courses surely would have been built, and maybe it could be debated today which area had the most classic courses.

Zenith? I think spillover is a better word.  ;D
« Last Edit: October 26, 2007, 11:58:23 AM by Bill Brightly »

David Stamm

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #26 on: October 26, 2007, 12:06:07 PM »
I'm not challenging you, David.  But you questioned whether the work in California represented a zenith in classic era architecture.  My definition of a zenith is there is nothing beyond it and everything below it.


I AGREE WAYNE OF YOUR DEF ON ZENITH. NOTICE IN MY QUESTION THAT STARTED THIS THREAD. "SOME" HAVE EXPRESSED. I COULD NEVER SAY THIS WITH CERTAINITY UNLESS I HAD PLAYED EXTENSIVELY ON BOTH COASTS AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN. I MERELY WANTED TO DISCUSS WHAT THE EVOLUTION OF THE GA WAS. SINCE ALOT OF THE GA COURSES WERE DONE IN CAL AT THE END OF THE GA, PERHAPS SOME THINGS WERE GOING ON HERE THAT HAD NOT BEEN DONE BEFORE. TYPICALLY WHEN AN ARTFORM REACHES THE "END" OF IT'S CYCLE, WHAT HAPPENED AT THE END IS USUALLY THE MOST DIFFERENT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE HERE OR NOT. MAYBE THERE ARE SOME THAT HAVE PLAYED EXTENSIVELY FROM COAST TO COAST CAN CHIME IN.

I am curious as to the specifics you think indicate a zenith was reached in California.  While not questioning you or the other Californians that know the region a lot better than most of us, I am interested in a detailed discussion not generalized encomiums.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT REACHED A ZENITH OR NOT. IT WOULD BE PRESUMPTOUS FOR ME TO SAY IF I HAVEN'T PLAYED THE EAST. WHEN I HAVE MORE TIME TO PONDER THIS, I'LL POST THINGS THAT I SEE HERE ON THE WEST SPECIFICALLY. MAYBE YOU CAN DO THE SAME FOR THE EAST. I'LL MEET YOU IN THE MIDDLE. ;) PERHAPS WE CAN THEN ANALYZE THE DIFFERENCES AND SIMILARITIES. FAIR?
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

David Stamm

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2007, 12:13:32 PM »
I think MacKenzie was a genius.  One of the top 3 or 4 architects of all time.  However, he should be viewed objectively and his efforts examined in a rigorous fashion.

I don't know if he knew or not the look could be held or if he didn't care if it could not be held.  I do know that it was either impossible or overly expensive.  That is an observation, which I think should be part of any discussion.  

None of the classic era architects--just like the architects of today, and of course I include Flynn, should be considered infallible.     I respect MacKenzie for trying to do something that for the most part looked natural.  I am one of the biggest fans of naturalism.  However, in my opinion, he made some systematic mistakes (overbunkering and mounds behind greens) and built some things that perhaps couldn't last.  I think the maintainability is something we should discuss.

Flynn built bunkers that would naturally evolve, but they weren't maintained properly in some cases (during the Depression) and they vegetated over.  I don't know if the clubs were unaware of the practices needed or could not afford them and they were lost over time.  But I do regard his efforts to design in natural evolution as an interesting theory.

David,

I agree that rapid and explosive expansion was a problem.  NYC expansion also wiped out a great many Dev Emmet courses.  Pity.  Here in Philadelphia, we keep our history a bit better and build around things.  That's why we have so much 17th and early 18th century stuff still around.  As a culture, we've always had a sense of history around these parts and a willingness to preserve even if it meant less expediency and savings.


I agree with your statement about objectivity. While I'm a MacK fan, I know he does not appeal to everyone. Did he have shortcomings? Sure. Is there such a thing as a perfect arch? Of course not. That in of itself is why this is art.


I wish Cal as a whole would've taken the stance that east coast cities had taken and preserved their history. Unfortunately that has not been the case here for the most part. "knock it down and build another" is the motto. If something is 50 yeard old out here it's considered a relic, generally speaking.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Sean_A

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2007, 12:32:42 PM »
While I tend to agree with Wayne, that Mac, in his later years, did get a bit out of control with bunkering.  Enough so that imo the natural look he strived for was compromised and degradable.  However, perhaps Michael is right in that in some circumstances aesthetics take precedent over maintenance consdierations.  Of course, this assumes that the California Mac look is worthy of sacrificing maintenance issues.  

This entire zenith question probably boils down to if you think Mac was head and shoulders beyond his contemporaries.  Though, having said that, Thomas & Bell's idea of courses within a course could be the one and final element (possibly for me anyway) which could mean architecture reached its heights with the California courses.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

BCrosby

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2007, 01:17:36 PM »
I see where David wants to go, but I'm not sure the question posed makes much sense.

If you ask the question in the context of music - who represented music's highest expression? - the answers all seem odd.

Purcell? Bach? Mozart? Beethoven? Brahms? Those answers are - in some sense - all clearly right and all clearly wrong.

Which suggests that the question itself isn't doing the work it ought to.

If David will indulge me, I might ask a slightly different question.

To what extent do the courses in CA built between 1925 and 1932 represent progress in gca? (I include ANGC in those courses, btw. It is direct descendant of Pasa and very much in that genre. It just happens to be located in Richmond County, Georgia.)

I'm not sure how I would answer my own question.

Going with the music analogy, it is clear that music from Purcell to Brahms and beyond is marked by increased musical sophistication. Standing on the shoulders of giants, each composer wrote music that was probably inconceivable to his predecessors. They had a better grasp of the metier than the musicians before them.

Is something like that also true of MacK, Thomas, Behr, etc.? Were they taking gca to places that might have surprised Crump, H. Wilson, Fownes, MacD, Ross and others? Did they stand on the shoulders of those giants and push gca to a more sophisticated place?

I'd like to go to lunch and think about my answer.

Bob



   
« Last Edit: October 26, 2007, 01:37:52 PM by BCrosby »

wsmorrison

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2007, 01:19:22 PM »
Thanks, David.  I understand your point now (a bit dense today) and think you bring up excellent questions--revised by Bob Crosby.

"Thomas & Bell's idea of courses within a course could be the one and final element (possibly for me anyway) which could mean architecture reached its heights with the California courses. "

Sean,

By courses within a course, do you mean a routing that enables you to play various hole progressions?  I'd be interested to learn more about this.  Would you point me to where it is written (Golf Architecture in America?), or to which courses is it evident that they did this?
« Last Edit: October 26, 2007, 01:20:44 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Peter Pallotta

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #31 on: October 26, 2007, 01:39:50 PM »
"Did they stand on the shoulders of those giants and push gca to a more sophisticated place?"

Bob - please stay with that question, I'd love to hear your thoughts. It seems to me like one of THE central questions/approaches.

I don't know enough to agree/disagree with your musical conclusion, but I think a modern bias is to equate "the history of" with "the progression of", if you know what I mean, and so I think we need to guard against that.  

Yes, perhaps later musicians had a better/more sophisticated grasp of, say, harmony, but they also had an audience that had, only then, become able and willing to recognize and appreciate that harmonic sophistication (and how THAT happens I have no idea).  Does the parallel to golf course architecture hold?

Not quite sure what I'm getting at. Maybe that talent is talent, in any age; maybe that the FUNCTION the music/architecture was meant to play was a key factor in the kind of music/architecture produced earlier on, more so than any lack of talent or limited/rudimentary knowledge; maybe that increasing complexity sometimes reflects no more than increasing complexity.

Anyway, look forward to hearing more.

Peter

Bill Brightly

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #32 on: October 26, 2007, 01:43:40 PM »
Did the architects bring architecture to a new level? Or did they bring it to the Monterey Penninsula?

Would the work be so highly praised if the courses were not located on some of the most beautiful property in the world?

RJ_Daley

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #33 on: October 26, 2007, 02:17:29 PM »
Bill, it seems to me that this cadre of GA greats brought it to more CA locales than the bombastic Monterey Penn.  They brought it to the valley settings like Riviera, the hillside settings like VCofM, the meadow settings like MC, and the suburban hill environs like Oly Club, Harding and Sharp, Ojai, Pasa, etc.  

Yes, I see the confluence of GA greats somehow plying their advanced stage knowledge in the CA setting.  Like a magnet, they were drawn out there to the land of honey and gold just as so many still are drawn out there by what is now more of an illusion than the substance of beauty and opportunity in the pre-war.  

But, it seems to me that it is an historical context issue.  We in our modern times can't feel what it was like to be in the golden times of pre-war CA.. because we aren't old enough.  (maybe we seek understanding via reading and studying, but it isn't our known reality anymore)

There was a confluence of other artists there as well.  Steinway, or Diego Riv., or writers like Hunter and all the artsy fartsy crowd gravitated to pre-WWII and post WWI CA.  Now, it merely seems to me (only my own impulsive expression) that no matter what the medium of art, painting, film, lit, or GCA... they all have taken on a California glitzy and temporary plasticine form in post WWII CA.  It is all for the most part now superficial and designed for the here and now market.  Isn't that more about what CA represents historically than what the GA of GCA was about as a notion of a zenith in a specific location?

We can argue of other locales like Long Island, or Philly or Chi town as focal points of highest expression, only if we consider there was a time and place of confluence of the greats.

Where are the greats convening now and will there be a rebirthed zenith?  Oh you know, Oregon Pac Coast, Sandy Hills, Nova Scotia, TAZ and Oz... Argentina!!!?  We'll see.  ;) ;D 8)
« Last Edit: October 26, 2007, 02:19:33 PM by RJ_Daley »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

David Stamm

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #34 on: October 26, 2007, 02:34:09 PM »
Thanks, David.  I understand your point now (a bit dense today) and think you bring up excellent questions--revised by Bob Crosby.

"Thomas & Bell's idea of courses within a course could be the one and final element (possibly for me anyway) which could mean architecture reached its heights with the California courses. "

Sean,

By courses within a course, do you mean a routing that enables you to play various hole progressions?  I'd be interested to learn more about this.  Would you point me to where it is written (Golf Architecture in America?), or to which courses is it evident that they did this?


Wayne, the idea of the course within a course culminated with the North course of LACC. GS discusses this very concisely in The Captain. If you don't have the book, I'll be more than happy to post the sketches found in there that I showed on my LACC thread. Those sketches really bring out the concepts of what Thomas wanted to do. I believe he had the same thing in mind for what he wanted to do for the South before he died. I'll also scour my Golf Architecture in America book to find passages of what Thomas had in mind.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

tlavin

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #35 on: October 26, 2007, 02:39:11 PM »
This, of course, is an impossible question calling for an unprovable answer, but it seems to me that while some of the courses in California represent the apogee of early 20th century gca (LA North, Cypress, Riviera stand out), the work "back east" simply seems to dwarf it with sheer numbers and diversity of architectural talent.  I would continue, but I'm going to try to utilize my Jesuit education and diagram that sentence to see if there are any dangling participles...

David Stamm

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #36 on: October 26, 2007, 02:41:59 PM »
Let me make some things clear to some questions that are being asked of me. I, myself, have no way of knowing if the GA reached it's zenith here in CA for reasons I've already explained. I have heard people more experienced and smarter than I that do tend to think that it did.


I have never confined this to MacK, as some have seem to do here, or the Monterey Peninsula. MP represnts only one area of some great arch that was being put into practice throughout the state. With the exception of VC, Mack was exclusively in Nor Cal. Thomas was in the So Cal, with some input on some Bell courses to the North. Behr did a little North, but most of what he did was to the South. Watson was in both places almost equally. I think this could be a educational exercise for all of us.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

Sean_A

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #37 on: October 26, 2007, 02:47:08 PM »
"Thomas & Bell's idea of courses within a course could be the one and final element (possibly for me anyway) which could mean architecture reached its heights with the California courses. "

Sean,

By courses within a course, do you mean a routing that enables you to play various hole progressions?  I'd be interested to learn more about this.  Would you point me to where it is written (Golf Architecture in America?), or to which courses is it evident that they did this?

Wayne

After Bel-Air and Riviera, which are often heralded as masterpieces not only of naturalistic design, but in Bel-Air's case, quite a significant eningeering feat as well, the daring duo decided step right out of the box.  They were looking to build variation by creating alternate tees and select hole locations.  This they thought would inject strategic unpredictability that a links would have.  There are several holes at LACC North which were designed to play completely differently depending on weather and whim.  

I have long been fascinated with this idea and am surprised it has never fully caught on.  

Ciao
New plays planned for 2025: Machrihanish Dunes, Dunaverty and Carradale

Eric Franzen

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #38 on: October 26, 2007, 02:49:39 PM »
Thanks, David.  I understand your point now (a bit dense today) and think you bring up excellent questions--revised by Bob Crosby.

"Thomas & Bell's idea of courses within a course could be the one and final element (possibly for me anyway) which could mean architecture reached its heights with the California courses. "

Sean,

By courses within a course, do you mean a routing that enables you to play various hole progressions?  I'd be interested to learn more about this.  Would you point me to where it is written (Golf Architecture in America?), or to which courses is it evident that they did this?


Wayne, the idea of the course within a course culminated with the North course of LACC. GS discusses this very concisely in The Captain. If you don't have the book, I'll be more than happy to post the sketches found in there that I showed on my LACC thread. Those sketches really bring out the concepts of what Thomas wanted to do. I believe he had the same thing in mind for what he wanted to do for the South before he died. I'll also scour my Golf Architecture in America book to find passages of what Thomas had in mind.

One example is his design of the 11th at LACC North, a hole which could be alternated as a par 3 or a short par 4. I don't think it is mentioned (at least not in any great extent) in Golf Architecture in America if I remember correctly.

There is a drawing of the hole at page 282 in Geoff Shackelfords "Grounds for Golf",  if you have that book within reach.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2007, 02:53:34 PM by Eric Franzen »

David Stamm

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #39 on: October 26, 2007, 02:49:52 PM »
I see where David wants to go, but I'm not sure the question posed makes much sense.

If you ask the question in the context of music - who represented music's highest expression? - the answers all seem odd.

Purcell? Bach? Mozart? Beethoven? Brahms? Those answers are - in some sense - all clearly right and all clearly wrong.

Which suggests that the question itself isn't doing the work it ought to.

If David will indulge me, I might ask a slightly different question.

To what extent do the courses in CA built between 1925 and 1932 represent progress in gca? (I include ANGC in those courses, btw. It is direct descendant of Pasa and very much in that genre. It just happens to be located in Richmond County, Georgia.)

I'm not sure how I would answer my own question.

Going with the music analogy, it is clear that music from Purcell to Brahms and beyond is marked by increased musical sophistication. Standing on the shoulders of giants, each composer wrote music that was probably inconceivable to his predecessors. They had a better grasp of the metier than the musicians before them.

Is something like that also true of MacK, Thomas, Behr, etc.? Were they taking gca to places that might have surprised Crump, H. Wilson, Fownes, MacD, Ross and others? Did they stand on the shoulders of those giants and push gca to a more sophisticated place?

I'd like to go to lunch and think about my answer.

Bob



   


I'm sorry if my question was not clear enough in the beginning. I by no means am trying to start a war between the East and the West. ;)

And I also am not pointing to any one architect (MacK). In fact, I think Thomas and Behr in some respects may have been the most cutting edge architects in Cal during the GA. I also would like to get some lunch and think about this as well. :)
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

David Stamm

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #40 on: October 26, 2007, 02:54:14 PM »
"Thomas & Bell's idea of courses within a course could be the one and final element (possibly for me anyway) which could mean architecture reached its heights with the California courses. "

Sean,

By courses within a course, do you mean a routing that enables you to play various hole progressions?  I'd be interested to learn more about this.  Would you point me to where it is written (Golf Architecture in America?), or to which courses is it evident that they did this?

Wayne

After Bel-Air and Riviera, which are often heralded as masterpieces not only of naturalistic design, but in Bel-Air's case, quite a significant eningeering feat as well, the daring duo decided step right out of the box.  They were looking to build variation by creating alternate tees and select hole locations.  This they thought would inject strategic unpredictability that a links would have.  There are several holes at LACC North which were designed to play completely differently depending on weather and whim.  

I have long been fascinated with this idea and am surprised it has never fully caught on.  

Ciao


Sean, excellent observation. I myself have wondered why the course within the course concept has never been utilized today. Just imagine the possibilites a club's memebrship could experience from one day to the next. 5 and 7 in particular are fun to think about at LACC North were they to be played the way Thomas had envisioned.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

wsmorrison

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #41 on: October 26, 2007, 03:57:03 PM »

Wayne, the idea of the course within a course culminated with the North course of LACC. GS discusses this very concisely in The Captain. If you don't have the book, I'll be more than happy to post the sketches found in there that I showed on my LACC thread. Those sketches really bring out the concepts of what Thomas wanted to do. I believe he had the same thing in mind for what he wanted to do for the South before he died. I'll also scour my Golf Architecture in America book to find passages of what Thomas had in mind.

I have GS's books and will start to study that later this evening.  Thanks.  I find this a fascinating subject.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2007, 03:58:36 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Did California represent the GA's highest expression
« Reply #42 on: October 27, 2007, 11:16:43 AM »
Wayne,
I think it's important to understand that the terrain here in California--the original terrain which has been (pardon an expression ruthlessly stolen from Joanie Mitchell) paved over in paradise and someone put in a parking lot was extremely natural in a certain sense, and the fervor to build courses was reaching a zenith for such a relatively remote location. Surprisingly, Riviera wasn't one of these, because it was built in sort of dried-up river bed which Thomas himself didn't think was all that interesting. This makes it even more amazing that he built the Sports greatest short par 4 on that same land.

Certainly that has to mean something. It took a schooling to allow it to get there and certainly the Philadelphia School was a major part in this. There is no doubt about that.

California had everything: year round golfing weather, a scenic beauty that existed 365 days a year with little, and I mean very little rain. At first, most of the courses weren't even grass, but the people still took to the Sport here, in the same fervor which was seen on both coasts. Southern California in particular was a resort destination. The Proctor's and the Gamble's, the Wrigley's, (to name a few) they all maintained homes here as a means of a ways to escape the harsh mid-west winters, jumping into their rail cars and railing to the coast. (the modern day equivalent, the private jet) They also stayed in some of the most lavish hotels ever seen by man, The Hotel Green, The Huntington, The Virginia, The Amabassador to name a few

Soon, many started to stay here the majority of their year. They built huge mansions, and they also built country clubs for their leisure. It started out simple--rudimentary courses built with sand greens, some of them with holes not longer then a short par 4. The entire thing grew in the blink of an eye. Soon Annandale CC in Pasadena was impossible to play, because there was just too many people wanting to play, so they built Pasadena CC, Midwick, San Gabriel and Flintridge. Soon those clubs packed with play, expanded even further as the west side of Los Angeles grew, as did downtown LA where many of these mid-western businesses opened-up or moved their main offices. The Los Angeles Country Club moved, not once, but twice, out -growing it's course and clubhouse, opting to further move further west this creating an amazing corridor of golf courses to come--all  of them by designers of great notoriety. The Ambassador Hotel built not only a small mashie course around the perimeter of it's property, but also brought in Herbert Fowler from England to lay-out 18 holes on what is now known as Rancho Park. Across the street from it, Willie Watson laid out 18 holes for Hillcrest CC and south of it was Norman MacBeth-designed California CC. A few years later, directly north of Rancho, Max Behr built Westwood Pay-As-You-Play GC.

These are just a few courses that grew out of this fervor and even though the Great Depression happened and many of the courses didn't feel the affects right away, it indeed had an affect, as many private clubs either closed permanently or temporarily.

Many of them, if not most are now just ghosts, and when you drive on or around their respective sites; then take into account  all of the aerial photos and other images, as well as read much of the things that were said about the courses in print, one thing comes to mind:

What the Hell could have happened? It's almost like looking for the Mayan's gold.

What happened was that the property for many of these really great golf courses got redeveloped because it become just too damn valuable for something other then a golf course.

That is a fact.

Tags: