[Peter Pallotta]

Are many of you familiar with Krister Stendahl? He was a long time professor emeritus at Harvard's Divinity School and also Director of the Centre for Religious Pluralism in Jerusalem. His most famous book was "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West". Maybe I'm not too far wrong in describing its basic thesis this way: that biblical scholarship for some 400 years has incorrectly worked backwards and ascribed to Paul -- and thus to his theology -- a very dark and self-critical conscience, a harsh self-understanding of his own failings. Stendahl argued that, far from being an accurate picture of Paul or of his own self-understanding, this was instead a picture of the thoughts/philosophies and self-understandings of theologians like Augustine and Luther -- men of such towering intellect and influence that their thoughts eventually (and essentially) became the dominant Western mode of thought (in so far as Paul and his theology was concerned). In other words, it wasn't Paul who thought this way, it was his later students (for their own personal and psychological reasons) who thought this way  -- and these influential later students have left the rest of us, ever since, to incorrectly work backwards and project onto Paul all manner of dark theologies.

On a lighter note - have the ideal/philosophies and conscience of the New Golden Age and its influential practitioners led most of us to incorrectly work backwards and project onto the 'earliest apostles of the faith' all manner of beliefs and self-understandings and goals that would've actually been alien to them?

Peter
 

 

[Paul Gray]

Peter,

So, just to simplify the question, can we draw parallels between the rewriting of religion through the ages and the interpretation of classic architectural ideals adopted by the likes of Colt, MacKenzie etc? In short, yes.

If there's a lesson to be learnt, I'd argue it is that we should avoid at all costs treating the principles of the Golden Age as is they were religious commandments because, if we do, and often in contradiction to the written word, inevitably there will be those that claim to be the sole arbiters of "what God would have wanted" (and in this context read Colt etc for God).

To be truly creative, we have to be free from the constraints of any form of unmoveable doctrine, but then here speaks an atheist. That is not for one second to suggest that I subscribe to any notion of rejecting past glories. The successes of the great architects from history are still present for us to see. However, to suggest that anything which is not in keeping with earlier work is automatically wrong or, even more worryingly, to suggest it's right because "that's what he would have done if he were here today" is to stifle our own abilities and to hide behind a bygone shield where our own would sit just fine.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

I think "a" difference is that the original architectural works remain mostly intact, hence, there's little in the way of intrepretive evaluation that occurs from genesis to current date.  So, I think, that there's little in the way of "rewriting" what the ODG's created.

However, might not renovations/alterations be considered "rewriting" ?

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul, Patrick - thanks for picking this thread up. (I can't believe you found it, Paul!)

It's true that much of the golden age remains (relatively) intact, and true that these courses needs not limit nor proscribe the work that's being done today. But it struck me that, in our discussions of that work, there are assumptions being made about the philosophies/intentions that lie behind the creation of those courses that may reflect more our own beliefs than those of the golden age. Example: today's 'rennaissance' courses strive to provide fun and challenge to the widest range of possible golfers (in ways we've often talked about before - no need to get into them now).  But I see little co-temporary evidence that many of the courses built in America in the 1910s, 20s and early 30s were designed with that same goal in mind, or that the most of the golden age architects we revere today truly walked the walk in this regard. Yes, it may appear to us that some/all of those golden age courses provided that kind of across-skill-level fun and challenge back in the day, but I'd suggest this is mainly/only because 80 years of of advances in technology since then now allow us to enjoy them that way.  In short, I think it could be argued that we are 'working backwards' and wrongly projecting onto the golden age designers a value/belief system they did not actually hold.

Peter

[BCrosby]

Peter -

Stendahl is describing what is sometimes called the Whiggism fallacy. The basic idea is that it is a mistake to write history by imputing to historical characters knowledge of how events actually turned out - becasue those characters didn't know how things would eventually turn out. In the case you give, the mistake is imputing to Paul the concerns of Augustine and Luther that arose several centuries later.

Bob

[Peter Pallotta]

Thank you, Bob - I learned two things (well, learned one thing and was reminded of the other): I learned about the Whiggism Fallacy; and was reminded I use too many words to say anything at all, and even then say it less clearly than you manage to do using so fewer!  (As the old joke goes, I think I take a page and a half just to clear my throat).  

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul, Patrick - thanks for picking this thread up. (I can't believe you found it, Paul!)

It's true that much of the golden age remains (relatively) intact, and true that these courses needs not limit nor proscribe the work that's being done today. But it struck me that, in our discussions of that work, there are assumptions being made about the philosophies/intentions that lie behind the creation of those courses that may reflect more our own beliefs than those of the golden age. Example: today's 'rennaissance' courses strive to provide fun and challenge to the widest range of possible golfers (in ways we've often talked about before - no need to get into them now).  But I see little co-temporary evidence that many of the courses built in America in the 1910s, 20s and early 30s were designed with that same goal in mind, or that the most of the golden age architects we revere today truly walked the walk in this regard.

I whole heartedly agree.

Somewhere along the line, the Pasteurization and Homogenization of GCA began to take root.

It would be interesting to track how that happened.

Exhibit "A" might be Hollywood, which transitioned from a formidable championship course to a local country club course playable by all levels of golfers.

Pine Valley remains mostly intact, preserving the penal values Crump intended
Since Crump's passing, little has been done to homogenize the golf course.
It definitely has not transitioned to a local country club course playable by all levels of golfers.

I understand that different golf "markets" evolved.
Resorts and residential communities, but, somewhere between the 1920's and current date, the playing field was dumbed down to cater to all levels of golfers.
I think the decline or erosion of those early, more challenging architectural values was due to the rising stature of "fairness" in American, homogenized golf.  This resulted in the removal of Ross's top shot bunkers and other features deemed "unfair".   Also along the timeline were two events that shaped golf courses and the maintainance of golf courses, the Depression and WWII.

I believe the combination of those events altered the perceived philosophy of the early designers, as revealed in their work, through the alteration of their designs and the new designs of a more "fair" architect.

And the catalyst in this process ?

The transition to Medal Play

Yes, it may appear to us that some/all of those golden age courses provided that kind of across-skill-level fun and challenge back in the day, but I'd suggest this is mainly/only because 80 years of of advances in technology since then now allow us to enjoy them that way.  In short, I think it could be argued that we are 'working backwards' and wrongly projecting onto the golden age designers a value/belief system they did not actually hold.

I can agree with that as well

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - a very interesting post, thanks. To try (off the top of my head) to combine the points you made there with my original 'thesis', I might say:

The decades long process of homogenization in American gca has been driven by technological advances, the growth of public golf (and with it, a premium on fairness), and by the emergence of medal play as the dominant form of (top-level) competitive golf - a dominance that has trickled down and influenced the amateur/casual golfer. In response, the best of modern day gca has espoused a value system/philosophy and created courses that serve both golfers of all skill levels and factor-in those 3 drivers, i.e. technological advances, the retail golfer, and the dominance of medal play.  But in so espousing such an approach, modern day discussions about gca incorrectly project backwards and posit a smiliar approach by the original golden age designers in a (largely unconsious) attempt to suggest a continuity and constancy of ideals.

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

I like it.

If I had my way, I'd restore almost every bunker that's been removed over the last century, AWT be damned

[BCrosby]

"The transition to Medal Play."

Worse, most people play match play in their regular groups, but then post a score.

The influence of 'keeping score" on gca, even though MacK and others frequently complained about it (think of all the references to the 'pencil and card' mindset), has not been well explored. It has had a big impact.

Bob 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bob,

I think TV has played a major role in diminishing the popularity of match play in favor of medal play.

Match play just doesn't seem to make for good telecasts, while medal play seems to thrive on it.

And I think that has a lot to do with "progaming" and the unpredictability of a match.

One match goes 9-8 another goes 26 holes, how do you schedule that in light of your advertisers and other programs.
Not so easy.
One takes 40 plus players and puts a high percentage of them in the hunt, the last minute showdown.
Match play can be over before you're halfway through the match or drag on an hour or more past the slot.
Not so advertiser friendly.

It's a dilemma.

One can only hope that the Walker Cup televises all 18 holes.

[Ed Oden]

Peter, I too am glad this thread resurfaced.  My apologies for not replying initially.  As you know, I really like the analogy.  However, as is often the case, I suspect there is a mixed harmony.  We are truly blessed that so many golden age architects chose to formalize their philosophies and theories in detailed first hand writings.  CBM, Tillie, Dr. Mac, Travis, Thomas and Behr (even Ross posthumously) all left a lengthy paper trail to their core principals.  So it is often pretty easy to go back to the source to see what they were all about.  On the other hand, my guess is that the recent adulation of the ODG's has lead to some misinterpretation of their thoughts.  In particular, I think we tend to over-generalize everything in hindsight.  We turn their tendancies into rules...Ross never did this and MacKenzie always did that.  In that respect, we likely distort their philosophies with overly simplistic misconceptions.  Best wishes!

[Paul Gray]

Paul, Patrick - thanks for picking this thread up. (I can't believe you found it, Paul!)

It's true that much of the golden age remains (relatively) intact, and true that these courses needs not limit nor proscribe the work that's being done today. But it struck me that, in our discussions of that work, there are assumptions being made about the philosophies/intentions that lie behind the creation of those courses that may reflect more our own beliefs than those of the golden age. Example: today's 'rennaissance' courses strive to provide fun and challenge to the widest range of possible golfers (in ways we've often talked about before - no need to get into them now).  But I see little co-temporary evidence that many of the courses built in America in the 1910s, 20s and early 30s were designed with that same goal in mind, or that the most of the golden age architects we revere today truly walked the walk in this regard.

I whole heartedly agree.

Somewhere along the line, the Pasteurization and Homogenization of GCA began to take root.

It would be interesting to track how that happened.

Exhibit "A" might be Hollywood, which transitioned from a formidable championship course to a local country club course playable by all levels of golfers.

Pine Valley remains mostly intact, preserving the penal values Crump intended
Since Crump's passing, little has been done to homogenize the golf course.
It definitely has not transitioned to a local country club course playable by all levels of golfers.

I understand that different golf "markets" evolved.
Resorts and residential communities, but, somewhere between the 1920's and current date, the playing field was dumbed down to cater to all levels of golfers.
I think the decline or erosion of those early, more challenging architectural values was due to the rising stature of "fairness" in American, homogenized golf.  This resulted in the removal of Ross's top shot bunkers and other features deemed "unfair".   Also along the timeline were two events that shaped golf courses and the maintainance of golf courses, the Depression and WWII.

I believe the combination of those events altered the perceived philosophy of the early designers, as revealed in their work, through the alteration of their designs and the new designs of a more "fair" architect.

And the catalyst in this process ?

The transition to Medal Play

Yes, it may appear to us that some/all of those golden age courses provided that kind of across-skill-level fun and challenge back in the day, but I'd suggest this is mainly/only because 80 years of of advances in technology since then now allow us to enjoy them that way.  In short, I think it could be argued that we are 'working backwards' and wrongly projecting onto the golden age designers a value/belief system they did not actually hold.

I can agree with that as well

Amen to all of that (no offence intended to anyone's faith).

It's always struck me that there's some degree of recognition of this when people talk about "keeping a course relevant" but somehow that recognition doesn't extend to realising that, by implication, the need to do so suggests the course has, over time, become more playable to the average golfer. In fact, ignore the average golfer, what it actually implies is that the course has become playable for the beginning golfer. This, more than likely, was never a consideration of the architect.  

I will speak solely from experience but I find it somewhat amusing when I read from those that supposedly know better that so many of the historically classic British courses were playable by anyone (TOC is often referenced at this point). Trust me, when I stood as a twelve year old boy on the tee at my home links, wind ripping off the sea, forced carry in front of me, metal shafted wooden club in hand, it didn't feel like a course playable by all. And I'm only harping back to the 80's.

As with religion, a paper trail doesn't deter people from putting their own interpretations on to architecture. Moreover, a lack of comment but a general theme often leads one to translate an architectural quirk into a prerequisite of design.

Peter,

Slow day watching the rain here so decided to have a hunt for a more interesting topic than some currently high on the leaderboard.

Thanks for posting such a thought provoking thread.

[Tom_Doak]

Paul, Patrick - thanks for picking this thread up. (I can't believe you found it, Paul!)

It's true that much of the golden age remains (relatively) intact, and true that these courses needs not limit nor proscribe the work that's being done today. But it struck me that, in our discussions of that work, there are assumptions being made about the philosophies/intentions that lie behind the creation of those courses that may reflect more our own beliefs than those of the golden age. Example: today's 'rennaissance' courses strive to provide fun and challenge to the widest range of possible golfers (in ways we've often talked about before - no need to get into them now).  But I see little co-temporary evidence that many of the courses built in America in the 1910s, 20s and early 30s were designed with that same goal in mind, or that the most of the golden age architects we revere today truly walked the walk in this regard. Yes, it may appear to us that some/all of those golden age courses provided that kind of across-skill-level fun and challenge back in the day, but I'd suggest this is mainly/only because 80 years of of advances in technology since then now allow us to enjoy them that way.  In short, I think it could be argued that we are 'working backwards' and wrongly projecting onto the golden age designers a value/belief system they did not actually hold.

Peter

Peter:

I would agree with your next-to-last point.  I am sure that a lot of the reason we enjoy the courses of the 1920's today is because, with modern equipment, I am playing those courses in about the same way as Bob Jones did in the 1920's.  [Though not nearly as well ]

Whether we are projecting all sorts of other things onto the architects of those days ... it depends on who is doing the projecting.  I can only say that I USED TO do that 20-30 years ago when I was writing about the subject.  It was only more recently that I came to understand how little time those architects must have had to devote to any particular project, and therefore how much of what I and others had written about them must be myth-making.

As for innovation, I believe the Golden Age guys were more innovative than today, because conventional wisdom (like political correctness) had not progressed nearly so far.  Some modern courses [even some of the very best of them] are built with the approach that "the customer is always right", and George Crump or A.W. Tillinghast would have had an aneurysm if you'd said that out loud. 

By the same token, it was easier for them to be innovative, when there were fewer courses to imitate and, perhaps just as importantly, lots fewer people out there to insist that you borrowed your best idea from somewhere else.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ed, Paul- thanks, and Paul, thanks too for that image of you as a young lad with a persimmon driver on a links course when the wind was AGAINST!

Tom - I appreciate the distinctions you're making, and also your point about 'myth-making'.  That's not a word I would've used; unlike (in my opinion) the negative ramifications of the religious introspection I described in my first post, the projecting back of an 'idealized' golden age and golden age architect has done much good for modern-day design. But I still thought it worth noting that, perhaps, the current consensus opinion (as manifested in the best of lists) is being bolstered/supported by an identification with a golden age ethos that I'm not sure ever existed.

Peter

[Mike_Young]

  Peter,
Yes to your question. 
IMO It was a simpler time and they had no Golden Age to draw from. 
I do think there is much myth out there or if myth is the wrong word perhaps "putting words in their mouths" is a better description. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - yes, I think you're right. For example, did you know that Donald Ross counted to infinity TWICE?! Apparently that was what he was doing when he WASN'T designing crowned greens

Peter

[Mike_Young]

Mike - yes, I think you're right. For example, did you know that Donald Ross counted to infinity TWICE?! Apparently that was what he was doing when he WASN'T designing crowned greens

Peter

Peter,
I had heard such.
I also heard that Donald Ross once told someone to go fly a kite...the next day electricity was discovered.

[Tony Ristola]

And the catalyst in this process ?

The transition to Medal Play [/b][/size][/color]
[/b][/size][/color]

[/quote]
I agree. One blown hole and it's party over, and if it's done on a hole that breaks the mold... there is a good chance it gets altered.

That's one reason architects in central Europe have the chance to be more daring; Stableford is the game. The golfers can play with more reckless abandon, more aggressive; blow a hole or four and it doesn't matter.

That said... most courses produced have been pasteurized, homogenized and boring-ified.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()