[Jason Way]

I was just reading Adam Lawrence's article about Old Elm (http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/a-legendary-collaboration-at-chicagos-old-elm-club), including the account of Colt leaving a note for the members that his foreman, Douglas (oops) Ross could be trusted to carry out the work.  Old Harry had a solid guy to whom he delegated.  MacKenzie had his Maxwell and CMB had his Raynor. 


But after reading the article, I found myself wondering, beyond the biggies, what do we know about other foremen?  Who were the guys who led the construction of the hundreds of courses that Ross designed.  Who were the guys that stayed behind after the GCA hopped on the train for the next town?  During the Golden Era, were there any other men who started out as foreman who went on to design noteworthy courses like Ross, Maxwell, and Raynor did?


I figured this group would know what there is to know about the guys behind the guys.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,


Interesting question.



Ross's foremen and their work is reasonably documented.
Ditto Flynn and Wilson
Wilson and VonHagge and Lee.
AWT and Burbeck


Shackelford and others have provided some insight, but the fascinating question on a course by course basis is how much of the work is the lead architect's work and how much is the foreman's work in terms of originality or concept.


Good topic

[Jason Way]

Thanks Pat. 


Yes, that is part of the question I am posing.  And not to stir up controversy or split hairs about attribution.  It's more about my genuine interest in these men and who they were and what made them qualified to run the show in the absence of the GCA.


The other thing that got me to thinking about this subject was Dave Wilber's recent Turfgrass Zealot podcast interview with Dr. Micah Woods.  They were discussing course construction and grow-in (a subject of general interest to me these days) and various roles in that process were mentioned - Grow-in Superintendent, Agronomist, Soil Consultant, etc.  In the Golden Era, did they have anything approximating these specialties, or was the "foreman" the jack of all trades, perhaps working with a Greenkeeper as a partner?

[Sven Nilsen]

Add Blair, Barton, McGovern, Hatch, White, Whiting, McCarthy, Bell, Lees, Payne, Connellan, Longworth, Reid, Tucker, Locke, Loeffler, Winton and a slew of other names to your list.


Blair was probably the first in the U.S., assisting Willie Park in the 1890's.   Several went on to successful careers as architects on their own.


Many were experts in one area or another, such as Tucker and turf.


Its a hard subject to generalize, as the scale of work involved in each project could be different.  You had courses like Lido, where there were seemingly experts engaged for every aspect of the work.  On the other hand, there were plenty of more frugal endeavors where the constructors would be the members, following directions left behind by the architect.

[Sven Nilsen]

One way to track the early foreman is to see who was hired by the club as professional or greenskeeper at its inception.  Often they would bring in someone to oversee construction on a short term basis.  Some of these guys did everything from giving lessons to making clubs to keeping the green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

One of MacKenzie's guys made it to the California Golf Hall of Fame, but he may have been the guy more known as the bunker shaper....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,


Tucker designed my home course, Preakness Hills, around 1926.


PHCC Is as much fun to play today as it was 60 years ago.


For a turf expert he sure designed a terrific golf course, sporty, interesting and fun.
14 directional changes, uphill, downhill, 3 doglegs left, 3 doglegs right, very diverse par 3's, no repetive holes, interesting use of creeks, 4+ bunkers behind greens, with greens that transition seamlessly from the fairways.


For decades Preakness Hills and Suburban had the best putting surfaces in the northern part of the state.


Preakness's greens were velvet/German bent and as true as any greens you could putt.  Unfortunately, over time, other grasses crept in and today only about 15 % of the velvet/German bent remains.


It's interesting that Tucker worked at Biarritz, as PHCC had 3 greens with a back tier separated from the front tier by a large, steep slope, not unlike the back half of a Biarritz.  PHCC also had a very long par 3 and a number of greens where the back of the green rises up in a pronounced fashion, probably a backstop of safety net for balls with a low trajectory in 1926


2 greens were on a pronounced diagonal, two others less so.


PHCC is landlocked and as such modern balls & equipment have muted some of the features intended to interface with the golfer.


One of the really interesting features at PHCC is the use of significant debris mounds.
They appear on #'s 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11,


Unfortunately, in the 60's and 70's tree plantings, promoted by a landscape architect, hid many of those interesting debris mounds.


Terrific course and an interesting architectural study

[Tom_Doak]

various roles in that process were mentioned - Grow-in Superintendent, Agronomist, Soil Consultant, etc.  In the Golden Era, did they have anything approximating these specialties, or was the "foreman" the jack of all trades, perhaps working with a Greenkeeper as a partner?

Occasionally they did.  MacKenzie in one of his books lists all the consultants he recommended for a club [I believe it was Cypress Point] to engage ... it was four or five of them.  Of course, that was 1926-27, at a pretty late stage of the Golden Age, and a client who didn't question the idea of consultants or costs.  On the contrary, even today, clients often question whether such guys are necessary, and who should have to pay for them.  [It's interesting how many consultants are deemed to be unnecessary when it is suggested that the architect pay for them.]


So, just like today, some foremen could be VERY involved in parts of the design of the course, and some were just foremen watching over the day to day management of personnel.  It all depends on how busy the architect was, where he liked to spend his time [both on site and off site], and what talents the other individuals brought to the table.

[Ian Andrew]

Jason,

I know quite a bit about Stanley Thompson's history.
But I'll give you a short version.

His associates (Cornish and others) were placed on site to oversee his work, but not to make any architectural decisions. There's a number of interviews with Geoff, Bob and Robbie where that point has been made.

Stanley employed a lot of family members. They oversaw a lot of his work including two of his brothers. He also employed a series of Construction Superintendents with turf experience to oversee major golf course projects. They not only oversaw construction, but they would also grow in the golf course. The projects had multiple supervisors, since often their were six teams of horses and 75 labourers working at the same time.

Depending on the workload at the time, often Thompson recommended the construction superintendents to stay with the course after the build. Some were hand-picked for that project with the intention of them staying on after. Jasper Park was a good example. Others choose to stay. Thompson liked having his guy on property because it usually guaranteed an ongoing relationship and the income of annual reviews.


btw, the list shared above is great. The fun part is quite a few cross-over to other architects and end up being architects themselves. Some were wonderful architects, once given the opportunity, but all that experience did not guarantee the ability to succeed as an GCA later.

[JC Urbina]

Ian,


A very nice portrait, did you do the art work yourself?    BTW - Happy New Year.


Jason,


A topic that I simply love to debate.  In the Golden Age when travel was not that convenient I find it hard to believe that the Iconic name designers had that much to do with the day to day operations of designing and building a golf course.  I base my thoughts on the subject because I know the amount of decisions that are made on a daily basis when it comes to the evolution of a golf design.


I think some of the Golden Age designers were awful lucky. 


I also  touched on this topic with Dave Wilbur in my interview this past December.  I am convinced that the golf course superintendent plays the biggest role in the development of the design, from the first day of construction and including the days long after the golf course is up and running.  An Owner is Key, the GM is surely responsible for operations but in the end the day to day presentation of the design falls in the hands of the Caretaker. 


Foreman, if that's what you want to call Robert Hunter are really the designers of the golf course.  They take an idea and make it what you see today.  I agree that C.B Macdonald was the reason that The National was so good,  the documentation shows he continued to tinker with the design.  But to say Ross touched and felt every design he was involved with and he was the reason they turned out so good is hard to believe.  However, Ross playing a big role in the development of Pinehurst, well that's a different story all together.


On my travels and when  I happen to tour a new design I always ask who were the guys building it on a day to day basis.  That is the question I always try and the find the answer to.


Looking forward to 2016

[Anthony Gholz]

Jason:


An excellent topic and well worth keeping. 


I'll add what I know regarding L. E. Lavis, a long associate of Colt & Alison and direct construction foreman on a couple of Alison's efforts.  He also was given letterhead and advertisement billing as American Partner.  He was the direct foreman on Alison's Orchard Lake CC outside Detroit in 1926-27.   He came to Port Huron, Michigan in the mid-20s with Alison, making revisions to Alison's 1920-21 18-hole course.  He also came back in 1928 to redo 3-4 greens.  It appears from correspondence and drawings that he did these greens on his own design, but there's no way (so far) of knowing if he discussed the greens with Alison on previous visits and felt comfortable doing the design work with the boss out of the country, or maybe he just took the bull by the horns and plowed ahead on his own.  Either way the '28 greens are some of the best on the course today.


Attached is a short bio I did of Lavis for One Hundred Fifteen years of Golf In Port Huron.


I will add as I find things on Lavis and also on Wilfrid Reed's (Indianwood CC) sidekick: William Connellan.
Tony

[Anthony Gholz]

[Jason Way]

Great stuff, gentlemen.  Thank you for pitching in.


A little bird told me that Dan Moore unearthed a guy-behind-the-guy nugget related to our Chicagoland treasures.  Paging Dr. Moore...


When I have a bit more time, I will follow up on some of the leads that y'all have posted thus far to learn more about these people. 


In the meantime, returning to the Old Elm story - Donald Ross starts as the builder executing the plans on behalf of the designer (Colt).  He then very successfully shifts to the role of the designer, so he obviously didn't want to be the builder.  Raynor made that shift as well, although he stayed closer to the building than Ross did.  Others seem to have been happy/better suited to solely building.  The lines are obviously much more blurry in practice than they are on paper, and I find teasing out the nuanced details to be interesting. 


Not really any point there, I suppose.  Just happily musing amidst the education that you are providing. 

[Jason Way]

And Jim, I listened to and thoroughly enjoyed your discussion with Dave on the podcast.  Couldn't agree with you more about about the importance of the Superintendent.

[Sven Nilsen]

A topic that I simply love to debate.  In the Golden Age when travel was not that convenient I find it hard to believe that the Iconic name designers had that much to do with the day to day operations of designing and building a golf course.  I base my thoughts on the subject because I know the amount of decisions that are made on a daily basis when it comes to the evolution of a golf design.

Jim:

The question as to how many decisions the early builders had to make is an interesting exploration. 

When we're talking about who should be responsible for a course, we have to talk in terms of routing, shot values and making the most of a piece of property.   The architect starts with an initial vision for each hole, and it is those decisions that produces any variance from that vision.

There were a variety of different methods as to how the plan for a course was implemented.  The most simplistic were generally for low budget courses, where an architect would stake out a layout and give general guidelines as to what the holes should look like.  There weren't many professional builders involved in these courses, most of the work being done by cheap labor or the members themselves.  I suspect decisions were made, but mostly due to efficiency as opposed to some change deemed necessary for the play of hole, and it was mostly dumb luck if the result produced necessarily better golf holes.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have fully planned courses, with detailed maps to guide a foreman through the process and often with the architect on site to make alterations on the fly.  Generally these were big budget projects, with an enormous amount of work done on the front end to iron out every detail (plasticine models being one example of the tools used to ensure design ideas made their way onto the ground).  I don't think much was done on these types of projects without the architects go ahead.  The foremen most likely earned their pay in identifying issues with the plan, but there seems to be more science here (or at least engineering) than art.

Somewhere in the middle you have the courses where the architect relied heavily on a trained construction expert to expand their basic (even rough) outline.  Perhaps there were unforeseen issues that needed to be addressed, or perhaps the architect knew going in that there were going to be aspects of the course that would have to be dealt with later on, and knew they wouldn't be back to handle it personally.  These were the guys who don't receive the historical credit they deserve, the group that melded the science of construction with the art of design into a craft.   

In each of these scenarios, it is the degree of variance from the initial vision that determines how much of the course's nature is owed to the work of the builders.  And every alteration from the plan has to be viewed in light of the thought that went into the decision.  There were plenty of practical changes made that had little to do with "golf" decisions. 

The whole exercise had me thinking of on the fly changes that we would now consider to be essential parts of world class golf holes.  Perhaps that is an exercise for a separate thread, but there's an interesting conversation to be had to delineate how often these were accidental, and how often they were the result of a skilled hand given the free reign to improvise.

Sven

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()