Ran,
  Thanks for informing us of Gib's piece.

GibP is surely a wonderful writer--and his writing surely is the type that's inspiring. I think he gave an inspiring and pretty accurate description of the evolution of golf architecture, particularly in America, in the last 75 or so years. From that fairly accurate description of golf and architecture's evolution of the last 75 or so years there should be some things to learn from it going into the future.

And Gib gives us this to consider;

"History clearly illustrates that the surest prescription for failure lies not in change itself, but in ill-considered and rudderless tinkering over a course of years. If each succeeding Green Committee brings a new philosophy based on the latest fad, the result is surely doomed to be no more than a collection of holes. There must be a common thread in the tapestry if it is to be considered a finely woven cloth."

With that paragraph Gib gives us a fairly accurate illustration from that evolution of what the surest prescription for failure will be going into the future--essentially to continue to do or do again the very same things we've done before ---eg continue to evolve our courses without 'a common thread in the(ir) tapestry'.

But what Gib does not give us is what will "a common thread in their tapestry" be that will prevent that prescription for failure of constant tinkering with the newest fad or whatever?

We need to know what "a common thread in the(ir) (unique and individual) tapestry" is because we surely do know that green committees will continue to be the overseers of our golf courses. Why or how would they be expected to change the way they've done things before?

I'd say the best illustration of what that "common thread in their tapestry" may be is the recent phenomenon of the "Master Plan".

If we look closely at the evolution of golf architecture Gib described in the preceding decades we will also notice in almost no case in the past was there such a thing as a master plan in use in either the name of logical evolution or preservation of architecture at any course. I don't even think the concept of the master plan in golf architecture had been considered until perhaps the last 15 or so years. And that fact both historically and actually is a most important thing to recognize!

But now we have the master plan concept and it seems to be getting exponentially more popular. So now we appear to have the structure in place to consider "the common thread in the tapestry" of our individually unique courses and their individually unique architecture. But what will any club and course put in that structure of their own Master Plan?

Before they even start to put something in that structure of their own unique Master Plan the first thing they should understand is that a "one size fits all" mentality in both architecture of any course and it's uniqueness needs to have maintenance practices used on it that just may be anything but "one size fits all".

Gib outlines the presciption for continued failure but I think the Master Plan offers the structure for success! What exactly goes into any course's Master Plan (always focusing on what-all the individual uniqueness of any course's architecture can potentially be) is just the details of how successful the Master Plan (which is generally both restorative and preservationist) and the golf course can ultimately be.

A website like this can help by discussing and outlining what any course's "common thread in their tapestry" was and can be again.

I could read that guy all day long, Great piece!

It's balance of explaining when and why many courses have been altered (dis-figured) is understandable.  The fact that some tinkered for the better, would seem to confuse the unitiated and justify changes at clubs where egos rule, (anybody know any of those?)

The reality that money makes the world go round, continues to be ever present, within our sport. In searching the deepest darkest nooks and cranies, I'd say my own personal search for value, is predicated on this bling bling motiff.

The article makes me wonder if "the Rake" isn't largely responsible for the expected conditioning of bunkers, which makes them so costly to maintain. ? ?

Is there a bunker style that is cheaper in the long-run to maintain?

or,

If pristine wasn't expected, would bunkers still be a major drain of resources?

Tom P,

I sometimes think of the comparison beteen RTJ, Ross and Fazio in the "three eras" of golf course architecture. I don't think that I have ever walked off any of their courses not liking the course. They seem to be consistently good to very good to varying degrees, but none of their courses are in my personal Top 10-15 played. I am sure the Ross defenders would say I need to play Pinehurst #2, and the Fazio defenders would say go see Wade Hampton (that really jumped up on my list during the recent North Carolina thread).

Maybe they did not get the right land, maybe they were all guilty of building too many courses, maybe they missed the details or maybe I have not seen enough of their work to really comment.

redanman;

You're certainly right that Pete (and Alice) Dye must have been an unusual and separate influence in the entire "Modern Age" of architecture that might be seen to be perhaps fifty years in duration. Determining what their influence was exactly, although undeniably strong, is an interesting question.

The first thing I think one needs to look at with the Dyes is what influenced them in architecture? By their own admission what they were impressed with and the architectural ideas they basically brought back from their year in Europe (Scotland) and how they applied those ideas and concepts in America is what made them famous and respected.

The things they say impressed them and were the concepts they later used in their styles here is an interesting mixed bag some of which are perhaps not the things that some of us might suspect. The Dyes were also sort of an easy going family company that operated quite differently than most of the name architects of that time which certainly included the Dyes. Their home phone was basically their office phone and there're some good old stories of what some heavy hitting potential clients heard if they happened to get Pete's mother on the phone first!

They certainly were an apparent clearlnghouse of later architectural talent too but in my opinon the styles of a number of those that apprenticed under them are very different than the Dye style---and that alone is interesting to know. It seems to me one of the notable things some of the best known of those that went through their company took from the Dyes is sort of that same easy going way of looking at the art of architecture as well as a similar easy-going way of looking at the business end of it too.

Mike
I don't believe the rankings are an indication architectural quaility...I don't put much stock in them.

IMO early RTJ (Peachtree, Dunes, etc) is much more interesting than his later formulaic work. Why did his style change so dramatically?

TE
I hear you.

What is sad, after looking at a number of his 30's and 40's designs, I've come to the conclusion RTJ was among the very best Golden Age architects. His early work should not be lumped in with hius other designs and certainly not into the so-called Dark Ages...he was definitely a Golden Age architect at that time--one of the more under appreciated ones too.

Gibby, as always that was very well thought out and written.

TEP/TMac

Why did RTJ's work go downhill in the early '50's?

Well, what remarkable event happened to RTJ in the early '50's?

He became the US Open Doctor.

My working hypothesis, therefore, is that the quality of his work is inversely correlated with the degree to which he was associated with the USGA.

As he became identified as the Open Doctor - and that indentification was cemented at the '51 Open at Oakland Hills - his work got distinctly worse. The closer the ties, the more formulaic his designs. The Age got Darker and Darker from then on, if you will.

Pure coincidence? A causal connection?

Bob

Very interesting thoery Bob...what therefore can be said of Rees's work as well???

Bob & Tom Mac,

So where does The Cashen Course (early 70's) fit into this puzzle ? I have not played it but it is on my must play list due to two regulars here that swear by it. The main complaint I hear about it is  it is too hard, but certainly not "standard RTJ fare".
 

TE
I hear you.

What is sad, after looking at a number of his 30's and 40's designs, I've come to the conclusion RTJ was among the very best Golden Age architects. His early work should not be lumped in with hius other designs and certainly not into the so-called Dark Ages...he was definitely a Golden Age architect at that time--one of the more under appreciated ones too.

Tom Mac,

I really only know the Cornell course from the list below, and while I personally love the course, I would not call it great architecture. The Cornell site did not list the 1940's courses, but the 30's has mainly remodeling jobs. What were RTJ's standouts in the 40's? The Cornell site does not list them, wasn't there a war going on?

Jones' Early History
1929 - 1940

1929 - Designed Sodus Bay GC (only 2 greens remain)

1930 - Jones finishes at Cornell University

1931 - Designed Midvale G&CC, Penfield, NJ w/ Stanley Thompson (18)

1931- Remodeled Locust Hill CC, Rochester, NY

1931 - Remodeled Stafford CC , Stafford, NY w/ Stanely Thompson

1934 - Designed Durand-Eastman Park GC, Rochester, NY (18)

1934 - Designed Teresopolis GC, Brazil w/ Stanley Thompson (9)

1935 - Designed Norris Estate, St. Charles, Illinois (no longer exists)

1935 - Designed Green Lakes State Park GC, Fayetteville, NY. Remodeled since then (18).

1935 - Remodeled Montclair GC, Montclair, NJ

1935 - Remodeled Garden City CC, Garden City, NJ

1936 - Remodeled Bonnie Briar CC, Larchmont, NY w/ Stanley Thompson

1936 - Designed Pottawatomie Park, St. Charles, Illinois (9)
1937 - Designed The RTJ GC at Cornell U., Ithaca, NY (Additional 9 in 1953)

1938 - Designed Amsterdam Muni, Amsterdam, NY (18)

1938 - Remodeled Vestal Hills CC, Binghamton (no longer exists)

1938 - Remodeled Niagara Falls CC, Lewiston, NY

1939 - Remodeled CC of Ithaca (no longer exists)

1940 - Designed Duke Estate GC, New Jersey (no longer exists)

1940 - Remodeled Valley View GC, Utica, NY

TEP......go write a book and get some sleep