Did California represent the GA's highest expression

« **on:** October 25, 2007, 12:27:49 AM »

A simple question for which I'm sure there will be all sorts of not so simple responses. Some have said that the GA of arch reached it's zenith here in California. What say you?

« **Reply #1 on:** October 25, 2007, 12:33:19 AM »

David - I do not understand the question. What is GA of arch?

« **Reply #2 on:** October 25, 2007, 12:36:48 AM »

David-
Get ready for the N.E. bias onslaught.

« **Reply #3 on:** October 25, 2007, 01:07:38 AM »

Quote from: Jason Topp on October 25, 2007, 12:33:19 AM

David - I do not understand the question. What is GA of arch?

Golden Age of architecture

« **Reply #4 on:** October 25, 2007, 01:08:49 AM »

Quote from: Adam Clayman on October 25, 2007, 12:36:48 AM

David-
Get ready for the N.E. bias onslaught.

I know Adam. I expect as much. But I do know that our own TEP has told me in conversations that he feels this to be true about California.

« **Reply #5 on:** October 25, 2007, 01:57:29 AM »

Without doubt. It was all coming together out here--and then suddenly, like Kasier Soze, whoosh--GONE!

I think California was the school where it was all going to happen. MacKenzie, Thomas, Tillinghast, Robert Hunter, Watson, John Duncan Dunn and Billy Bell--they all ended-up here. Some of them hated it here, like Ross, who did in fact visit Los Angeles, as well as the Bay Area while getting over the death of his beloved wife, Janet. Tillinghast seemed to have liked it enough out here--climate wise to move here for four+ years. (maybe Phil could add something there) but when he then would move to Ohio to be with his daughter, whom I suspect could take better care of him.)

« **Reply #6 on:** October 25, 2007, 08:00:11 AM »

I really hate to admit it, but you California dorks might be right.

Bob

« **Reply #7 on:** October 25, 2007, 08:14:18 AM »

Notice how I left Behr out of it. What a Dork!

I think it's because of a grit hangover from almost a year ago.

« **Reply #8 on:** October 25, 2007, 08:16:40 AM »

Please explain how the great courses of California reached a zenith beyond the great courses of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and New England. Do you confine your point to a single state or a region?

What exactly about those California courses are superior, in a design sense? It would have to be more than merely the hundreds of miles of coastline.

As an aside, given a great many classic era courses are NLE or significantly altered, in a general sense, can the stewardship of those golfing treasures in California be considered satisfactory?

« **Reply #9 on:** October 25, 2007, 09:36:58 AM »

Give'em hell Wayno...I'm in the fox hole with you...

« **Reply #10 on:** October 25, 2007, 05:42:49 PM »

David, what does "highest expression" mean in your question?

« **Reply #11 on:** October 25, 2007, 06:03:08 PM »

"Did California represent the GA's highest expression"

I could certainly entertain that notion, particularly a few from the Monterrey School. I think some of those with the American Construction Co certainly seemed like the highest expression of beautiful and "artistic" architecture. I don't know enough about the high point in SoCal to tell really but some of them seemed extremely cutting edge in ideas.

« **Reply #12 on:** October 25, 2007, 06:08:09 PM »

I might have thought so until I played 36 holes at NGLA a year ago. There are many manifestations of the zenith, not all in California.

« **Reply #13 on:** October 25, 2007, 06:42:04 PM »

Bill:

I love NGLA and Cypress too but one can't deny how different they are in their architectural "look". If one is into a really "artistic" natural look in the lines of golf architecture a course like Cypress is about 500% more that way than NGLA is, in my opinion.

I'm not saying one is better than the other just that their look is so different. In a sense one probably sort of represents the beginning of the Golden Age and the other represents the end of the Golden Age.

Some think that look of a Cypress was just the highest expression of the art form. On the other hand, some may like the look of the beginning of the Golden Age better and others like the look of the end of the Golden Age better.

But you know me, I'm into "The Big World" theory.

« **Reply #14 on:** October 25, 2007, 07:28:45 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on October 25, 2007, 06:42:04 PM

Bill:

I love NGLA and Cypress too but one can't deny how different they are in their architectural "look". If one is into a really "artistic" natural look in the lines of golf architecture a course like Cypress is about 500% more that way than NGLA is, in my opinion.

TE

Didn't your boy recently blast Mac and CP for being overdone and unmaintainable?

No wonder you guys haven't gotten that book done yet!!!

« **Reply #15 on:** October 25, 2007, 07:29:48 PM »

That's what I meant by "many manifestations."

It's all about how the architect uses the land. There is little at NGLA that has that soft look of Cypress Point and the changing environments. NGLA is pretty much all man-made, although it has that spectacular view from the 17th tee, but it just fits together and works on those landforms.

Cypress Point, by contrast, just exists there in that superb setting.

But they are both "manifestations" of great golf architecture.

« **Reply #16 on:** October 25, 2007, 09:37:48 PM »

"TE

Didn't your boy recently blast Mac and CP for being overdone and unmaintainable?

No wonder you guys haven't gotten that book done yet!!!"

Only Tom can call me boy; and by the way, it's piss boy.

I did not refer to CP as a whole as being overdone and unmaintainable. However, portions of it are overdone in terms of bunkering, and that can be found on many MacKenzie courses. It surprises me that so few have considered this. Holding the look would seem to be something MacKenzie was unconcerned about because it seems it was impossible to do so under the circumstances. Would you argue differently?

As for the status of the book, it will be worth the wait. In the meantime, imagine how much effort it takes to edit 1600+ pages of text, photos and drawings.

« **Reply #17 on:** October 25, 2007, 09:43:43 PM »

Michael Dugger:

The book is done and it's been done but we're still trying to find somebody strong enough to actually pick it up and take it to a publisher.

« **Reply #18 on:** October 26, 2007, 10:58:40 AM »

Quote from: JMorgan on October 25, 2007, 05:42:49 PM

David, what does "highest expression" mean in your question?

It means to me that did everything that the great arch's of the time hold dear in terms of great arch ideas all come together and manifest itself in Cal. Keep in mind, most, not all, but most of what was being written about arch was by men who were in Cal and designing courses.

« **Reply #19 on:** October 26, 2007, 11:16:45 AM »

David,

But don't lose sight that Thomas and Tillinghast were from Philadelphia. Their designs and writings are simply a result of a west coast campus of the Philadelphia School

In all honesty, I don't see anything above and beyond what was going on in other places around the country; a higher expression if you will. There happened to be some excellent writings by non-Californians. But then again, I know the courses on the east coast a lot better than most Californians and most Californians know the west coast a lot better than I do.

Since you posed the premise, please tell me what expressions are the highest in California and are not reached in the works of Flynn, Crump, Wilson, Leeds, White (Ron Forse was cluing me in on his work last evening) and others.

« **Reply #20 on:** October 26, 2007, 11:17:24 AM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on October 25, 2007, 08:16:40 AM

Please explain how the great courses of California reached a zenith beyond the great courses of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York and New England. Do you confine your point to a single state or a region?

SOMEHOW I KNEW YOU'D BE THE FIRST TO JUMP ON THIS WAYNE. THIS IS NOT SAYING THAT CAL COURSES ARE SUPERIOR THAN EVERYWHERE ELSE. I'M SUGGESTING THAT PERHAPS THE CAL REPRESNTS THE CRESENDO IF YOU WILL OF THE GA. MUCH LIKE THE SLOGAN "GO WEST YOUNG MAN, GO WEST", WAS SAID TO THOSE WHO WANTED FIND NEW FRONTIERS TO CONQUER, PERHAPS THIS IS WHY SO MANY GREAT ARCH'S CAME HERE. OBVIOUSLY THERE WERE OTHERS THAT ALSO WERE GREAT THAT NEVER CAME HERE. BUT I BELEIVE THE DIVERSITY OF THE CAL TERRAIN ALLOWED A GREAT VARIETY OF IDEAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED. I DO NOT INTEND THIS TO BE A WEST VS EAST THING, MERELY SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

What exactly about those California courses are superior, in a design sense? It would have to be more than merely the hundreds of miles of coastline.

I NEVER SAID "SUPERIOR". THAT WAS NOT MY INTENT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE BEEN TO CAL, BUT THERE ARE MORE LANDSCAPES, CLIMATES, LOOKS IF YOU WILL IN THIS STATE THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN COUNTRY, NOT JUST COASTLINE. IN HIGH SCHOOL MY FRIENDS WOULD SNOW SKI IN THE MORNING AND BE SURFING AT SUNSET ON THE SAME DAY. WHERE ELSE CAN ONE FIND THAT TYPE OF DIVERSITY IN LANDSCAPE.

As an aside, given a great many classic era courses are NLE or significantly altered, in a general sense, can the stewardship of those golfing treasures in California be considered satisfactory?

URBAN EXPANSION AND THE MILATARY GREATLY AFFECTED MANY OF THE COURSES IN CAL. BY THE TIME MANY OF THESE COURSES WERE "HANDED BACK", THE ORIGINAL ARCH'S WERE DEAD. RESTORATION WAS NOT A CATCH PHRASE THEN. AS YOU KNOW, THIS WERE THE NEW ARCH'S BROUGHT IN WOULD LEAVE THEIR "IMPRINT" ON THE COURSE AND CHANGE THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL ARCH. AS FAR AS EXPANSION, CAL EXPERIENCED THE FASTEST URABN EXPANSION AFTER THE WAR THAN ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY. ALOT OF THE COURSES WERE SIMPLY IN THE WAY.

« **Reply #21 on:** October 26, 2007, 11:21:52 AM »

Wayne,

Recently it seems there has been quite a bit of discussion surrounding this maintenance of bunkers issue.

I simply posit that perhaps aesthetics, in some circumstances, supercede maintainability.

And I propose the amazing parcel of planet earth that Cypress Point rests upon was one of those circumstances, that's all.

If considered from this point of view, perhaps Mac is a genius after all?

« **Reply #22 on:** October 26, 2007, 11:22:20 AM »

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 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.

« **Reply #23 on:** October 26, 2007, 11:31:15 AM »

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. And now that our population is decreasing, it makes it even easier

« **Reply #24 on:** October 26, 2007, 11:33:21 AM »

For the record, I cannot wait for the book, fellas!

I'll rent ya a forklift to get it over to a publisher.

News:

David Stamm

Jason Topp

Adam Clayman

David Stamm

David Stamm

Tommy_Naccarato

BCrosby

Tommy_Naccarato

wsmorrison

JESII

JMorgan

TEPaul

Bill_McBride

TEPaul

Michael Dugger

Bill_McBride

wsmorrison

TEPaul

David Stamm

wsmorrison

David Stamm

Michael Dugger

wsmorrison

wsmorrison

Michael Dugger