Capability Brown vs Gertrude Jekyll

« **Reply #225 on:** September 27, 2006, 08:23:43 PM »

"That is not the case with golf course architecture. There was nothing whatsover in a tangible man-made way for golf architecture to reform or revive back to as it was only 50 years old at best during the turn of the 20th century. Before that it had simply never existed before…."

TE
This is your argument as to why golf architecture could not look to the old links as their vernacular model:
Al Robertson didn't alter the 17th green until 1850. It was only at that point that golf architecture began and it was at that point suddenly the other 99% of the Old course (that had existed for some time) magically became legitimate. Evidently you don't recognize the Old course of the 1800s and 1700s or the old links that existed at North Berwick, Barry, Musselburgh, Montrose, Dornoch, etc. prior to 1850. Good one.

Where have you been? I've always endorsed the ancient links vernacular as the primary model for the heathland.

You often mention the literature of golf architecture....have you read Guy Campbell's History of Golf in Britain? He was a friend of Max Behr's too!

« **Reply #226 on:** September 27, 2006, 11:44:20 PM »

"TE
This is your argument as to why golf architecture could not look to the old links as their vernacular model:"

What a minute MacWood:

You're saying this is my argument as to why golf architecture could not look back at the old links as their vernacular model??

I never said that architecture around the turn of the century did not look back at the old links as their model. I said it very much did do that. Now, after about a year of constant questioning about your thesis on the importance and influence of the A/C movement to golf architecture you seem to be admitting that as well.

A "vernacular" model??? You're the one who introduced that word, not me. Before Alan Robertson or before around 1850 It was pretty much a raw natural model, Tom MacWood. Do you really believe a vernacular model and a raw natural model are the same thing?? If you're now trying to create some sort of synonym between natural and vernacular when it comes to golf architecture that did not exist one and two hundred years before Tom Roberston, well, Pal, I'm prepared to argue that contention with you until the cows come home.

« **Reply #227 on:** September 28, 2006, 06:47:09 AM »

1850 is an artificial date that TE interjected into this discusion in an attempt to disprove my theory. He's come up with all sorts of convoluted ideas and distortions.

They were playing golf at St.Andrews (and other links) long bofore 1850. Golf architecture as we know it today is derived from what TE is calling the raw natural model (that is one of the reasons the links are so appealing IMO). Of course these links evolved and were refined over the years but they did not magically become legitimate starting in 1850 (or were dramatically transformed in 1850) because of the alteration of one green at St.Andrews.

When Jekyll and Lutyens were observing and studying the vernacualr buildings around the Surrey countryside I don't they were conerned about the precise date those old cottages were built. Some may have been hundreds of years old, others younger versions of that native style they admired.

Likewise I don't think Park, Colt and Fowler were concerned with the date they first started playing golf at St.Andrews or Musselburgh or North Berwick. They admired those courses - what those courses had evolved into over 100s of years - and they understood that that native style (or vernacular) was far superior to what was being built at the time in and around Victorian London.

« **Reply #228 on:** September 28, 2006, 09:32:37 AM »

"1850 is an artificial date that TE interjected into this discusion in an attempt to disprove my theory. He's come up with all sorts of convoluted ideas and distortions."

Tom MacWood:

Your inclination to wander way off the mark in almost any discussion is pretty remarkable and that remark of yours above is about the most egregious to date.

It wasn't me who came up approximately the middle of the 19th century as the approximate date of the very first examples of dedicated man-made golf architecture, and perhaps Robertson as the first golf architect.

I submit the books Hunter's "The Links", Mackenzie's "The Spirit of St Andrews, Macdonald's "Scotland's Gift Golf", Hurzdan's "Golf Course Architecture", Steel's "Classic Golf Links", Paul Daley's recent book "Golf Architect" and particularly Cornish and Whitten's "The Architects of Golf" among many others as evidence of that.

For some odd reason in these discussions with you, you've taken to trying to make fun of my knowledge of golf architecture by claiming I depend too much on Cornish and Whitten's book 'The Architects of Golf".

First of all, that is certainly not the case as I have and have read many more books on the history and evolution of golf architecture than just that one, both old ones and new ones. But since you like to single that one, I will use it here in this discussion with you.

Since that book is the one you seem inclined to single out apparently with the idea of challenging what's contained therein, I now challenge you to disprove ANYTHING that is written in Part One and particularly the first three chapters that deals directly with early golf, the first examples of man-made architecture, who those FIRST architects were etc.

I challenge you to prove that anything contained therein that is not historically accurate, and does not explain both how golf architecture evolved, where it evolved and WHY it evolved where it did.

Apparently you think you are capable of uncovering truths about early architecture and the evolution of architecture heretofore unknown by making such statements as 'there is much still unknown about architecture'.

I challenge that statement and that sentiment of yours and challenge you to prove what it is that has been so previously unknown. Your theory on the impact on golf architecture of the English Arts and Crafts Movement is not just something heretofore unknown it's merely far from the truth and the historical facts and evolution of golf architecture of what really did influence golf, where, how, when and WHY.

Obviously you'd like to make a name for yourself as a researcher and historian on the history and evolution of golf architecture by revealing something heretofore unknown or misunderstood but blatant historical revisionism is just not the way to go about it.

The truth of the history and evolution of golf architecture has been pretty well chronicled, documented and presented and you have offered nothing to change or improve upon that fact.

Furthermore, your recent analogy of the early buildings that were emulated by a landscape architect like Jekyll or a building architect such as Luytens are examples of an early MAN-MADE vernacular styles---eg MAN-MADE=architecture.

The early pre-architecture linksland courses that were wholly natural creations are not an example of early MAN-MADE vernacular architecture like those early Surrey buildings.

When you speak about "vernacular" models in this sense the first thing you need to do is both make and then understand the HUGE difference between that which is MAN-MADE (architecture) and that which is NATURAL---eg created by NATURE herself (not architecture).

« **Reply #229 on:** September 28, 2006, 12:18:19 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on September 28, 2006, 09:32:37 AM

It wasn't me who came up approximately the middle of the 19th century as the approximate date of the very first examples of dedicated man-made golf architecture, and perhaps Robertson as the first golf architect.

I submit the books Hunter's "The Links", Mackenzie's "The Spirit of St Andrews, Macdonald's "Scotland's Gift Golf", Hurzdan's "Golf Course Architecture", Steel's "Classic Golf Links", Paul Daley's recent book "Golf Architect" and particularly Cornish and Whitten's "The Architects of Golf" among many others as evidence of that.

TE
Where do you come up this stuff? Hunter, Macdonald and MacKenzie don't even mention Robertson or the date architecture began or 1850. Niether does Steel or Hawtree.

C&W said that Robertson was the first recognized designer (there were very few or any records prior to Robertson). They do not claim golf architecture began with him, in fact in the previous chapter they say the original natural links of Scotland, especially St.Andrews, form the foundation for the practice of golf architecture today.

« **Reply #230 on:** September 28, 2006, 12:42:54 PM »

TE
Have you read Campbell's History of Golf in Britain?

« **Reply #231 on:** September 28, 2006, 01:15:28 PM »

"C&W said that Robertson was the first recognized designer (there were very few or any records prior to Robertson). They do not claim golf architecture began with him, in fact in the previous chapter they say the original natural links of Scotland, especially St.Andrews, form the foundation for the practice of golf architecture today."

Tom MacWood:

You just don't get it do you?

They most certainly do say that golf architecture began around the time of Alan Robertson. To make that point they don't necessarily need to mention Robertson's name, you know? Most people who're interested in this subject do know when he lived and practiced and where.

Of course they also say that the natural links of a St. Andrews form the foundation for the practice of golf architecture today. We all know that's the truth. The reason for that is because golf architects began to attempt to mimic the natural formations of NATURE in what they MADE. They weren't trying to mimic some of those rudimentary and sometimes shockingly artificial features that most all the first architects made between around the middle of the 19th century up until about the teens. (However, one notable anomalie to that was none other than Pete Dye. He did become somewhat fixated not just on the natural formations of the Scottish links but also on some of those shockingly artifical man-made features there that were the first attempts at architecture---eg man-made golf features.

Don't you even understand the difference between the model of wholly natural features and the model of man-made features? Were those old buildings in Surrey that Jekyll and Luytens tried to mimic in their art forms natural formations or where they MADE by MAN? Perhaps you're aware of some old buildings and landscaped gardens that were wholly the result of NATURE, but I'm not and I doubt anyone else is either.

« **Reply #232 on:** September 28, 2006, 01:18:44 PM »

"TE
Have you read Campbell's History of Golf in Britain?"

I have not. Does it reveal something entirely different from most all the other historic literature about the history and evolution of golf architectue? And, if so, what would that be?

Is Campbell's book where you came up with your theory that the English A/C Movement was a powerful or primary influence on the Golden Age of golf architecture?

« **Reply #233 on:** September 28, 2006, 01:45:43 PM »

TE
Where in C&W (or Hunter, MacKenzie, Macdonald, etc) does it state that golf architecture began with Robertson in 1850? My bad, you said they don't necessarily mention him by name. Where in C&W do they imply golf architecture began in circa 1850? You appear to be grasping for straws.

Campbell's account of early golf history and golf architecture is thought by many to be one of the very best accounts (if not the best)...Darwin and Wind were big fans. You ought to check it out.

Funny you should mention the A&C...Campbell's mother and father ran around with quite a crowd....Dickens, Browning, Anton Rubinstein, Arthur Sullivan, John Everett Millais.... In fact the pre-Raephaelite Millias painted two portraits of his mother, one when she was a child the other when she was a young adult. The younger painting is quite famous. Millias was also a regular at St.Andrews. Hutchinson wrote a brief biography on him.

« **Reply #234 on:** September 28, 2006, 05:16:48 PM »

"Tom P

This is where you become too dogmatic. Who is to say what was natural or man made? For the record I don't think the difference has any meaning. Architecture is architecture whether the archie built it or found it and kept it."

Sean:

I understand why you say that and I'm aware that some aay the same thing. But I don't subscribe to that theory or definition of architecture at all. To me architecture whether it be landscape architecture, building architecture or golf course architecture is what is made by man--eg what he builds. What he identifies to use for a golf course but does not touch at all I just don't call architecture. I simply call that Nature or an unaltered natural formation. How architecture is tied in with what is natural is the key what I think is good golf architecture, at least in a natural aesthetic sense. This was the essence of Mackenzie's remarkable application of the ultra-natural looking Boer military trench making to golf architecture. The idea was how it tied together so one would not know where man-made architecture and natural formations began or ended.

"Personally, I think you put too much into C&W words. The part of the book you cite so often is only a brief summary of the period. I don't think we know enough about the period even now to make too many claims."

I don't agree with that either. I think plenty is known about the evolution of the linksland. What we may not know that much about is why such rudimentary features were initially made on the linksland and particularly in inland England when golf first migrated out of Scotland to inland sites really ill suited to the type of golf played in the natural linksland.

But it sure doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the logic of it. Golf architecture had just begun and the thought of simply making it functional in some rudimentary sense was as far as those men back then thought about it or cared about that.

It is impossible to deny that obstacle features in early Victorian golf that looked exactly like steeplechase obstacle jumps were used. And why wouldn't they be---that's what they knew best in that time and place in inland England? In many cases what they used probably were steeplechase obstacle features.

Does the first automobile made look remarkably rudimentary compared to the Stutz Bearcat of the 1920s or 1930s? Of course it does and golf architecture coming into being about the same time as the first rudimentary automobile is basically no different in how it was and how it looked compared to say a Stutz Bearcat.

Before the second half of the 19th century the automobile didn't exist either but perhaps Tom MacWood will claim there was some form of one in the 16th century.

« **Reply #235 on:** September 28, 2006, 05:59:33 PM »

"Funny you should mention the A&C...Campbell's mother and father ran around with quite a crowd....Dickens, Browning, Anton Rubinstein, Arthur Sullivan, John Everett Millais.... In fact the pre-Raephaelite Millias painted two portraits of his mother, one when she was a child the other when she was a young adult. The younger painting is quite famous. Millias was also a regular at St.Andrews. Hutchinson wrote a brief biography on him."

Tom MacWood:

Talk about grasping at straws. Most of your theory on the importance of the A/C Movement to GCA is based on the fact that you say various people just knew each other or met each other. That's a real weak straw to hang a powerful influence on golf architecture on, particularly since you talk about something like painting art. But nice name dropping there about painting. That's what you seem good at---name dropping. Unfortunately name-dropping doesn't do much to base a supportable theory on.

« **Reply #236 on:** September 28, 2006, 08:03:02 PM »

TE
When you come back with a mocking response - like what you wrote about Campbell - I prefer to respond with something of substance instead of a counter mock.

IMO the essay does more than just show that there were a series of relationships...although I do find that very interesting. It was a fascinating period.

I'm with Sean regarding what is architecture and what is not. I think what often separates the greats from the rest is their ability to identify natural features and to maximize their use. The other aspect you seem to ignore is the importance of routing in golf architecture. Basically those first linksmen were involved in an excercise of pure routing.

« **Reply #237 on:** September 28, 2006, 08:04:49 PM »

TE
By the way we are still waiting for you to show us where in C&W, Macdonald, MacKenzie, Hunter (or anyone else) it says that golf architecture began in 1850.

« **Reply #238 on:** September 29, 2006, 08:50:55 AM »

"It is obvious that no one knew anything about golf architecture in the early days of St. Andrews. It may even have been planned by someone who had never seen a golf course. Someone perhaps who had heard of the game and went cutting holes three or four hundred yards apart on attractive plateaus......This much is certain: previous to 1859 the inward nine holes, with the exception of the 18th were originally played back to the holes doing double duty for the outward nine."
Alister MacKenzie
"The Spirit of St. Andrews"

"The earliest records of golf course designers and their work date from this period of growth, the latter part of the nineteenth century. The first recognized designer was Allan Robertson, the longtime professional and clubmaker of St. Andrews, who died in 1859."
"The Architects of Golf"

"From the beginning we have had to work under certain difficulties not facing our British cousins. All of our courses are hand-made. And, while this is true of inland courses everywhere, the models, the original patterns, were all in the British Isles. The true links were moulded by divine hands. Links-land, the fine grasses, the wind-made bunkers that defy imitation, the exquisite contours that refuse to be sculpted by hand---all these were given lavishly by divine dispensation to the British. These perfect models----not of their own making---were at hand for the British designers to study and praise. It is to their credit that for the most part they left them unspoiled, which we might not have done. Nevertheless, their first work inland was but little less ill-made and hard featured than our own."
Robert Hunter
"The Links"

"Golf course design, in simple terms, is the arrangement of these starting and ending points. If, in the arranging of these points, the landscape is not modified or changed, then the couse is merely "laid out". If the terrain is modified or changed, then the course is "built". If the building of a follows a preconceived plan, then the course is "designed". The set of principles, rules, laws, styles, experience, education, and imagination that guides perceptions relative to the design of the golf course is golf course architecture. In other words, golf course architecture is the theory and planning requirecd to modify terrain and soil to accomodate the game of golf.
For its first 400 to 600 years, golf was played mostly on linksland exactly as it was found, with no thought given to modifying the ground.
"Golf Course Architecture"
Michael J. Hurzdan

"At the dawn of golf architecture, the field was dominated by golf professionals and greenkeepers, only a few of whom had any real talent for solving puzzles."
By Tom Doak, in "Golf Architecture, A Worldwide Perspective" by Paul Daley

Since Tom Doak is a contributor to this website why don't we ask him to produce an approximate date regarding what he meant above by 'the dawn of golf architecture'?

« **Reply #239 on:** September 29, 2006, 09:38:02 AM »

"TE
When you come back with a mocking response - like what you wrote about Campbell - I prefer to respond with something of substance instead of a counter mock.

IMO the essay does more than just show that there were a series of relationships...although I do find that very interesting. It was a fascinating period.

I'm with Sean regarding what is architecture and what is not. I think what often separates the greats from the rest is their ability to identify natural features and to maximize their use. The other aspect you seem to ignore is the importance of routing in golf architecture. Basically those first linksmen were involved in an excercise of pure routing."

Tom MacWood:

You said you prefer to respond with something of substance. Well, where is the response with something of substance? I've been waiting for that from you for about two years now on this subject.

Is the fact that Millias painted a portrait of Campbell's mother and father really 'something of substance' when it comes to the powerful influences on golf course architecture? If so, I remain very disappointed by your "substance".

« **Reply #240 on:** September 29, 2006, 01:54:30 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on September 29, 2006, 08:50:55 AM

I guess the answer to my question would be: No, I cant find it written anywhere in the literature that golf architecture began in 1850 (or 1859).

"It is obvious that no one knew anything about golf architecture in the early days of St. Andrews. It may even have been planned by someone who had never seen a golf course. Someone perhaps who had heard of the game and went cutting holes three or four hundred yards apart on attractive plateaus......This much is certain: previous to 1859 the inward nine holes, with the exception of the 18th were originally played back to the holes doing double duty for the outward nine."
Alister MacKenzie
"The Spirit of St. Andrews"

I don’t think this comes as a revelation to anyone…that the first designers of the first golf courses (the people who invented the game) had not studied the art of golf design.

"The earliest records of golf course designers and their work date from this period of growth, the latter part of the nineteenth century. The first recognized designer was Allan Robertson, the longtime professional and clubmaker of St. Andrews, who died in 1859."
"The Architects of Golf"

I mentioned this quote a few posts up..it illustrates the difficulty in analyzing the primevil years of golf architecture…very little is recorded before the latter part of the 19thC.

"From the beginning we have had to work under certain difficulties not facing our British cousins. All of our courses are hand-made. And, while this is true of inland courses everywhere, the models, the original patterns, were all in the British Isles. The true links were moulded by divine hands. Links-land, the fine grasses, the wind-made bunkers that defy imitation, the exquisite contours that refuse to be sculpted by hand---all these were given lavishly by divine dispensation to the British. These perfect models----not of their own making---were at hand for the British designers to study and praise. It is to their credit that for the most part they left them unspoiled, which we might not have done. Nevertheless, their first work inland was but little less ill-made and hard featured than our own."
Robert Hunter
"The Links"

This seems to fit very nicely into the vernacular model idea.

"Golf course design, in simple terms, is the arrangement of these starting and ending points. If, in the arranging of these points, the landscape is not modified or changed, then the couse is merely "laid out". If the terrain is modified or changed, then the course is "built". If the building of a follows a preconceived plan, then the course is "designed". The set of principles, rules, laws, styles, experience, education, and imagination that guides perceptions relative to the design of the golf course is golf course architecture. In other words, golf course architecture is the theory and planning requirecd to modify terrain and soil to accomodate the game of golf.
For its first 400 to 600 years, golf was played mostly on linksland exactly as it was found, with no thought given to modifying the ground.
"Golf Course Architecture"
Michael J. Hurzdan

In simple terms golf course design is the arrangement of these starting and ending points….I agree with this idea. As far as his definition of a golf architecture…I don’t know about that…based on that definition would Robertson be considered a golf architect? Would altering a single green on an existing course be considered more golf architecture than the actual laying out of the 18 holes? I don’t know. Whatever the answer Hurdzan doesn’t date the beginning of golf architecture, or golf design for that matter.

"At the dawn of golf architecture, the field was dominated by golf professionals and greenkeepers, only a few of whom had any real talent for solving puzzles."
By Tom Doak, in "Golf Architecture, A Worldwide Perspective" by Paul Daley

What does this illustrate? I don’t have the essay handy…are you sure you haven’t taken this out of context in attempt to prove that golf architecture began in 1850 (or even later)?

Do you recall how we got on this tangent? It was another of your attempts to disprove my A&C essay, you wrote:

“In a real sense the English Arts and Crafts Movement was a revival and a reform back to sentiments and tangible influences of "The Gothick". There was a real and physical man-made art form there to revive and reform back to.

That is not the case with golf course architecture. There was nothing whatsover in a tangible man-made way for golf architecture to reform or revive back to as it was only 50 years old at best during the turn of the 20th century. Before that it had simply never existed before.”

This is where I don’t think you do yourself (and your credibility) any favors.

To start this shows you really don't understand the ACM (amazing since you’ve been consumed by it for over a year now). The ACM was not a Gothic Revival…so you’ve got that wrong. And golf courses do not make themselves…it requires a man to lay them out.

In the second paragraph you try to say that since St. Andrews and the other early links were not man-made (ie constructed) they couldn’t possibly been the models for a revival and by the way golf architecture was only 50 years old at the time…not old enough for a revival.

There is so much wrong with this train of thought its hard to know where to begin. First I don't believe there is an age limit on what can be considered a revival and what can’t. Second you are the only person I know who has put an exact date on when golf architecture began (1850 or 1859, alternatively). Also I’m pretty sure St. Andrews et al were older than fifty years in 1900. And lastly this theory of yours contradicts your other theory about the naturally evolved links being the inspiration for the heathland architects.

I think you need to go back to the drawing board.

« **Reply #241 on:** September 29, 2006, 02:15:56 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on September 29, 2006, 09:38:02 AM

Tom MacWood:

You said you prefer to respond with something of substance. Well, where is the response with something of substance? I've been waiting for that from you for about two years now on this subject.

Is the fact that Millias painted a portrait of Campbell's mother and father really 'something of substance' when it comes to the powerful influences on golf course architecture? If so, I remain very disappointed by your "substance".

Now, now, be nice. I'm just trying to expand our horizons, and add a little interesting background information into the mix.

« **Reply #242 on:** September 29, 2006, 02:17:14 PM »

This reminds me of two Oxford philosophy dons who didn't agree with anything the other said. They didn't speak to each other. They simply published yet another paper refuting what the other had just published.

Keep it short - like the Oxford economics undergraduate, one of whose exam questions was, 'What is the future of coal?' 'Smoke' was his answer and on he went to the next question.

« **Reply #243 on:** September 29, 2006, 08:35:50 PM »

Tom MacWood;

These discussions between you and me, which at this point no one seems to want to contribute to or dares to, have gone on long enough. I think we've left a perfectly good record on here of our points and counterpoints that can be analyzed by anyone who wants to do that.

I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for your thesis and particularly your total lack of ability or willingness to engage in an intelligence dialogue in defending it. And, it's just as obvious that you have no respect for mine.

Frankly, I think you've done a disservice to the understanding and the historical record of golf course architecture. I believe that historical revisionism is the worst form of of tampering with any subject's history.

Let these threads between us stand as our point-counterpoint. Judging from some of the recent responses, carrying on from here would be a waste of time.

« **Reply #244 on:** September 29, 2006, 08:41:59 PM »

Quote from: Mark_Rowlinson on September 29, 2006, 02:17:14 PM

This reminds me of two Oxford philosophy dons who didn't agree with anything the other said. They didn't speak to each other. They simply published yet another paper refuting what the other had just published.

... or the Nabokov-Wilson letters after the Eugene Onegin translation. Good God.

« **Reply #245 on:** September 29, 2006, 08:53:26 PM »

Let's get back to discussing why Michelle Wie hasn't won the Women's US Open at 16, what the 9th best course is in the state of New Jersey or bashing Fazio or Rees Jones or the USGA for any reason whatsoever or why some of the passionate people on here want to quit this website--for about the 7th time.

« **Reply #246 on:** September 29, 2006, 09:13:54 PM »

Carry on.

« **Reply #247 on:** September 29, 2006, 10:18:38 PM »

TE
Speaking of revision you should pick up Hurdzan's 2nd edition of "GCA" which came out this year. He revised your quote:

'In simplist terms, golf course design is the arrangement of starting and ending points within which to play golf. Over the last 150 years certain conventions have emerged. A round of golf is usaully considered to 9 or 18 holes. It is played on maintained grass. A proper golf course is a combination of holes various length and par. However, there is nothing in the rules of golf that governs golf course design.....'

The description of golf architecture has been omitted.

I hope this discusion has not left you bankrupt...no doubt you'll come up with more creative ideas to disprove the 1900 theory. Ironically for a couple of years or more you were one of the biggest promoters of my essay, that is until you learned I was writing an essay on Crump, at which point you became dedicated to a personal Jihad with the stated goal of descrediting me. I'm convinced if anything these exchanges have illustrated one point, a genuine postion will always prevail.

I'll leave you with this quote from MacKenzie which really consisely describes the scene and the confrontation between Victorian and the vernacular model :

'On the old type of course like St. Andrews, the player have to take the hazards as they come, and do their best to avoid them. There is nothing new about the ideas of the so called golf architect. He simply wishes to reproduce the old ideas as exemplified in the old natural courses like St. Andrews, these courses which were played on before the zealous green committees demolished the natural undualtions of the fairways and greens and made them like lawns of croquet, tennis, or anything else except golf and erected eyesores in the shape of straight lines of cop bunkers instead of emphasizing the natural curve of the links.'

« **Reply #248 on:** September 30, 2006, 04:43:54 AM »

Vis a vis the 1850 date, Alan Robertson designed the first formal course at Carnoustie (10 holes) in 1848. As far as I know, that was the first formal course design and first actual commision, which implies that it was around then when the "profession" of golf course architecture began.

BTW--Robertson's 1st tee and final green at Carnoustie (and a number of important features in between) exist relatively intact today.

« **Reply #249 on:** September 30, 2006, 06:10:09 AM »

"TE
Speaking of revision you should pick up Hurdzan's 2nd edition of "GCA" which came out this year. He revised your quote:

'In simplist terms, golf course design is the arrangement of starting and ending points within which to play golf. Over the last 150 years certain conventions have emerged."

Tom MacWood:

It fascinates me how you use a quote like this and fail to see the signficance in it. We live in 2006. Subtract the 150 years Hurzdan mentioned and what do you get?

"I hope this discusion has not left you bankrupt...no doubt you'll come up with more creative ideas to disprove the 1900 theory."

It hasn't left me bandrupt at all but I don't see any reason to continue at this point because I don't think any more ideas need to be brought up to disporve your 1900 A/C theory. I feel that's been done. Those on here can make of it whatever they want to. That was my only purpose in challenging it anyway.

"Ironically for a couple of years or more you were one of the biggest promoters of my essay, that is until you learned I was writing an essay on Crump, at which point you became dedicated to a personal Jihad with the stated goal of descrediting me. I'm convinced if anything these exchanges have illustrated one point, a genuine postion will always prevail."

That's true, for a time I was a big promoter of your essay. I read it once or twice and it seemed impressive with all the names and places in it. Then someone on this website mentioned to me that he thought it was all just 'fire and smoke' with no real connection in your points and assumptions. And so I read it a few more times. Someone else mentioned he thought it was what he called "academic positivism"---eg a forced search for material simply to support a preconceived conclusion or theory. So I read it again, and came to realize those two were exactly right.

In my opinion, in essays like that one, or like many of Max Behr's articles, there are a number of assumptions made or at least used that basically need to factually and actually connect to one another to make the conclusion valid.

For years now, I've read Behr's articles over and over looking at the assumptions he made or used to determine their accuracy and then to determine how well they connect to one another to establish the validity of his conclusions. It's a form of both a priori and a posteriori analysis. With the exception of one I think Behr was pretty much on the money but the lack of accuracy of that one assumption on his part has probably made a good deal of his conclusion or thesis invalid or something that simply did not come to pass. But only the realities of the last 6-7 decades since he wrote what he did have shown that to be true. In a way his only mistake, in my opinion, was to over-estimate the sensibilities of man, the golfer, to really want certain things or care enough about them. But even so, times are now cycling again and we may find in the future Behr was right, perhaps just 6-7 decades too early in what he wrote.

But after having really read through your essay over and over again, I believe that description on here that the essay is just 'fire and smoke' is right. Your assumptions and material production on the A/C movement are pretty interesting even if they sure are just massive name dropping of people and places, but they are just too far removed from the under-lying subject at hand---eg golf course architecture and why the Golden Age of golf architecture happened when it did, where it did, how it did and why it did. Your assumptions just don't really connect enough to GCA and the tool you utilize to attempt to connect them is massive generalization and rationalizaton. When one points that out to you your only defense has been to tell them they should open their mind more or read some more books. That kind of on-going defense of one's point, conclusion or theory is ultimately just silly and the farthest thing from informative or edifying or educational.

Personally, I’m a big fan of the A/C philosophy or attitude or ethos. I like it a lot more than I do say the general characteristics of a landscape design style such as Capability Brown (for golf architecture).

I believe that the English A/C Movement did not have much effect or influence on the Golden Age of golf architecture simply because that was a time in a very new art form that was struggling to understand and define itself for numerous reasons that had nothing to do with the A/C movement which was revival based. As Hurzdan said above in the last 150 years certain conventions have emerged. But we are discussing a time approximately a century ago. At that time golf architecture did not have a revival because it didn’t need one. What it needed to do was mature after being taken from a land which was the only one where golf existed in a totally natural state for centuries and put in places that were wholly unsuited to receive it, as Behr said.

My belief is you have tried far too hard to apply an A/C movement influence to golf course architecture back then when it was just too young and too immature and ill-defined to receive such a thing. Golf architecture’s most powerful influences back then, anyway, were a series of other events and other ideas that are all pretty well documented.

But the real irony here is I believe that you were simply about a century early in your effort to apply an A/C philosophy to golf course architecture as a powerful influence. I believe the time has arrived when the A/C philosophy, or attitude or ethos will be a powerful influence on golf course architecture. Matter of fact I think it has already been for at least a decade or more---perhaps not in all its ramifications and characteristics but in enough of the important ones.

Perhaps you haven’t noticed but I think golf course architecture is in its very first revival or renaissance in its approximately 150 year history and evolution, and it is just that A/C philosophy or attitude that is a fairly large part of it.

I’ve tried to get this entire subject to a point where and when you could engage in this area of it and in this time with it but it’s not possible to do, it seems. You’re too evasive, too defensive, apparently because you feel someone is personally attacking you. This remark about a jihad against you is just silly, as is the remark you made about your Crump essay. I thought that was pretty good---I just didn’t like the way you went about coming up with material for it and either did a couple of people in Merchantville NJ. I don’t even know you, Tom, and this isn't personal, I just don’t agree with some of the things you write.

News:

T_MacWood

TEPaul

T_MacWood

TEPaul

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

TEPaul

TEPaul

T_MacWood

TEPaul

TEPaul

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

TEPaul

TEPaul

T_MacWood

T_MacWood

Mark_Rowlinson

TEPaul

JMorgan

TEPaul

JMorgan

T_MacWood

ForkaB

TEPaul