Was Ron Prichard correct ?

« **Reply #25 on:** March 16, 2004, 09:26:09 PM »

Tom MacWood,

Quote from: Tom MacWood on March 16, 2004, 07:08:30 PM

Clubs don't hire architects in a vacuum.

You're right, they hire them because the club has ALREADY decided that they want to make changes and they need a professional to implement their plan

There was a pressure to modernize in the 50's and 60's - and RTJ was largely responsible for that pressure.

I don't buy your theory that RTJ was largely responsible for this pressure. What was this pressure and in what form was it exerted on each individual club ?

No need to trespass when your phone is ringing off the hook.

Right, and guess who was calling, the club's.

RTJ wasn't callling them, they were calling him and others, because the club's had decided before they even contacted an architect that they wanted to alter/modernize their golf course

May I suggest you study other artistic trends, and how they started and were sustained. It might give you a better perspective.

Each trend has it's own dynamic, unrelated to the others, and country club politics is something I'm extremely familiar with

Claiming the members were responsible for the modernization trend is like saying the church-members who let Elvis sing in choir revolutionized music. Or saying Kauffman is responsible for the modern movement in architecture because he hired FL Wright to build his summer home (Fallingwater). Or like crediting the fellow who stretched canvasses in France for Cubism. Or the merchant who sold Picasso paint. Or the woman who rented him space to live and paint.

All poor analogies. Stick to golf course architecture.

The club's and their memberships were the only ones who controlled the ability to alter/modernize their courses and the finances necessary to fund these projects.

Could Picasso have created his work without a canvas, paint and a loft?

Tom, what you constantly miss is the custodial nature of golf courses. Who is responsible for their ongoing care ?
They are not locked behind museum doors and protected by alarms and guards, they are controlled by revolving door membership and leadership and subject to the whims of that membership.

The fear of disfigurement of a golf course is INTERNAL, not EXTERNAL.

While vandalism can be a nuisance, it's transient in nature, and usually disappears when the neighborhood kids discover girls or graduate high school. Unlike other works of art, golf courses are most often disfigured by THEIR CURATORS,
an unheard of occurance in the rest of the art world, and that is why your analogies are so off base.

« **Reply #26 on:** March 16, 2004, 09:45:15 PM »

Pat,
You almost gave my answer. The changes most seen prior to the 1950s are very minor adjustments - removing a bunker (especially if it's in the line of play), filling or adding a pond, planting a small cluster of trees to protect a tee box, etc. It's very rare to see something as drastic as a routing change.

There are constants throughout the pre-1950 period that began to disappear starting in the 1950s. The absence of trees and very wide fairways are the most consistent examples. Most of the aerials I've see show the clubs didn't seem to have any motivation to plant trees - the courses continued to be almost barren 20-30 years after they were built.

The fairways are incredibly wide by today's standards- 40 to 50 yards in most cases. At Manor, the widths specified in Flynn's drawings from 1926 still existed in 1951. But by the early 60s the fairway/rough margin had been pulled inside the fairway bunkers and the fairways started to look like bowling alleys. I can't recall seeing one instance in an aerial from the 30s and 40s where a fairway was cut to a width of less than 25-30 yards.

I've seen some instances where tennis courts, large swimming pools and parking lots caused some adjustments of the holes near the clubhouse but mostly those features appear to have been added without much course disruption. The level of disruption probably depended on how much land the club started with.

The image that has stuck in my head after looking at so many aerials is that the old courses look like they were developed on cow pastures; now they look like they were developed on logging roads through national forests.

« **Reply #27 on:** March 17, 2004, 12:41:11 AM »

How important is it to establish whose "fault" it is? It seems clear to me that both parties were at fault, if you want to call it that. The memberships allowed the architects to impose their beliefs/practices and the architects were good enough salesmen to pull it off. Craig's point that there didn't seem to be much change prior to the 50s would certainly imply to me that the architects of the 50s and thereafter were certainly better at selling their services than the previous generation, but it was ultimately the memberships that allowed it to happen.

What's done is done. It seems to me the important thing now is to learn from the changes, both good and bad, and to try to educate memberships to learn more about the history of their courses and why they might want to consider a return to the past, or at least refrain from doing more damage to their courses.

I eagerly look forward to Jeff's book - any idea on publication date?

« **Reply #28 on:** March 17, 2004, 06:18:28 AM »

TE
Under the circumstances I don't really see that period developing in any other way. There were significant technological advancements all around and a modernization mentality. You look at what they were able to do with steel and glass, and how that translated in architecture. I'm not certain the technological breakthroughs in golf architecture were as siginificant (they had been moving dirt for a while), but the attitude/mentaility was much different.

I'm certain RTJ and Wilson had an appreciation, and quite possibly a profound respect for the work of the old fellows, but IMO they honestly believed they could do it better. Just like the land panners who tore down old neighborhoods during the urban renewal craze. Unfortunately history has not looked kindly upon this period. Coore, Hanse, etc have had the advantage of comparison - mediocre work in contrast with good work makes one's direction clearer.

Another pressure upon on the 50's and 60's was the prefab and construction line mind set. Some of the courses look like they may have been prefabed, RTJ was criticized for putting out tons of golf course without an personailty or detail (HW Wind went from promoter to critic in the late 60's and 70's). This was also a time when the design ideas of landscape architecture were starting to become a strong influence on golf design, and it was an additional design generation removed from links golf.

« **Reply #29 on:** March 17, 2004, 07:02:01 AM »

Tom MacW;

In post #28 I think you're precisely right. This is just the way the world as well as the evolution of golf architecture works---it's probably always a matter of action and reaction and probably always will be. But it's important now to understand more accurately than it's been undestood in the past what those actions and reactions were and why they caused the evolution they did. And this is another good reason to tone down on laying blame and finding fault. One can learn how to point out the negatives of an era in architecture now without actually laying apparent blame on anyone. Point it out but couch it in "that's just the way it was and let's not go through that again".

« **Reply #30 on:** March 17, 2004, 07:31:34 AM »

TE
In reading through this thread, I don't believe anyone placed blame on the architects. Citing a historical fact and blame are often confused when it comes to this subject. Some folks get very defensive when the facts are brought out, and the result is the truth gets obscured.

« **Reply #31 on:** March 17, 2004, 08:08:38 AM »

TEP/TMacW -

The Dark Ages would be a wonderful subject for a history. It deserves a close look. It may have been a bad period for gca, but there were a lot of different historical forces in play that would make it a terrific topic.

The first chapter might be RTJ's changes at ANGC in '47/'48 and his work at Peachtree GC in the same years.

Second chapter might be Dick Wilson's changes at Seminole and his work at Doral. And you go from there.

I'd love to see someone take on the project.

Bob

« **Reply #32 on:** March 17, 2004, 08:15:00 AM »

Tom MacWood,

Quote from: Tom MacWood on March 16, 2004, 07:08:30 PM

There was a pressure to modernize in the 50's and 60's - and RTJ was largely responsible for that pressure.

That sounds llike blame to me.
Perhaps you forgot what you wrote a few short hours ago.

BCrosby,

I don't recall Wilson's work at Seminole as having been panned.

His redesign of # 18 was embraced and exhalted, and continues to be to this day.

Doral was also well received as was Pine Tree and other courses he designed.

As Wilson and RTJ designed new courses that gained instant recognition, memberships at existing courses invited them in with the intention, the pre-conceived idea, of altering/modernizing their golf course in order to keep up with the Jones's, the modern trends.

Is it any different today when courses invite architects in to clear trees and restore their golf course ?

The desire to alter a golf course is a decision made by the membership PRIOR to inviting and retaining an architect.

Tom MacWood,

Some like to live in a fantasy world, an ivory tower, and theorize how clubs operate, others clearly understand the reality of club operations and politics.

With 40+ years of active involvement on green committees and boards, and dealing with memberships at half a dozen golf clubs, I speak from experience.

Those are the facts, not fantasy.

« **Reply #33 on:** March 17, 2004, 08:36:30 AM »

The underlying tone is a lack of respect for the art and artist.

Perhaps the archies are to blame? Since the only deviation from all other art, is credit. The gc archies takes credit for, and puts his/her name on work that he/she has often subbed-out to associates.

Nowhere in the art world is this acceptable. Credit must be given to those who either created or inspired the original work.

If people treated it more like art, perhaps the curators would balk at "fixing" what often is not broke.

« **Reply #34 on:** March 17, 2004, 08:43:43 AM »

Sheezh Pat, this is silly.

You don't like the phrase "responsible for"?

O.K.

How about RTJ "promoted" the modernization notion? Because that is a fact. Don't believe me? Look up the RTJ advertising materials that he sent to clubs at the time.

Don't like "promoted"?

RTJ made a big deal - in his own resume and other writings - that he was designing improved, well-engineered, modern courses that were easier to build and maintain than the old Golden Age stuff.

That was his MO. That was RTJ's business plan. It was at the heart of why he thought you should commission him to do your architecture work.

In every relevant respect, RTJ shaped and directed the public dicussion of gca in the 40's, 50's and 60's. He was set the boundaries for the debate. He was da Man.

At some point the wall between "promoting" and "responsibilty for" for an idea gets so thin as to render debates about the differences meaningless.

N'est-ce pas?

Bob

« **Reply #35 on:** March 17, 2004, 08:47:08 AM »

Pat -

Our posts crossed. You misunderstand me.

I was outlining chapters of a book about a period of gca. The first two chapters would be about RTJ and Dick Wilson, respectively. Nothing more, nothing less.

BTW, I actually like a lot of Dick Wilson's work.

Bob

« **Reply #36 on:** March 17, 2004, 08:50:34 AM »

BCrosby,

You have to differentiate creating new work from altering existing work.

There is a big difference in the dynamic that seperates the two.

« **Reply #37 on:** March 17, 2004, 08:53:12 AM »

Adam Clayman,

Your theory would indicate that no course was improved by an alteration/modernization, and that's just not true.

Some courses needed to be altered, unless you feel that every golf course was a top 100 golf course ?

BCrosby,

Understood.

I too like Wilson's work.
For many years his work was widely praised, and some say that he didn't get enough recognition for his courses.

Pine Tree, Doral, Meadow Brook, Deepdale Bedens Brook, Bay Hill are golf courses I enjoyed playing. I liked the architecture that I was confronted with.

« **Reply #38 on:** March 17, 2004, 09:09:43 AM »

Pat- I was referencing the tone or attitude towards the art, in general. And the subsequent attitude that some banker (or whatever) from Sacramento, knows more than a Fowler, just as an example. Not specific changes, that in hindsight, were positive ones. But rather, the respect NOT given, and possible reasons for that. I suppose it's all part of that bad reputation the GCArchie has been saddled with.

I liked the GWeek article on Doak, included the crew. That's giving long over-due credit to the artisans, not just the name.

« **Reply #39 on:** March 17, 2004, 09:10:49 AM »

Pat -
Why don't you produce some evidence about the directives that any of these clubs gave to the consulting architects they hired. It seems to me that you're dismissing speculation, and not really producing any evidence yourself, beyond your own speculation, which you consider something akin to fact.

If you can produce something affirmative that suggests considerable alteration was the idea of the golf club and not its consulting architect, then I will agree with you. Until then, you have not destroyed the more reasonable inference that large scale alteration to club's was a product of RTJ's input, and not the clubs which hired him.

« **Reply #40 on:** March 17, 2004, 09:21:40 AM »

Adam Clayman,

There's a line in a song that says: "just because your pockets are lined with gold, doesn't mean that you sing well in the shower too."

Sadlly, individual members who may have been successful in their field of endeavor think that their expertise in their vocation travels well to others. Ego helps fuel the process.
When you now combine that with the idiosyncracies of their particular golf game, and their desire to alter those features on a golf course that are perceived as impediments to their game, you have the formula for a member, a committee, a Board or a President overriding the disinterested work of the architect.

It may not be right, but unfortunately that's the reality of many situations.

« **Reply #41 on:** March 17, 2004, 09:44:46 AM »

SPDB,

Sure, that's easy to do.

But, I can't tell you how disappointed I am in your judgement.
To lay the blame for the alteration of PRIVATE golf clubs solely at the feet of RTJ is irresponsible, inaccurate and immature. But, I guess it's easy to fall in with the pack.

A club I'm familiar with retained an architect.
The club enjoyed a member friendly golf course, relatively short by today's standards, sporty, challenging, fun to play day in and day out, but not overpowering by any means.

The architect was at one point directed to create a
"championship" golf course.

The plan presented was a massive disfiguration of the existing golf course.

Pond/lakes were added next to four greens, including one hole that required an incoming shot of anywhere between 180 and 240 yards with out of bounds on one side and woods on the other. On another hole a pond were extended to wrap around a good portion of a green, instead of just fronting it. This was a difficult two tiered green, with difficult bunkers behind it

Greens were altered to provide tiers, bunkers were added to provide bite, and additional yardage was added.

I'll leave it to your imagination to figure out how you take a golf course of about 6,400 yards and convert it into a
"championship" track. To say it became "gimmicked up" would be an understatement.

The plan was fortunately rejected after some heated debate.

The shame of the matter is, that it just wasn't the money that was wasted, but, an opportunity was lost. The appetite of the membership to do something positive to the golf course was put on hold for several years.

Now that I've answered your question with specifics, I'd like to ask you a few questions.

How many years have you served on a green committee and/or a Governing Board at a club ? At how many clubs have you sat on these committees and Boards ?

I'm just trying to gain some insight into your personal experiences in dealing with committees, boards and memberships.

Thanks.

« **Reply #42 on:** March 17, 2004, 09:52:43 AM »

Bob
I agree it would make for an interesting subject.

RTJ, alone, would make for an interesting study. His early Thompson-like designs to his prototyplical later style (and everything in between).

« **Reply #43 on:** March 17, 2004, 10:12:37 AM »

Pat - I've never served on any green committees, nor have I ever overseen changes to any golf courses. My discussion, like others, however, is pretty limited to the post-war period of remodeling/renovation at clubs across the country. What's your experience during that period?

Trust me, though, I do see the point in your argument. I think that clubs in the 50s were looking to keep up with the Joneses, and the Jones, Sr. was all too willing to oblige and indulge them. But what I refuse to accept is that the scale and similarity of the changes that took place at these clubs in the 1950s was merely a coincidental vision shared by green committees at the various clubs across the country.

I believe that these clubs merely wanted to update their course, with no real idea of what that would encompass so they called in RTJ to inform them. RTJ, likely then, illuminated them to the potential their course possessed , and this potential included many things, not the least of which was a pond fronted par 3 - how else to explain its ubiquity on courses remodeled by RTJ during this period? Overwhelmed, these clubs were more than willing to let RTJ do his magic. I think you underestimate the marketing machine of RTJ that Tom Macwood has noted.

Does the committee bear some responsibility for this? of course, no one would argue the contrary. But RTJ was a big enabler of this movement and midwifed a number of clubs to adopting his vision of their golf course - a vision that appeared with startling frequency and similarity at clubs all across the country.

« **Reply #44 on:** March 17, 2004, 10:20:22 AM »

This is an interesting discussion that I believe omits a critical factor.

What does the esteemed group think the role of the USGA has been in all of this modernization and creation of "championship" venues?

It seems to me that the timing of this phenomenon coinsides with Oakland Hills and the 1951 creation of the monster. Was this RTJ's fault or the USGA's quest to protect par and create a championship where driving accuracy and sheer robotic play becomes the gold standard?

Couple this with improved maintenance and irrigation lines, planting trees and presto you have a new and improved trend that everyone wants to copy.

No one is free of blame.

The memberships for buying into a plan that would lessen the enjoyment of their golf course. Absolutely.

The architects for drumming up business creating these monsters. Absolutely.

The USGA for starting a trend that a golf course isn't top of the line without protecting par by pinching in fairways, growing rough and insisting on disfiguring great golf courses. Absolutely.

« **Reply #45 on:** March 17, 2004, 10:36:52 AM »

To preface, my comments relate to club's not considered classics or design by the old masters. I think some clubs know they want alterations or updating, but they do not exactly what they will be getting. The architect's vision, and intentions therefore can dramatically alter their course. So the quality of the architects vision has the most impact, because the club may not be capable of fully understanding the impact of the architect's vision, to the betterment or to the disfigurement of the course. Lay the blame wherever if it is a disfigurement, but it should be noted that the architect knows more fully where the design is headed than anyone involved in the process. The architect can do his part to make his design process more accesible to the members. A club is not automatically guilty of the disfigurement if things go awry because of the intial act of inviting the architect into their home.

Looking at Picasso's portrait on Tom Macwoods posts may show you what Picasso would do for you if you asked him to do a portrait of you. Maybe you want that style. In my view that work and much of his work is crap. however, he can draw in a realistic manner, he could do a portrait of you that is realistic, he was a good draftsman, and if I hired him that is the style I would request. Unfortunately, many artist jumped on his ridiculous bandwagon and copied his style, yet they never lerned how to draw and draft, they couldn't draw a box if you held a gun to their head. It is a fairly simple matter to distinguish between the two styles. It may not be so easy for a committee to distinguish between styles when trying to determine what they want. Architects do bear significant responsibility to the client, to the process.

« **Reply #46 on:** March 17, 2004, 12:05:22 PM »

Quote from: SPDB on March 17, 2004, 10:12:37 AM

I've never served on any green committees, nor have I ever overseen changes to any golf courses. My discussion, like others, however, is pretty limited to the post-war period of remodeling/renovation at clubs across the country. What's your experience during that period?

Extensive

Trust me, though, I do see the point in your argument. I think that clubs in the 50s were looking to keep up with the Joneses, and the Jones, Sr. was all too willing to oblige and indulge them. But what I refuse to accept is that the scale and similarity of the changes that took place at these clubs in the 1950s was merely a coincidental vision shared by green committees at the various clubs across the country.

Then I would ask you to look at another phenomenon that swept the country, landscape architecture, tree/arbor programs and scalloped fairways.

This trend is clear, one club saw another do it and suddenly they had to do it, and then the next club and the next club until it became systemic

I believe that these clubs merely wanted to update their course, with no real idea of what that would encompass so they called in RTJ to inform them.

What facts do you base your theory on ?

RTJ, likely then, illuminated them to the potential their course possessed ,

Is this based on first hand knowledge and experience ?

and this potential included many things, not the least of which was a pond fronted par 3 - how else to explain its ubiquity on courses remodeled by RTJ during this period?

I'd attribute water and fronting ponds more to the influence of TV then RTJ. Many clubs became enamored with water, and many members, fresh from winter trips to Florida thought it was a desireable feature to incorporate into their northern golf courses

Overwhelmed, these clubs were more than willing to let RTJ do his magic.

Do you have any firsthand experience with these clubs ?

I think you underestimate the marketing machine of RTJ that Tom Macwood has noted.

What does Tom MacWood personally know about RTJ and his business practices in the 50's and 60's ?

RTJ had his office and residence a few short miles from where I grew up and lived all of my life and I grew up in the 40's, 50's and 60's. This nonsense about this incredible marketing machine is a distortion of reality.
A fabrication perpetuated by a guy who lives in OHIO.

What was the size of RTJ's marketing budget ?
Did it rival MacDonald's or Coca Cola's.
Did his ads appear in the Newark News, the Star Ledger, the Bergen Record and other local newspapers, or were his adds more national in scope, appearing in Life Magazine, Look and other popular periodicals ?
Did you see any of his ads on TV ?
What was the size of his marketing staff ?
Did he even have a marketing staff ?

RTJ has an enormous body of work.
He designed a great number of golf courses, not unlike Donald Ross, yet some will say he didn't spend the proper amount of time on site, but Ross didn't either.
That's some double standard.

Golf clubs wanted to use his services, for whatever their particular reasons, and THEY called him, he didn't call them

Does the committee bear some responsibility for this? of course, no one would argue the contrary. But RTJ was a big enabler of this movement and midwifed a number of clubs to adopting his vision of their golf course - a vision that appeared with startling frequency and similarity at clubs all across the country.

He didn't call THEM, they called him.
They wanted their golf courses changed to mirror the work he did at other clubs. That was their preconceived, premeditated thought process. They wanted their golf course to be altered/modernized, and they wanted RTJ to do the work.

« **Reply #47 on:** March 17, 2004, 12:25:02 PM »

Pat -

What facts do you have to support these statements:

"Then I would ask you to look at another phenomenon that swept the country, landscape architecture, tree/arbor programs and scalloped fairways.

"This trend is clear, one club saw another do it and suddenly they had to do it, and then the next club and the next club until it became systemic"

"I'd attribute water and fronting ponds more to the influence of TV then RTJ. Many clubs became enamored with water, and many members, fresh from winter trips to Florida thought it was a desireable feature to incorporate into their northern golf courses"
"They wanted their golf courses changed to mirror the work he did at other clubs. That was their preconceived, premeditated thought process. They wanted their golf course to be altered/modernized, and they wanted RTJ to do the work."

You simply cannot keep demanding facts from people when they advance a theory you disagree with, and then supply your own factless supposition under a different standard. That's the true double standard at play here.

« **Reply #48 on:** March 17, 2004, 12:35:11 PM »

SPDB,

I understand your desire and attempt to duck the questions I asked you, and your failure to substantiate your statements, claims and theories.

I'll be happy to address your questions as soon as you answer the ones I asked you.

I suspect you have no answers because you have neither the facts to back them up, and lack personal, first hand knowledge and experience in these areas.

« **Reply #49 on:** March 17, 2004, 12:52:29 PM »

Geoffrey
There is no doubt the USGA played a major roll in the modernization trend--these venues were often altered in preperation for their events and the venues, because of the publicity generated by the events, were viewed by many.

It is interesting to note that the long connection between the USGA and remodeling did not begin at Oakland Hills. As an example the total redesign of Pebble Beach before the '29 US Am. The difference being RTJ's cleverness in taking advantage of the publicity. He really was PR genius.

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Craig Disher

George Pazin

T_MacWood

TEPaul

T_MacWood

BCrosby

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

BCrosby

BCrosby

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

A_Clay_Man

SPDB

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

T_MacWood

SPDB

GeoffreyC

Kelly Blake Moran

Patrick_Mucci

SPDB

Patrick_Mucci

T_MacWood