[paul cowley]

Tom....at least for some of the contributors here it has less to do with talking or walking...but writing [as in learning how to] .

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Writing design evolution reports shouldn't be a problem. It's just research and facts and stuff. Nobody should expect to win a New York Times book award for a course's design evolution report.  

By the way, where the hell have you been? I've been sitting at arrivals at the Philly airport waiting for you for about a month and a half now.

[Sean_A]

Pat

Suffice it say that I do not believe in benevolent dictatorships.  

They are too easily corrupted or misguided.  


Of the thousands of clubs in the U.S., over the last 80 years, could you cite me just five (5) examples of where that's been the case ?

Absent the ability to do so, I can cite you five (5) cases where a club, vis a vis the democratic process, at committee, board and membership meetings have been misguided to the point that they disfigured their golf course.[/color]

Pat

Of course, this is your opinion.  The only opinion that really matters is the one footing the bill.  

Dictatorships are for those that want to be dictated to.  Though I suspect you are more on the dictorial side of things.  If folks want to pay the bills and hand over decision making to you that is very fine.  

Tommy Mac

I have stated several times before that I agree with your idea in theory.  It remains to be seen if it can be carried through in practice.  I suspect one of the biggest obstacles will be setting aside egos.  

Ciao

Sean

[ed_getka]

Excellent thread gentlemen.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom McW — The ASGCA has a room full of member "stuff"; old records, some plans, but mainly organization records from and by members. It is not a public collection...yet. Maybe some day.

There is an archive at

http://golfarchitects.lib.msu.edu/

through Michigan State.

The archive Tom refers to is broader in thought.

[Jeff_Brauer]

ASGCA has for several years been video taping its older members for stories, thoughts, philosophies, etc.  The problem is that these need editing badly to be of any use to all but the most intrepid researcher. You might have to wade through four hourse of tape to hear three sentences about the course you are interested in.

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
That is a very good idea, video taping the older members and their thoughts etc. Was RTJ involved?

Forrest
I have not been there but MSU's archive has to be one of the very best. They have helped in the past with research.

I guess I was confused by your remark about the archive project being attacked. Who is attacking which archive project and why?

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom  McW — I think this thread answers the "why" ... because there are a lot of people who feel an archive(s) would be used and enjoyed. And, it is important.

ASGCA is interested because our members hold the keys to so many rich documents and plans. And, I think there is genuine interest in helping larger organizations in golf — the USGA for example — with this overall effort.

[T_MacWood]

Forrest
I don't follow you. Some ASGCA members are attacking the USGA archive because there are a lot of people who feel an archive would be used and enjoyed?

Is there a concern that non-members, ie. competitors, may profit more than anyone from this archive?

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom McW — Maybe you misunderstand my use of "attacking" — I mean this in a good way, we are WORKING on it — attacking it with effort, hard work, time, energy, etc.

What other questions do you have?

[T_MacWood]

Forrest
Just one more. Forrest is such an unusual name...the only two Forrests I know are Forrest Fezler the golfer and Forrest Brooks the drunk comedian...were you named after either man?

Actually the drunk comedian was Foster Brooks, my bad.

[Forrest Richardson]

I kid Forrest Fezler about this...but we are close in age.

I was named after Lee DeForrest, supposed father of modern radio transmissions.

Tom Paul was named after Foster Brooks.

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul was named after Foster Brooks."

No, I was named after one of two people or maybe both.

My mother said I was named after Tommy Noonan, the son of a groom.  

My father said I was named after his good friend from the old days, Tom Carnegie, son or grandson of Andrew Carnegie.

I once asked my mother if she was sure I wasn't named after Tom Carnegie, as my Dad said I was.

This is what my mother said to me:

"Believe me, I have known some real drunks in my life but Tom Carnegie pretty much took the cake. There is no way I'd name any son of mine after that drunk Tom Carnegie."

Tom Carnegie lived in St Augustine in those days and he died rather young, tragically, when his house burned down. Apparently it was rather cold in St Augustine one evening and Tom Carnegie decided to light a fire in his living room. Unfortunately, he was so drunk he neglected to light the fire in the fireplace, lighting a fire instead in the middle of the living-room.

Snap, Crackle and Poooff!

[TEPaul]

However, Forrest, being the expert researcher I am I suspect this story of where Tom Carnegie self immolated himself is vaguely apocryphal. Here's why.

A few years ago my wife and I decided to visit Cumberland Island, the Georgia sea-island that belonged to the Carnegie family. It is a most interesting and beautiful place, albeit a bit spooky, now apparently partly belonging the US Park Service.

The old Carnegie mansion on the island is most interesting having been left by the U.S. Park Service in its state of half ruination due to a fire years ago. The entire place and aura is one of time standing still long ago.

The lady Park Ranger who showed our tour around went on and on about what a remarkable family the Carnegies were.

Later on the ferry back to the mainland I ran into that lady park ranger and I cornered her and told her that I'd heard that Tom Carnegie, at least, wasn't remarkable at all other than perhaps being one of the biggest drunks known to mankind.

She immediately became extremely defensive and asked me how in the hell I knew something like that.

So I told her the story I just told you about perhaps being named after him and what my mother said about him.

Her only response to that was:

"Well, we knew that but for Christ Sakes you don't expect us to tell that to the public, do you?"

I think Tom Carnegie lit that fire in the middle of the living-room of that old Carnegie mansion at Cumberland Island and burned that place down, thereby self-immolating himself.

There are a few events people of that generation remember precisely where they were when it happened the way we remember just where we were when we heard JFK was shot or when we heard about 9/11.

My parents were with Tom Carnegie at Cumberland Island on Dec. 7, 1941 when they all heard the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, and America went to war.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

Suffice it say that I do not believe in benevolent dictatorships.  

They are too easily corrupted or misguided.  


Of the thousands of clubs in the U.S., over the last 80 years, could you cite me just five (5) examples of where that's been the case ?

Absent the ability to do so, I can cite you five (5) cases where a club, vis a vis the democratic process, at committee, board and membership meetings have been misguided to the point that they disfigured their golf course.[/color]

Pat

Of course, this is your opinion.  The only opinion that really matters is the one footing the bill.  

Dictatorships are for those that want to be dictated to.  Though I suspect you are more on the dictorial side of things.  If folks want to pay the bills and hand over decision making to you that is very fine.  

Sean,

You avoided answering the question.

Could you cite just five (5) clubs where dictatorships were corrupted or misguided ?

Or, are you just making irrational statements without any basis in fact ?[/color]

[ForkaB]

Out of curiosity, I decided to look up SPAB, and found their manifesto, written by Morris himself, and still seen as the guiding light behind their organisation.

http://www.spab.org.uk/whatis_manifesto.html

While reading Morrs' Victorian prose is as hard as reading Max Behr or TE Paul, it does seems to say exactly the opposite of the GCA party-line vis a vis "restoration."  As I interpret the manifesto, Morris is saying:

1.  When buildings are renovated, "old" history is lost, but "new" history is created in the voids.  He uses the example of medieval churches which were changed every century to respond to changes in both function (the needs of the users) and form (the esthetics of the day).  Morris enjoys and exalts the complex interaction of styles inherent in such structures.

2.  The SPAB movement was not about stopping such architectural evolution, but about stopping ill-informed restorations of parts of structures back to the restorers vision of what the building might have looked like in some previous age.  Much of their work, even today, is based on preserving historical building practices (e.g. the proper use of lime) rather than historical building styles.

3.  The manifesto is primarily directed against do-gooders/improvers who try to restore a building to some sort of golden age utilising their vision of what that age was.

4.  While SPAB understands and respects the concept of architectural evolution, it seems to imply that such evolution in the future is not acceptable.  In effect, it is denying future generations the pleasure of seeing a reflection of mankind's changes over time in how he alters the spaces in which he lives and works.

This is, of course, just my interpretation of what the manifesto says, and I encourage others to read it and let me know if and where I am mistaken.

In general, if there were a clone of SPAB relating to GCA founded today, by a Morris disciple, I think it would:

--celebrate and seek to understand the changes made to historic golf courses by people like RTJ
--be highly sceptical of architects and promoters who try to bring courses back to some sort of golden age (i.e. erase their subsequent history)
--promote traditional methods (e.g. drag pans, shovels, manure, etc.) where restoration was desireable or necessary

Is that what we want?

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Where have you been? I've been complaining about inaccurate restoration, redesign in the name of restoration of important designs, and the destruction of original work and advocating benign restoration (cutting trees, expanding fairways & greens) of historic designs for several years. For example the rebuilding/recontouring of Engineers greens or digging up every MacKenzie/Hunter bunker at Cypress Point or digging up every Wilson/Flynn/Valentine bunker at Merion.

There are relatively small percentage of historic designs that should preserved and protected IMO. And I would save restoration to features like the 12th at GCGC or the freeway holes at SFGC which have been lost altother. If a historic golf course has evolved gracefully I say leave it alone...except for sensative repairs and benign restoration. The remainder (or majority of other courses) could use some renovation and redesign work or combination of redesign/restoration hopefully from a graduate of remodel university.  

"The Purpose of SPAB

The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings is involved in all aspects of the survival of buildings which are old and interesting. Our principal concern is the nature of their "restoration" or "repair", because misguided work can be extremely destructive. To us the skill lies in mending them with the minimum loss of fabric and so of romance and authenticity. Old buildings cannot be preserved by making them new.
 
In the architectural context "restoration" means work intended to return an old building to a perfect state. It can be the unnecessary renewal of worn features or the hypothetical reconstruction of whole or missing elements; in either case tidy reproduction is achieved at the expense of genuine but imperfect work. William Morris founded the SPAB in 1877 to defend old buildings from this treatment. He saw that the most vulnerable buildings were those of most eloquent craftsmanship, survivors from a time before mass-production took hold. In the manifesto which he wrote for the new Society, and which guides our work to this day, he put the strongest case against their restoration, proposing instead a policy of skilful repair.
 
We are constantly studying, developing and improving ways of putting this policy into practice through the advice, teaching and casework which we undertake. This is what sets the SPAB apart from other conservation societies. Ours is not a learned body, nor are we champions of any one style or period. Historic buildings cannot be made to last for ever, but, by the abstemious approach advocated by the Society, they will survive as long as possible, and suffer the least alteration.
 
Our work is guided by these principles:
 
Repair not restoration
Although no building can withstand decay, neglect and depredation entirely, neither can aesthetic judgement nor archaeological proof justify the reproduction of worn or missing parts. Only as a practical expedient on a small scale can a case for restoration be argued.
 
Responsible methods
 A repair done today should not preclude treatment tomorrow, nor should it result in further loss of fabric.
 
Complement not parody
 New work should express modern needs in a modern language. These are the only terms in which new can relate to old in a way which is positive and responsive at the same time. If an addition proves essential, it should not be made to out-do or out-last the original.
 
Regular maintenance
 This is the most practical and economic form of preservation.
 
Information
 To repair old buildings well, they must be understood. Appreciation of a building's particular architectural qualities and a study of its construction, use and social development are all enlightening. These factors also help us to see why decay sets in and how it may be put right.
 
Essential work
 The only work which is unquestionably necessary (whether it be repair, renewal or addition) is that essential to a building's survival.
 
Integrity
 As good buildings age, the bond with their sites strengthens. A beautiful, interesting or simply ancient building still belongs where it stands however corrupted that place may have become. Use and adaptation of buildings leave their marks and these, in time, we also see as aspects of the building's integrity. This is why the Society will not condone the moving or gutting of buildings or their reduction to mere facades. Repairs carried out in place, rather than on elements dismantled and moved to the work-bench, help retain these qualities of veracity and continuity.
 
Fit new to old
 When repairs are made, new material should always be fitted to the old and not the old adapted to accept the new. In this way more ancient fabric will survive.
 
Workmanship
 Why try to hide good repairs? Careful, considered workmanship does justice to fine buildings, leaving the most durable and useful record of what has been done. On the other hand, work concealed deliberately or artificially aged, even with the best intentions, is bound to mislead.
 
Materials
 The use of architectural features from elsewhere confuses the understanding and appreciation of a building, even making the untouched parts seem spurious. Trade in salvaged building materials encourages the destruction of old buildings, whereas demand for the same materials new helps keep them in production. The use of different but compatible materials can be an honest alternative.
 
Respect for age
 Bulging, bowing, sagging and leaning are signs of age which deserve respect. Good repair will not officiously iron them out, smarten them or hide the imperfections. Age can confer a beauty of its own. These are qualities to care for, not blemishes to be eradicated."

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Interesting analysis of Wm Morris's SPAB credo and the organization's manifesto.

I'd say I agree with your basic take on its message but not entirely. In some ways, certainly as applied to the art form of golf course architecture the SPAB manifesto would be relatively and inherently contradictory and perhaps was even that in its message about ancient buildings.

It seems to say that it's OK to adapt ancient buidings honestly to the artistic sensibilities of current times but to somehow attempt to leave the veneers of past eras intact. Is that really feasible or possible in golf course architecture, or even ancient buildings, for that matter?

And later in the manifesto it even appears to contradict that dictate by saying it would be more appropriate to just leave the old building (or golf architecture?) as it was and build a new one next to it that's more appropriate to current times and the artistic sensibilies of current times).

(in a golf architectural sense today that would be something like the creation of an alternate green on PVGC's #8 or Riviera's #10 rather than touch the original in some attempt to correct any problems either may've had in play due to their small size).

It does appear to condemn any attempts at restoration of any kind as inherently bogus or destructive. We certainly can see in this were Tom MacWood gets his rather odd and unrealisic ideas about the dangers of restoration architecture, can't we?  

It's too bad he can't figure out how to engage in the nuts and bolts of a discussion or debate about this kind of analogy to current golf course architecture, particularly restorations and in my opinion that shows more clearly the fallacies of his assumptions and conclusions in his Arts and Crafts essay (A&C as inspired by Wm Morris's ideas et al) and how A&C both primarily influenced golf course architecture and how a manifesto or principle like SPAB's should be used as an example to follow in the preservation of golf course architecture in the future.

One thing I do pick up that may be applied from SPAB's manifesto to golf course architecture is the idea of how evolutionary changes in golf course architecture that are a result of both daily play (for instance the rising of some bunker faces and the natural alteration of greenspace just over them due to evolutionary "sand kick") as well as constant and daily maintenance practices should be left alone. In a sense that could be considered the antique or natural evolutionary "veneer" of golf course architecture in the sense SPAB's manifesto contemplates it.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Tom

You obviously disagree with SPAD re: restoration.  Reading your post and their Manifesto, they (and Morris) would be loathe to reverse ANY changes, even the 12th at GCGC or the recent work at Engineers, IMHO--much less, any of the changes over the past 70 years at Augusta.  Am I mnissing something?

Rich

PS--the "freeway" holes at SFGC were not "lost altogether."  I walked the ground with Doak and his guys a few months ago, and most of what Tillinghast did was still there or easily findable and recoverable.  As I remember, Tom was amazed at how little golfing land was actually "lost" to the freeway.  Hopefully he can chip in to confirm or refresh or even deny my memory.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Those fall under repair (of previous irresponsible repairs) and essential work. Is there anyone seriously advocating restoration of ANGC?

While I think SPAB is a good model (as are some of the other similar organizations) I don't think we should follow it or them blindly. Intelligent modification of their guidelines, taking into account the unique aspects of golf architecture, is what I advocate.

Regarding SFGC they misjudged the intrusion of the freeway...the land is still there (most of it anyway), as is the land where the old 12th at GCGC one stood.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Let's see if we can finally have an intelligent discussion on this subject taking what you said in that last post and applying it to golf course architecture and what you perceive to be SPAB's manifesto and its credo;

"Rich
Where have you been? I've been complaining about inaccurate restoration, redesign in the name of restoration of important designs, and the destruction of original work and advocating benign restoration (cutting trees, expanding fairways & greens) of historic designs for several years. For example the rebuilding/recontouring of Engineers greens or digging up every MacKenzie/Hunter bunker at Cypress Point or digging up every Wilson/Flynn/Valentine bunker at Merion."

Tom MacWood;

Yes, you have been complaining about those things but what about the practicality of how those features just mentioned by you---eg Engineers greens or the Mackenzie/Hunter bunkers at Cypress Point or the Wilson/Flynn/Valentine's bunkers at Merion, actually function and perform in play for golfers of this time or any time?

SPAB's manifesto appears to imply that those features should have their evolutionary "veneer" left intact while at the same time accomodating the artistic sensibilities of current times through the evolutionary changes of time. As applied to golf cousrse architecture that would require that the bunkers of Cypress and Merion perform as golfers today expect them to perform and that the greens of Engineers perform as golfers today expect them to perform.

How can Cypress or Merion's bunker be expected to perform today as golfers expect them to perform and at the same time have their evolutionary "veneer" be left intact?

I'll tell you exactly how the bunkers of Cypress and Merion could have accomplished that. At least with Merion the club could have left their old evolutionary surrounds just as they were and continued to fix them as needed on a daily basis while having their sanding and drainage completely repaired to the necessary function of expected play of today.

This is precisely what we here recommended to Merion before their bunker project but I don't see that you recommended that  because you've never been here and you didn't even realize or understand those details, as far as I can tell.

What about the greens of Engineers being expected to perform as golfers expect them to today while perserving the "veneer" of their evolutionary processes? Well, obviously that problem and solution is far more difficult to accomplish for obvious reasons and apparently Tripp Davis explained on here in detail how he attempted to do that by making some of their surfaces more playable while attempting to make the look of them similar to what they were and had evolved into.

Obviously you didn't and don't accept that practice but one needs to ask you again where is the reality in your position? Where is even your acceptance in that context of SPAB's own dictates (in that context)? How can some of the sections of those greens be expected to perform to the expectations of today without doing what Tripp Davis did?

"There are relatively small percentage of historic designs that should preserved and protected IMO. And I would save restoration to features like the 12th at GCGC or the freeway holes at SFGC which have been lost altother. If a historic golf course has evolved gracefully I say leave it alone...except for repairs and benign restoration. The remainder (or majority of other courses) could use some renovation and redesign work hoepfully from a graduate of remodel university."

You keep saying to just leave some old architecture alone but where is your recognition of how it needs to function at any particular time and era to accomplish the inherent purpose of its existence---eg to play golf on it given the golf and architectural sensibilities of current times?

Your positions on this subject are theoretical, at best, and your positions need to become more practical to be realistic as they apply to golf course architecture and to the extent they are clearly theoretical they lack the necessary practicality in functionality that even Morris and SPAB appear to endorse in SPAB's manifesto.  

This is precisely the danger in approaching subjects like this the way you do. This is the dangers of "postivism". You merely select what seems convenient to your arguement while at the same time simply neglecting to consider or recognize other necessary realities that don't fit into your arguement and your assumptions and conclusion.

The extent you continue to do that will always be the extent your message will be impractical and will also be the extent you will lack credibility in the real world of golf course architecture, particularly so-called restoration architecture.

[T_MacWood]

"How can Cypress or Merion's bunker be expected to perform today as golfers expect them to perform and at the same time have their evolutionary "veneer" be left intact?"

What was wrong with the way Cypress Point's bunkers performed?  

What was wrong with the sensative repair Gil Hanse advocated at Merion?

If Engineers has to rebuild and recontour the majority of their original greens to meet todays golfer's expectations than their expectations need to be changed. Medinah over the weekend is a good example of why we should not be removing the contours from our most interesting old greens (in hopes of reaching higher and higher stimp readings).

If there had been a similar organization - golf's version of SPAB - fifty years ago do you think we would be talking about restoring the old 12th today? I'm not sure how your current expectations of performance (stimp meter readings and such) can reconcile anything like the old 12th....too bad.

[TEPaul]

"What was wrong with the sensative repair Gil Hanse advocated at Merion?"

Tom MacWood:

There was nothing wrong with the bunkers that Gil Hanse did at Merion, in my opinion.

However, a few of them particularly on #7 were considered by some members to be too grassy and too cuppy in their surrounds and therefore too penal. This is a supreme irony considering how grassy and penal the present bunkers of Merion East are today.

But perhaps you never knew that never having been here or not knowing what went on.

[TEPaul]

"If there had been a similar organization - golf's version of SPAB - fifty years ago do you think we would be talking about restoring the old 12th today? I'm not sure how your current expectations of performance (stimp meter readings and such) can reconcile anything like the old 12th....too bad."

Tom MacWood:

Perhaps it is you who needs a refresher course on SPAB's manifesto (as it applied to ancient building architecture and might similarly apply to golf course architecture, either fifty years ago or today ) as it appears you either don't fully understand it or continue to fail to recognize it and admit to it.

In my opinion, SPAB's manifesto is somewhat inherently contradictory in what it says about building architecture, and far more so to golf course architecture. Read Rich Goodale's thread on SPAD's manifesto. He posted a link to it and gave his own opinion of it and how it might apply to golf architecture today or at any other time.

I'd pretty much agree with Rich's take on it but I doubt you would which only means again you take what's convenient to you to make some point and simply neglect the fact of other ideas even within SPAB's manifesto that aren't convenient to your point or your conclusion.

It even appears to me that you have never even understood or appreciated SPAB's entire manifesto or credo as well as Rich Goodale just did.

If you'd simply engage in a discussion of the details of how it might apply to golf course architecture as golf architects and clubs have to (instead of constantly answering questions with other questions) I think that would become clear, but you continue to avoid doing that and I think it's becoming pretty clear why---eg there is no real logic in reality in what you've been saying. Perhaps you even realize that now and that's why you constantly avoid an intelligent discussion on the details of this subject.  

[Tom_Doak]

" the inherent purpose of its existence -- to play golf on it given the golf and architectural sensibilities of the current times."

Tom Paul:  I clipped this out of your post above because it is the crux of this argument that never seems to end.

If you extend your statement too far, one could argue that every course needs updating to current times.  I'm sure you understand that would be even more tragic than leaving some of them alone.

My view is that NOT EVERY GOLF COURSE needs to be updated to current times and especially to current "architectural sensibilities", that is precisely how we've lost a bunch of great work.

One modern architectural sensibility is that every club wants a huge practice range close to their clubhouse.  I've seen five or six examples where clubs have converted two old holes to a practice range and tried to build "replacement" holes out on the far end of the course on new land ... and every one of those moves has been an unmitigated failure as far as building new holes of similar quality to those lost.  But none of the clubs are willing to sacrifice their beautiful new practice range for two good holes.

Not every club needs to keep up with the times.  Most clubs have memberships with a wide range of handicaps.  Their course does not need to remain as challenging for the top 5% of players as it was two generations ago, if it's still fine for everybody else.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()