Here's an architectural poser for you!

[TEPaul]

I've always felt that to a larger degree than many of us might think the separate routing and "designing up" phases of the design and construction of golf courses can be far more DISTINCT and possibly architecturally MEANINGFUL from each other than we may understand.

And taking the idea of this thread off some of what may have or should have been discussed in the "Macdonald vs Raynor" thread--here's the architectural poser?

If C.B. Macdonald had NOT originally hired Seth Raynor (a Southampton engineer with zero previous golf architecture experience) to help him build NGLA and shortly thereafter to beome his architecture partner would that one and some other Macdonald/Raynor courses have turned out differently in architectural "look"?

Let's just suppose Macdonald had designed NGLA alone and hired a crew like the American Construction Co. (Cypress, Monterrey, Pebble (?)) to build the course for him (and his future courses). Would it (they) have turned out different in "look" or even in some elements of design? And how and by how much?

I say they would have in far more ways than many of us may understand or be willing to admit.

Or conversely, let's say that Mackenzie hired Raynor as his partner to build Cypress (Monterrey, ANGC, Crystal Downs etc). Would those courses have turned out differently in "look" or design? And of course, how and by how much?

I say they would have.

But what I think is far more likely is that Mackenzie would have been far less likely to have partnered with Raynor than Macdonald would have been likely to use a construction crew like the American Construction Co (in my opinion perhaps one of the finest construction crews ever assembled!).

These are interesting questions. And I think for someone to say there wouldn't have been any difference at all is not really understanding a few fundamental things about golf course design and construction.

One could of course say that the look of NGLA (a look that must have massively influenced Raynor's future work) was of course a borrowing in look and design from many of the European courses of a much earlier time--a pallette definitely inspired by Macdonald--and also perhaps a pallette that had some early rudimentary engineered looking architecture to it.

Still it's a fundamentally interesting poser to consider. And I hope no one tries to say there is no difference in architectural "look" and possibly design elements between the styles of Macdonald/Raynor and Mackenzie/et al because anyone can see that's certainly not true.

[Jim Sweeney]

If CB had hired someone other than Raynor to build his course, certainly the final look would be different. However, he would still have built variations of the great holes, just as he did with Seth.

Had Mackenzie brought in Raynor as his partner, certainly his courses would be different in some, if not many ways. It's the nature of collaberation to negotiate- give some to get some- and the results are never all one way or the other.

No question, too, that the construction company greatly influences the final result- alittle extra here, a little less there, and the look becomes somewhat different from the original concept, and sometimes to the betterment of the project.

[TEPaul]

jesplusone:

I know. I realize there would've been differences but the question is what would they have been--how would they have been different and by how much? What would the difference in 'look' be, for instance, and by how much?

I don't want anyone to assume that I'm saying there's anything wrong with the angular and engineered look of some of the Macdonald/Raynor architectural collaboration and certainly the highly angular and engineered look of many of the Raynor courses when he went out on his own but, My God, are they ever different looking from the work and style of MacKenzie, Maxwell, Hunter, Colt, Alison, Fowler, et al.

I'm certainly interested in how different the styles and architecture of these various architects are from each other  but I'm not asking anyone to point that out to me--I already know that.

What I would be interested in getting to the bottom of eventually, though, is understanding better and far more clearly exactly why it may have been so different from each other.

Because if that's better understood, I think, it becomes much more clear and consequently we're all better able to understand the evolution of that time better and the various influences that were taking place at that time.

Those probably vastly different influences were extremely significant to the entire evolution of architecture to come, I think, and they should be more clearly defined so we can understand them better.  

[ForkaB]

Tom

I tend to think that this is a no-brainer--but an elegantly and inriguingly presented one!  I think that all realtionships in life happen by chance (even, or even mostly, birth!), and any change in the chances that occur would probably have massively affected all of our destinies.  GCA should be no different.

I'd like, however, to hear from the guys who should know--Doak, Bauer, Moran, Eckenrode, Ristola, Meagher, etc.  How much is your style influenced by the guys (and girls?) who have become part of your history?

[Jim Sweeney]

Tom-

I have ti think about this a little more. I'm trying this approach- pick one hole, a CB favorite, and try to imagine what it would like if Mack. were in charge of construction.

How do you explain the eighth hole at Yale? Doesn't that green have some MAckenzie-ish slopes, as compared to the pronounced geometric designs of most of CB's greens? Just make those bunker edges more free form and.....?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Personally, I'd prefer not to get into a discussion of whether or not the "little fates" or our lives influence our lives. Personally, I believe they do and to a remarkable extent but that's a very interesting subject for another time and maybe another website other than a golf architectural one.

What I'd like to explore here is the vastly different "look" of the architecture of Macdonald/Raynor (compared to those others, mostly MacKenzie) but particularly Raynor himself when he was clearly out on his own without the participation of Macdonald (I'm not sure how much anyone understands the full extent of that point alone--that Raynor did not partner actively with Macd that long!!--and certainly not throughout his career).

It's my distinct sense that an architect such as MacKenzie, although perhaps admiring of Raynor's (Macd) architecture in some ways (maybe many ways) would have NEVER accepted that angular and engineered look that Raynor carried throughout his career and probably became much of his "signature"--and obviously a known popular signature at that!

But in my opinion, architects such as MacKenzie, Maxwell, Colt, Alison, Flynn, Tillinghast and a number of others like them were actively and extremely dedicatedly divorcing themselves and their architecture from that angular and engineered look in the shapes of all the architectural features they designed and built.

And the differences in look between the two schools of thought were large and vast! They still are!

For God's sake, anyone not even interested in architecture could see looking at a Raynor bunker (compared to a MacKenzie bunker) basically violates all the precepts of "camouflage" that MacKenzie was so dedicated to in his architectural philosophy.

That entire philosophy of camouflage in architecture to Mackenzie centered around "naturalizing" ALL the look and lines of his architecture and ALL his man-made features any conceivable way he could.

How could he have NOT resisted the look of Raynor's highly engineered architecture if that was true? The look of some of  Raynor's bunkers look more like a completely "British man-made military trench" than anything one could imagine.

This was the very thing MacKenzie was so forcefully proposing to the British military to avoid in "look". And frankly, the differences in "look" between man-made and the "look" of what appears to be natural was not incidental in this philosophy, it was the essence and center of his entire camouflage philosophy as it pertained to both military application and golf architectural application!

He recommended the naturalizing of man-made features to look like nature made them just as he observed the Boer's did so completely. And because of it to remarkable military effect and result (less dead bodies because of it's indistinguishability from natural ground!).

And I hate to say it to you Rich, but there could be a great deal of the theoretical influence of Behr in all this with his dedicated ideas on "naturalizing" the "LOOK" of man-made architecture!

GeoffShac is trying to compile all Behr's writing on this very subject (and others). Some of us are trying to figure out what the influences of it were. GeoffShac, in other ways, and from other avenues, is beginning to discover, he thinks, that Behr may have been a much larger influence on MacKenzie and his thinking, or perhaps the other way around, than anyone realized. They certainly were in the same place at the same time!

But possibly you don't even notice this difference in look, Rich, or maybe you don't even care about the differences in look one iota. Maybe you don't care about the differences in philosophies or the influences of them either. But we do. We want to look into them and discover what they might mean and where they led.

Wasn't it you who's said, "a hole is just a hole is a hole is a hole"?

[TEPaul]

jesplusone:

Probably a better example would be to look again at Charleston's #11 and ask yourself if an architect such as MacKenzie et al would EVER have built a hole that "LOOKED" like that? Forget about playability--that's not what this subject is about--it's about a vast difference in architectural "look" and ultimately if that has any importance at all and if so what and how much??

We can probably all concede that a hole like Charleston's #11 played interesting, plays great. Mackenzie et al might have been the first to concede that point but that's not the point of this subject.

Or think of the look of a classic Raynor biarritz hole. Unquestionably a great concept, a great design. But it's one that's extremely angular in green shape and particularly the long angular man-made looking trench bunkers on either side.

Is that a look that a Mackenzie, Maxwell, Colt, Alision, Flynn, Tillinghast et al would have EVER built (despite how well it might play)?

I don't think so. And if not--why not?

[ForkaB]

Tom

Sorry for any confusion.

I read your first post to pose the question:  "If MacDonald hadn't hired Raynor, would his designs have been different?" And the corollary "If Mackenzie had hired Raynor, would his body of work been different?"  I still think these questions are a slam dunk, with the answer to both being "Yes."

Your latest post is different, asking to what degree the engineering bent of Raynor might have led MacDonald towards a more geometric style of GCA, and how this style mike contrast with MacKenzie's more florid bent.  Good quesiton, but a different one and much more difficult to answer.

Nevertheless, didn't we go over alot of this before in the "Raynor Paradox" (which, of course did not turn out to be one....) thread?  To make a huge generalisation, MacK liked to find stuff, MacD liked to build stuff.  N'est-ce pas?

Therefore, from my limited knowledge, I would assume that MacKenzie would probably never have hired Raynor, due to diffrences in philosophy, and I assure that MacDonald hired Raynor because of a similarity in philosophy.  But I'm just guessing

[RJ_Daley]

Going back to Raynor's basic knowledge, which was that of an engineer without any preconceived ideas about golf strategy or basic tenents of design, I think that C.B.'s obvious influence on what would become Raynor's style is solely dependent on his mentor's principles.  Had Raynor come to MacKenzie fresh and with no fundamental knowledge of golf strategy and design style, he would have gone out on his own and produced more MacKenzian looking work, probably like Alex Russell did.  Raynor would have become a disciple of "lay of the land" and ecomomy of construction, rather than big engineering projects as a perfectly acceptable method and point of design to start from.  Of course, MacKenzie may not have ever needed Raynor or any other engineer of his skills, as his designs never did contemplate the extensive need for major engineering earthworks, like C.B. would readily take on, and which ideas were passed on to Raynor and Banks.

It is interesting that both C.B. and MacKenzie are the only two that had a series of enumerated design principles set forth in simple basic tenents.  In part, they are similar in design-aesthetic philosophy, and goals of how to achieve widespread pleasurable play, but stated slightly differently.

In our modern times, it is not that much different.  There is a mentoring system in place, and many design-constructors are influenced by the school of design approach that they first got exposed to with thier first jobs under a name architect.  I think Tony Ristola has expressed the desire to not want construction personnel that have extensive golf course building prior experience, because he wants to mold them to his ideas without other preconcieved notions running in their heads to pollute the transmission of his own design principles and goals, as he passes them on to them on a daily basis, on site.

[RJ_Daley]

Rich, we seemed to post at the same time, but might be on the same wave length.

[ForkaB]

Dick, if you agree with me you are in danger of double secret probation on this site.  Get back to your curling!

[TEPaul]

Rich:

That's why in the first post I asked the question twice---"And, of course, how and by how much?" Perhaps that wasn't worth reading?

In the "Raynor Paradox" thread I do remember discussing the meaning of his engineered architectural "lines" and features and what they meant in the context of the importance of naturalism in golf but this is a more specific discussion to me because it actually compares him that way to MacKenzie and particularly the significance of MacKenzie's dedicated ideas on camouflage and how that effected "naturalism" in architectural features and "lines".

[TEPaul]

Rich:

If you don't stop your constant contrariness for contrariness's sake on here and I have anything to say about it your probation is going to be anything but double secret! It will be more along the public lines of a man with his head in a stock for treason against the USA in the middle of the town square during a Fourth of July celebration!

[RJ_Daley]

I'm sorry, but I did go at that question wrong.  I focused on whether Raynor would have been different if under MacKenzie than C.B.  And, I think he most certainly would have, if MacKenzie would have used him in the first place.  

But, I don't think MacKenzie's style would have been different if he had collaborated with Raynor and the idea that he would somehow yield to more angular or geometric influences of the engineer.  MacKenzie began to realise that his work would be more economical and efficient if he did bring in "experts" as he spoke about in "The Spirit of St Andrews" in the chapter about Economy in Golf Contruction.   But, I think we all know that MacKenzie was far too strong minded of a man to allow his basic design ideas of natural appearing (if created) or lay of the land approach to get polluted with geometric engineered looks.  So, if he had Raynor to collaborate with as an expert contributor, only Raynor would have taken away altered ideas, not MacKenzie.

I think that C.B. just wasn't as dogmatic about natural appearing and lay of the land and he was not averse to some artificial looking features to accomplish the strategy and playability, and thus may have yielded somewhat to the engineered effecient lines and forms approach that resulted from the consultations with the engineering side.  But, I think we are just left to guess, as C.B. never really wrote anything about the engineering-design interface like MacKenzie, did he?

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

TE
Based on MacKenzie's output around the world (with many different constructors) the hiring of Raynor would've had little effect on his results, however MacKenzie would've had major effect on Raynor.

Do you think Raynor had more effect on Macdonald than the opposite? The original Chicago GC pre-Raynor is evidence of Macdonald's basic tendencies - very similar to the so called Raynor look.

Rich said
"To make a huge generalisation, MacK liked to find stuff, MacD liked to build stuff."

Macdonald and Raynor were as good as anyone at finding stuff. They both produced brilliant routings that maximized the most interesting natural features of the site. It is those interesting natural features juxtaposed against their angular features that sets up a very appealing contrast -- the Raynor paradox.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Clearly, the straight lines had lots to do with Raynor's engineering training.  After all, there aren't that many straight lines on the great Scottish holes CB was trying to copy, although, there are some.  Pete Dye told me he got the straight lines idea from the little ditch at Prestwick 18.  According to him, he realized everyone was doing curves, so he would do straight lines, just to get a different look.

Its not uncommon for LUI or Wadsworth to send shaping personell around to different architects jobs.  I know of times when the shapers will tell me "that's how we did it on the last Fazio job."  I also have examples of them transferring my ideas back!  It would have happened back then, as well.

So, assuming American Golf was already experienced at the time of NGLA, with another architect, they would have had more influence.  Seth had to be asking questions about what to do, and CB wasn't there every day.  So, if the contractor had some knowledge, it would have gotten in there somehow.  What's interesting, is the difference in the MacKenzie approach - go natural - versus the Raynor approach - force into the topo 18 reliable strategic concepts.

It appears to me that Raynor did get a bit more rounded and natural as time went on.  Perhaps because of different shapers.  Perhaps because he was interested in what other architects did, perhaps pressure to conform, by making his style a bit more rounded.  Just speculation.

As to Rich's question about influences of your "history" that was hammered home to me yesterday watching La Costa.  Mentored by Killian and Nugent, they always told the story of wanting to break out of the RB Harris mold.  They studied the work of Jones and Wilson, and selected Wilson as the basis for their style.  Although my style has evolved over 20 years of independent practice, that is mostly trial and error, and being willing to import other concepts from historical or even modern courses.  When you look at the LaCosta style, especially the bunkers, mine are still similar.  I have tried, but I just can't really do the Pete Dye style bunkers, for instance.  As you suggest, that is how much your early training is drilled into you!

If you are asking about what associates under me influenced my design, then I can say that the men (in my case) in charge of the projects under me always exhibited distinct style!  For example, Jeff Blume, who recently posted here, seemed to have a fondness for clusters of bunkers.  On the fisrt project where he was drawing the greens plans, he changed several greenside bunker complexes from single large bunkers to those clusters, whereas my intent was to do one cluster for variety......Jeff and a few others have struck out on their own.  Like me 20 years ago, I think we both had the strength of personality to want things our own way.  Associate architects never feel they have enough input.

In my case, I left K and N because they wouldn't do the grass bunkers and mounds that Ross did.  They did Dick Wilson!  Its not that I wasn't intent on starting my own firm anyway, but I recall them ordering me to replace a grass bunker because "we don't do that" as the impetus to go!  And that was after they stood on the tee and said it looked interesting.  

I'm sure Kelly and others could tell a similar story.....

PS.  My future - and very old school - father in law naturally questioned my sanity.  After deciding to marry his daughter, he then heard I quit a perfectly good job because I didn't want to follow orders from the boss.  I thinkk he had apoplexy when he found out we were moving to Texas without either having any job prospects in hand.  

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Also there seems to evidence that MacD/Raynor's features are much more angular today than they were original intended to be--over the years they have become more liniar and have lost their original broken lines.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Your reply reminds me that you shared some correspondance regarding the Californians distain for Raynor, his manufactured greens, plastic models, etc.  Tom Pauls theoretical question doesn't involve personalities, or other actual historical incidents, but it would have been interesting for Seth to do the CP design, and perhaps have the MacKenzine/Thomas Trained crew on site more often because of geopgraphy.  And when Seth found out what some of them had said in the sales portion, well it would have gotten dicey.

What would have CP turned out like if a cat fight had broken out between architect and contractor for personal reasons?

[TEPaul]

"Your reply reminds me that you shared some correspondance regarding the Californians distain for Raynor, his manufactured greens, plastic models, etc"

JeffB:

I've never once seen any correspondence or even opinion from any architect regarding the slightest distain for Seth Raynor's style.

However, I have seen, a number of times, the criticism of the use of plasticine models by some architects of other architects who used them to fit "copies" of holes from one part of the world to a site in another part of the world but my recollection is that Seth Raynor was definitely never mentioned in that opinion writing. I've actually never even heard that Raynor did use plasticine models until your post.

One of those who did criticize the use of plasticine models, though, was definitely Alister MacKenzie.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom MacWood,

help me out here, as you usually do when I get my history mixed up!  Weren't you the one who posted, while discussing AIA and ethics, an artilcle by either Hunter or MacKenzie saying, loosely, "We now have a distinguished architect from the east proposing to copy famous holes here - not taking  into consideration the underlying geology, etc. etc. etc.?

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

Well, if that's what they said it does sound like Raynor they were talking about. Some of the others who used plasticine models were criticized too. I can't at the moment remember who they all were but some of them were mentioned by name--I'll have to check the books to find out who criticized whom. Tillinghast had something to say about plasticine models too, I believe.

But Jeff, that must have been a far less politically correct world back then or certainly one that did not discourage criticism within the profession as the ASGCA obviously does which is really no different than most other trade associations.

There was a good deal more general and direct and specific criticism that went on back then and in periodical writing too.

In Macdonald's book there was a direct critical mention by Macdonald of an architect who in his opinion simply thought way too damn much. There's almost no doubt in my mind Macdonald was referring to Max Behr.

And then Wayne and I found a letter from Hugh Wilson to Piper and Oakley asking them if they'd read an article by Max Behr. Wilson who appeared to have a very good and dry sense of humor mentioned to Piper and Oakley that Behr seemed an incredible writer and incredible mind and that Wilson was happy to know (from Behr's article) that what he (Wilson) had been doing for the last ten years with the development of Merion G.C. was a great moral contribution to mankind!!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Jeff
MacKenzie altered Raynor's Monterey Peninsula and said if given more time he could have improved it even more. I don't think he was critical of MacD's copies, although he did say he liked his original holes better (he said he preferred the NGLA to PVGC!). I do remember a quote like that, I think it may have come from another Brit.

The plasticine fellow was Tom Simpson.

[TEPaul]

As far as I can see at this point, the only really significant architects during the multi-year creation of Pine Valley who had no real contribution of any kind to the course were Ross, MacKenzie and Raynor.

[Jeff Blume]

Jeff:

After all these years I am amazed that you can remember what my preferences were with regard to bunkering.  Your memory is correct as my designs still have a tendency to "cluster" or "group" bunkers together to communicate the desired tactical intent, but in the interest of variety I will use large bunkers if the opportunity presents itself and fits within the overall concept.  I hope business is good, and your family is all doing well.  

To follow the theme of this thread, I would say that most if not all architects are definitely influenced by their former employers, and the other industry contacts that they encounter.  This is not only true with regard to the finished product, but relates to the design and business approach as well.

In my case, I can certainly say that Jeff Brauer and Robert von Hagge have had a distinct influence on my approach to design.  Usually in a positive aspect, but also in the differences of opinion that arise between any co-workers.  Even though I have been away from Jeff's office for more than ten years, my technical design approach (particulary  routing,grading and drainage) is influenced by what I learned during that time.  Similarly, Bob's artistic approach to the field sketches remains a part of my philosophy, although the shaping of my designs is usually understated in comparison.  

As Jeff stated above, the differences of opinion on philosophy and design are what influences associate architects to the natural progression of "going on their own".  There is always more than one way to approach a specific design problem, and these different methods create the wonderful variety we have in golf course architecture today.  Having said that, I do believe that each architect's style is influence both from their personal past, and the past of their mentors.  Moving from Jeff's office to Bob's was not a tremendous shock for me due to the fact that both were significantly influenced by Dick Wilson, Toomey and Flynn etc.  Most architects have a pedigree of philosophy that was born from their mentors, and they usually will follow it to arrive at a cohesive and timeless design.  However, as I learned from Bob, it is sometimes necessary to think "outside the box", and use the influence of others to achieve a great design.  



    

[TEPaul]

Jeff Blume:

Most of us are basically architectural neophytes (in the field sense). Help us out here and tell us who you are and a little about yourself.