[T_MacWood]

On a recent thread some of the early--quite crude--work of Ross, O'Neil and Watson was discussed....others similar examples include Thomas and Emmet. These early courses are dramatically different than their later more polished designs. On the other hand there have been a few architects who seem to have hit a home run on their first try...Fowler and Maxwell are two to consider.

Which is the more common path....examples? Are there any dramatic modern examples?

[Chris_Clouser]

I wouldn't exclude Maxwell from this conversation just because he did so well with his first course at Dornick Hills.  That course was unlike anything else he did the rest of his career.  It was a direct imitation of what he picked up from his tutelage under Macdonald from 1909 -1913.  The back nine specifically was inspired by the "ideal course" concept and used many of those same principles and holes that Macdonald thought were so very special.  The front nine (also the second nine holes) had some of these but was much more loosely based on these and a little more representative of the traditional thoughts on design of Tillinghast, Raynor, Macdonald and Travis at the time.  

His evolution really started with his next course at Twin Hills where he really started to evolve his style into much more what it was at his later works at Southern Hills, Prairie Dunes and Old Town.  And yes Mackenzie did influence that style, but not nearly to the degree that so many attribute it.  He probably helped Maxwell with some bunkering techniques, but pretty much everything he did after that is similar in nature with what he did before the Mackenzie partnership.  What eventually came about due to this evolution was a completely different style from the Dornick course but was founded on some of the same very characteristics and ideals that Macdonald used.

[TEPaul]

"Which is the more common path....?"

Perhaps the most interesting fact of all is not just those that hit homeruns on their first try but a couple that hit homeruns on their first and ONLY try.

That'd include such courses as Merion, PVGC and Oakmont and as a trio golf architecture doesn't get much better than those. None of the architects of those three were professionals either.  The one common theme of all three is all three courses were worked on by those three architects for years and sometimes decades!

But I think the most interesting architect to follow the entire career of and how it evolved is the consummate professional architect, Ross. I don't think his early work should be considered crude just much simpler and also squarer or more geometric than it later became. Most (but not all) of the greens at LuLu (first Ross course in Penna) were squarish and at GMGC about 4-6 years later many were basically squarish with "flareouts" on both back corners!

But if Willie Watson really did design the Annandale G.C (circa 1900) that's in that photo in the introduction to "The Golden Age of Golf Design" then compared to his later work that would probably have to be considered the greatest architectural change in type and style of all time. Tom MacWood is apparently implying Watson designed that Annandale course in that photo but I, for one, am no buying that contention.

And I'm definitely not buying Tom MacWood's contention that those piles of sand in that bunker at Oakley were ever considered by Ross or anyone else to be a permanent architectural feature. In my opinion, and apparently in Paul Cowley's opinion, those piles of sand were probably spread throughout that bunker the day after that photo, or photo hoax, or whatever you want to call it, was taken.

That photographic ploy is probably not much different than that hoax arcticle that was written in the USGA Green Section Report in the 1920s by the world's worst architect with that clever name. Tillinghast or some other clever writer of that time probably did that one under that humorous pseudonym as the ultimate spoof. Sure fooled me until a couple of paragraphs into it.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Instead of making every thread a referendum on me, why not start a seperate topic 'Tom MacWood'. I know its your favorite subject...I see no reason why others shouldn't or wouldn't be equally enthralled with TM. I really think it would set every GCA record for views and posts (even if 99% of them are yours).

Every time you get the urge you could post something about yours truly...perhaps your opinion of my latest comments or maybe something on my need to get involved in a restoration or why purists are dangerous to clubmembers or the pros and cons of living in Ohio.

A Tom MacWood discussion, everday, all the time...it would be fascinating!

In fact I think it should be made into a TV show:

"TE Paul on Tom MacWood"  

-a lively one man dialog, focusing upon a confused purist living in Ohio, hosted by a well oiled blueblood with more than a few screws loose.

[paul cowley]

tom mac...good question which , while pondering , leads to a parallel consideration of when does a course become architecturally mature ?.....i ask this in the bigger sense of restoration or renovation .
  courses , like their designers , are born , age and mature....at what period of their existance , or their designers maturity , does one strive for in a restoration ?
...youth, middle or mature old age ?

   its like the religious question of , when meeting  a person in heaven who has died before you , is one reunited with that person at the same age of their time of death ?........

[T_MacWood]

Paul
Was your first solo design a home run...a double...single...a slow dribbler to the mound? What was your first solo design?

[paul cowley]

tom mac .....as i type at the rate of twelve words per minute [eight if they are bigger], i missed your previous , marvelous post ......i love the purist versus screwlooseblueblood analogy

 sebonic , pacific dunonic , friars head tonic be damned , i want more of tom tom !!!!!!!

[paul cowley]

....tom , caught typing once again

first solo course ...orchard creek in altamont , ny.
   1.2 million construction budget ...moved 40,000 yds on a so/so site .....was voted golf digests best new bargain of the year in 2001 , missed their top ten best new by a third of a point.....greens fees still 25 dollars and they made money the first year....i'd give it a triple with what i had to work with.

[T_MacWood]

Paul
Enough about you.

Back to me. On second thought...I'm not crazy about the title of the TV show..."TE Paul on Tom MacWood"...it might spark visions of a prison cell. How about "TE Paul examines Tom MacWood".

I'm not so sure about that one either.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

Hell, I'd be willing to keep it up just for the benefit of my good friend from Georgia---he seems to enjopy it. Don't you think it's fun and sort of cool to be asked to account for some of the things you say on here?  

Perhaps not as I notice you never really bother to answer  the questions I ask you other than to write posts like the one above or to mention I ask a lot of questions. I'm sort of hoping you might also comment again one of these days on whether or not you really believe Ross intended those piles of sand in that Oakley bunker to be permanent.  

And I'd also like to know if you'd enjoy being involved in a real restoration of a course involving real live people with a real live membership who give real live opinions about what they want and don't want. Don't you think that'd be fun?  

But in the end none of this is about Tom MacWood as interesting as you might think I think that is--it's about golf architiecture and the restoration of it and things like that!  

[T_MacWood]

TE
I reckon you would....which is a little unsettling....I'm glad to see you take GCA too new heights with that last post. I wish you hadn't upped the anti...now I can't get that disturbing scene in Pulp Fiction out of my head. From now on you shall be known as 'The Gimp'.

You know you really should save your best material for the 'Tom MacWood' thread. I think you've got a bottle of Madeira calling you.

[Tim Taylor]

OK, I'll admit it, when I first saw the subject of this thread I thought it said "Architectural Masturbation". Which might be appropriate given some of the discussions on here.

Wink, wink, nudge, nudge

Tim T

[TEPaul]

Tom:

OK, I'll lay off, particularly since you don't seem interested in answering questions on here about some of the things you say, so what's the point anyway? But I'll admit if Donald Ross really did do something like you claim such as pile sand in a bunker at Oakley in 1909 with the thought to make them permanent mounds his architectural maturation really was quite stunning and certainly very broad!  

But Willie Watson's architectural maturation was broader if he really did design Annandale G.C. represented in that photo in "The Golden Age of Golf Design" and did the bunkers in that photo of Minikahda in 1927 above that you passed off as Ross and then critiziced the club and Ron Prichard for not restoring while at the same time sort of refusing to acknowledge that hole may have been redesigned by others in the ensuing 75 years!  

But who really cares if a few details like that don't really matter?

[T_MacWood]

"But Willie Watson's architectural maturation was broader if he really did design Annandale G.C. represented in that photo in 'The Golden Age of Golf Design'". What has your independent research uncovered on Watson?

"and did the bunkers in that photo of Minikahda in 1927 above that you passed off as Ross." Are you saying someone else is responsible for those bunkers? Who?

"and then critiziced the club and Ron Prichard for not restoring while at the same time sort of refusing to acknowledge that hole may have been redesigned by others in the ensuing 75 years!" What possibly could have occured in the last 75 to prevent that hole from being restored (I thought you were a die-hard restoration advocate)?  I'll even accept your conjecture.

And if those bunkers are the work of someone other than Ross, you and Prichard appear to reject Ross's decision to incorporate them into his new design? Why?

That is a similar decsion to the one taken at Aronomink... a decision that Ross built a very bold design (or incorporated some very unusual bunkering in the case of Minikahda), but the hell with him and his decsion, we will redesign the course based upon plans he apparently rejected (or in the case of Minikahda we will interject bunkers we feel are more representative of Ross).

What did Ron Prichard tell you about his mission statement at Minikahda?
 

[TEPaul]

"What did Ron Prichard tell you about his mission statement at Minikahda?"

That's a mighty big question there Tom! Did Pat put you up to that question? I'm not sure you can handle the answers right now! Why don't you go out and visit about a handful of restoration projects first and then ask me again?!

[T_MacWood]

"So maybe Minikahda wanted to do a Ross bunker-look restoration with that hole and not a Watson bunker-look restoration. Whatever it was I’m going to call Ron Prichard about this and find out what the club did want him to do, and maybe that'll explain a few things."

If you cared about preserving or restoring Ross's design why do you care what the club wanted? If they wanted to plow it up and plant zuccini would you applaud the club and Prichard for planting the zuccini?

[TEPaul]

"What has your independent research uncovered on Watson?"

My independent research? Gosh, that sound so professional and so cool! All I know about Watson is from his bio in C&W, from some brief mention of him in some of the books of GeoffShac and from his connection to Robert Hunter I picked up here and there.

"Are you saying someone else is responsible for those bunkers? Who?"

No, but like Dan Kelly I'm asking if they may have been designed and built by Willie Watson! Or perhaps even Foulis or someone who preceded Ross in 1917 at Minnikahda.

"What possibly could have occured in the last 75 to prevent the hole from being restored? I'll even accept conjecture."

Christ, you really are serious with that question aren't you? Oh, I don't know, there could be a thousand reasons. Perhaps you should think seriously about asking the golf club, or asking the membership of Minikahda if you've figured out yet there is one!

[TEPaul]

"If you cared about preserving or restoring Ross's design why do you care what the club wanted?"

Because I don't believe in sitting in some dream-world like you do. I believe in the realm of the possible and without caring or considering what the club wants the question of what happens there is moot anyway regarding my opinion or anyone else's who's not part of that golf club. Neither me nor Ron Prichard or anyone else can go to Minikahda G.C and tell them it doesn't matter what they want---all that matters is that you or me, or Ron or anyone else wants to preserve or restore that course to the way it was in 1927!

[TEPaul]

"If they wanted to plow it up and plant zuccini would you applaud the club and Prichard for planting the zuccini?"

No, but the last time I looked Ross grassed down faced bunkers didn't look that much like a zuchini patch! But I'll be sure to ask Ron Prichard when I speak to him if he knows of any Ross bunkers anywhere that may have been built by one of his regional foremen that look anything like a zuchini patch. If either of us can find one would you then feel it should be restored because it shows some kind of unique regional architectural interest?  

[T_MacWood]

"Because I don't believe in sitting in some dream-world like you do. I believe in the realm of the possible and without caring or considering what the club wants the question of what happens there is moot anyway regarding my opinion or anyone else's who's not part of that golf club. Neither me nor Ron Prichard or anyone else can go to Minikahda G.C and tell them it doesn't matter what they want---all that matters is that you or me, or Ron or anyone else wants to preserve or restore that course to the way it was in 1927!"

Spoken like a true restorationist!

[Mike_Cirba]

Gee...and I had forgotten what I loved about this site!!!  

Man, it's amazing how fired up we all get about golf course architecture.  If only our modern day politicians exhibited the same passion and eloquence in their mundane task of saving and protecting the world!  

I'm going to go back to the sidelines because I'm sadly not up to the task of matching such heartfelt volleys at present, but I wanted to assure you guys that I'm enjoying the discussion and I still love you both dearly.  (in keeping with the strangely compelling "prison shenanigans" overtones of this discussion)

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[Mike_Cirba]

Instead, I'd like to ask you both questions, based on observations I've noticed over time.

Tom Paul;  Do you think over time you've become much more inclined to just acknowledge the "will of the membership" not only as a reality, but also as something to accept and even embrace?  I mean, it's not like the historical precedent of member-stimulated changes to the classic courses has been all that positive.  Why should we suddenly believe that our present-day contemporaries have been miraculously enlightened and are somehow beyond criticism and reproach?

Tom MacWood; As a preservationist, how does a course and club deal with changes in the game that are undeniable?  Even Pete Dye believes that Donald Ross would be designing courses in a completely different vein today than he did in his time of crude implements poorly designed for the game.  Is there nothing valid to the idea that one tries to maintain and preserve the basic intent of the playability of a hole while altering the details to account for such changes?

Thanks to both of you for your passion and kind forbearance.
   

[DMoriarty]

And a question for you, Mike Cirba.  

Do you actually read the Tom v. Tom magnum post-offs?  Impressive in one way, but disappointing in another.  

I couldnt begin to count the number of interesting threads I've abandoned when this neverending grudge match begins yet another round.  

[TEPaul]

"Spoken like a true restorationist!"

Tom MacWood:

In the last month or so you seem to be trying to give architectural restoration a bad name on here, and as long as I'm around here I'm gonna try real hard not to let that happen! You don't seem to know or understand the difference between a good restoration and a bad one, or else you don't seem to care. You seem to want to shift the entire perception of the restoration effort that's caught on around the country into a preservation effort.

I have no problem at all with architectural perservation, that's for sure, but the only problem with that is so very few courses in this country were preserved in the last seven or so decades. The idea is to put the best of them back to the way they were as much as they possibly can be and that really does take the cooperation and understanding of any club's membership.

As long as you continue to diss or disregard any club's membership you'll probably be likely to hear from me as long as I'm on here. Sure, there's been some bad work done in the name of restoration but there's been a ton of wonderful work done too---work that's made many of these course so much better, and so much more like many of them once were and were intended to be than they'd unfortunately devolved into, and I want to see that trend continue.

You may not understand this because you simply haven't seen them, either before or after.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty:

If you or enough like you on here feel this way then I'd be more than happy to take this tete a tete with Tom MacWood off line, and I'm sure he'd agree to that. If it's all that disappointing to you then why don't you just try not to even begin to read it? I'd sure rather get into mixing it up with Tom MacWood and he with me over some of the real things we both say about restoration, preservation, concept and architectural fact than mincing words with you all day over the exact meaning of the terms we use to have these architectural discussions.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()