News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


wsmorrison

A different take on "historic golf courses"
« on: January 20, 2003, 08:15:07 AM »
Several months ago, Mike Cirba was mentioning that while walking (no way was he running) around Valley Forge Park he took note of the earthen fortifications, entrenchments, and battlements on site and wondered about their use in golf course design.  Recently I got a brochure and newspaper accounts from David Gordon for a 1923 Flynn design that was laid out but never completed on the grounds of the Yorktown battlefield.  According to a February 7, 1923 article in the Philadelphia Bulletin:

"The plan contemplates the use of Revolutionary breastworks as bunkers and other golf hazards.  There are scores of such embankments on the land controlled by the hotel (a $2 million 350-room hotel was to be built along the banks of the York River) interests and most of them can be used without change."  

"Those in touch with interest behind the movement say the resort will have about the only historic links in the United States.  The Revolutionary landmarks are to be preserved scrupulously intact.  The links and everything else would be arranged so the players and others consciously or unconsciously would absorb some of the most interesting American history."

"The announcement of the plan has startled patriotic headquarters.  It is possible before the plans of the promoters are completed there will be a lively scrap."

Of course, we know that the entire effort to "make Yorktown more than rival Pinehurst and Augusta" in the words of a Newport News Daily Free Press writer never happened although the the property was purchased and work begun.  It is evident that the developers and perhaps Flynn were thinking along the lines of Mike Cirba and incorporating military works for hazards on a golf course.  

Mackenzie studied the use of camouflage in trenchworks and other military uses and incorporated them into his golf courses.  But the use of actual historic military works on a golf course seems a bit much even if it leads to conscious or unconscious absorption of American history.  It is interesting however that the plan was strongly considered and that the developers and architect were willing to dare to use them for golfing purposes.

The concept was obviously scrapped.  In an August (?) 1923 Richmond News Leader article it states that:
"The breastworks and entrenchments, built during the Yorktown occupation, in 1781, will not be used as bunkers."
A proper decision in my opinion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A different take on "historic golf courses"
« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2003, 08:53:50 AM »
I don't remember Mike C writing about this topic.  But, I hope Mike wondered about it for a while and then dismissed it as just random thoughts.  I also don't think there needs to be a golf course on every property of beauty or historical interest.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

TEPaul

Re: A different take on "historic golf courses"
« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2003, 09:17:07 AM »
I think when talking about use of military earthworks (breast works) and such in the design of a golf course (or even the philosophy of various principles of design such as MacKenzie's use of camouflage) one should not take the connection too far.

There is nothing particularly applicable that I know of between actual military principles of warfare (such as trenching) or anything else in a military context and the underlying principles of golf architecture.

When an architect talks about utilizing 'interesting natural features' into his golf designs he certainly may not be speaking ONLY of features that may have been made wholly by NATURE or the earth's natural forces. He could also be speaking of interesting things like stone walls or even military features that may have preceded the construction of the golf course and are of interesting historic or aesthetic significance somehow.

Afterall, Pete Dye has used interesting features in his designs such as old mining operations and even Rees Jones used parts of an old race track recently. Old military remants on the earth are no different.

As for MacKenzie's ideas on camouflage and it's applicability to golf architecture---that in my opinion is a completely different matter and subject altogether with almost no connection whatsoever to what's being discussed on this thread.

MacKenzie's ideas on how to translate some of his observations on camouflage from the Boer War into golf architecture was only about how to make man-made architectural features blend in better with the natural lines of true nature such as the unadulerated earth.

Mackenzie was not trying to hide his bunker features and such in the slightest--he was only trying to hide the fact that his hand had made them by mimicing and blending his man-made lines with the lines of raw nature--the lines of the earth!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A different take on "historic golf courses"
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2003, 09:27:39 AM »
Quote
Mackenzie was not trying to hide his bunker features and such in the slightest--he was only trying to hide the fact that his hand had made them by mimicing and blending his man-made lines with the lines of raw nature--the lines of the earth!

Yes Tom, that and he was trying to draw your eye and attention from or to various points as deception or illusion.  He was using the lines of nature and the manner that we process depth, scope, and distance to force you to have certain thoughts and feelings about how one should approach playing golf shots through natural and manmade features.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A different take on "historic golf courses"
« Reply #4 on: January 20, 2003, 03:48:43 PM »
Wayne -

Old Civil War battlements are all around Atlanta. I had always heard that there was a redoubt built by the Confederates on the right side of the eighth fairway at East Lake. I have no proof of that, though it looked like it could have been. It was clearly man-made. It's not there now, however.  

There was a thread about a year ago (I think J. Brauer participated) where we discussed some of this in more detail. Probably lost in cyberspace, unfortunately.

Bob
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jim_Bick

Re: A different take on "historic golf courses"
« Reply #5 on: January 20, 2003, 04:24:21 PM »
As to military features in architecture, how about "redan".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: A different take on "historic golf courses"
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2003, 06:45:00 PM »
Here is a shot of that Par 4 opener at The Links Experience Of Valley Forge National Golf & Fishing Club Brought To You By Washington Mutual Savings Bank.

Its a tough opener, where one has to avoid both the encampments, Continental Troops and the huge tree guarding the right fairway off of the tee. While the cart path may seem to be a source of refuge, Flynn actually wanted the golfer to feel the framing, as well as challenge the hole, by driving the tree.


In all seriousness, I wish I would have gotten much better pictures there, that beautiful day. The entire Valley Forge National Monument sceamed Golf Course! Lets hope they only allow Italian-Americans in there to visit the place and not design golf holes around it!:)



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Craig_Rokke

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A different take on "historic golf courses"
« Reply #7 on: January 20, 2003, 07:03:31 PM »
I'll concur that V F Park would make for a heckuva course.
(Believe it or not, I 'm pretty sure some large developer may have recently won his own battle to gain the right to build a residential development on some outlying park-owned land.)  And one of those rough-hewn cabins will do just fine for a halfway house. Conditions appear to run fast and firm throughout the pictured are--at least the heavily trampled areas. ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A different take on "historic golf courses"
« Reply #8 on: January 20, 2003, 07:55:57 PM »
this is from an earlier post but relevent;

a course currently being built near greenwood s. c.fits well in this discussion .aproximately 200,000 yards of earth were moved to create the landform of a civil war era four sided bastion fortress.holes  #1 and 10 utilize two corners as tees,an elevated putting green occupies another.green #18,situated amongst the ruins of the barracks,occupies the forts center .to access the proceeding ,one must cross a moat and enter thru a brick tunnel.hole #1 has an earthwork rampart on its entire right side,culminating with a punchbowl green set in the center of a spur bastion .this course is creating geometric earth forms and strategies and then tying holes in naturally.it 's name is the 'patriot' and should open in the fall of '03.......by DL lll 's Love Course Design.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

Steve Wilson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A different take on "historic golf courses"
« Reply #9 on: January 20, 2003, 08:52:48 PM »
The thread title posted M. Cirba is "Geometric Design and Battlefields" and it originated on October 1st of 2002.  In it Mike didn't suggest using battlefields as golf course sites, he was ruminating on the similarity between battlefield fortifications and a certain type of golf course design.  The thread can be found on page 41 of the archives.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Some days you play golf, some days you find things.

I'm not really registered, but I couldn't find a symbol for certifiable.

"Every good drive by a high handicapper will be punished..."  Garland Bailey at the BUDA in sharing with me what the better player should always remember.

Steve Wilson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A different take on "historic golf courses"
« Reply #10 on: January 20, 2003, 08:53:57 PM »

Wayne

Another quick thought.  Is this Yorktown course the one mentioned in Wexler's Missing Links?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Some days you play golf, some days you find things.

I'm not really registered, but I couldn't find a symbol for certifiable.

"Every good drive by a high handicapper will be punished..."  Garland Bailey at the BUDA in sharing with me what the better player should always remember.

Patrick Hitt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: A different take on "historic golf courses"
« Reply #11 on: January 21, 2003, 03:28:22 AM »
There is a course in Leesburg, VA - Lee's Hill I believe - that has Civil War trenches across some of the course. The trenches were preserved - and not used as hazards. I'm not sure that one could develop anywhere without finding some historic artifacts in that battle rich area.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: A different take on "historic golf courses"
« Reply #12 on: January 21, 2003, 05:11:07 AM »
"In it Mike didn't suggest using battlefields as golf course sites, he was ruminating on the similarity between battlefield fortifications and a certain type of golf course design."

This would be an interesting thing to ruminate about in golf course design.

Clearly, Alister MacKenzie's thoughts on how to utilize military camouflage thinking (his own thinking) in golf course design would be the place to turn to when ruminating since MacKenzie was probably the only known golf architect to apply his military analogy on camouflage to golf architecture.

I suspect Mackenzie would be completely opposed to the utilization of military trenching and such as a form useful in golf architecture and certainly the type of military fortification (trenching) that preceded the Boer War or even WW1.

MacKenzie's whole point to the military (his lectures to the British military are well known) is that they did not even attempt to camouflage their trenching (as did the Boers) and consequently all their military trenching was completely ineffective as it was far too obvious to the enemy and as a result great expenditure in British lives.

Again, his whole point in his thoughts on camouflage in warfare or golf architecture was for the military or the golf architect to hide his hand in either construction so the enemy or the golfer could scarely telll that either was constructed by man.

Matter of fact, in Doak's book on MacKenzie it becomes apparent that Alister may have become somewhat fixated and almost eccentric on this point. In the 1930s there's a copy of a letter to FDR in which MacKenzie claims that if his ideas on military camouflage were adopted that alone could likely save the world by making winning any war almost impossible simply because of the effectiveness of camouflage.

MacKenzie, at least, clearly would have viewed military earthworks of the type at Yorktown or Valley Forge as poor and useless as he obviously viewed it for military purposes. And the reason obviously would have been the same, neither tied in to the natural lines of the earth and consequently the 'hand of man' in construction was far too obvious in both.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

wsmorrison

Re: A different take on "historic golf courses"
« Reply #13 on: January 21, 2003, 06:28:10 AM »
Steve Wilson,

Yes, the courses I am speaking of at Yorktown includes the one that Dan Wexler cites in his Missing Links book.  I had assumed since the hotel wasn't completed that the golf courses were not built.  Dan maintains that the shorter River Course was in fact built.  The map that Dan drew in his book is very similar to the Flynn drawing that I have courtesy of David Gordon.  

There are a few differences however (yardage, direction changes within holes, bunkering, etc.) that may be because the course was built not 100% according to plans as is often the case.  One significant difference that should be pointed out is that Flynn indicated the use of "modern interrupted fairway construction" (segmented fairways) that he liked to use as a direct result of the Pine Valley influence (Flynn worked there in 1921) and is reflected in his design work of the early 20s.  I'll have to speak with Dan and see if he drew his map from an aerial photo and if so, obtain a copy.

I did not imply that Mike Cirba was thinking of the  merits of putting a golf course on the Valley Forge encampment grounds.  I merely noted that the features found on such sites were interesting to him and had inspired him to find commonalities on existing golf sites.  The fact that this mental exercise was extended further to actually include them in golf course design was an interesting find and so I started this thread.  I, for one, am glad that the Yorktown battlefield is now back to a National Park as it should be and Valley Forge remains undeveloped.  There are plenty of good sites for golf courses and hallowed ground should remain untouched by development.

Mackenzie's work in camouflage and recognizing the overt look of British military earthenworks without the camouflage concept employed by the Boers has had a profound influence on the natural appearance of man-made features on golf courses.  Again, I did not mean to imply that Mackenzie wished to utilize military works in golf course designs, simply that the lessons learned in hiding the hand of man in such projects were useful in golf course design and construction.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »