[Forrest Richardson]

On the occasion of the formation of the ASGCA in 1947, Golf World (the weekly at the time) reported some of the feelings that Donald Ross expressed at the inagural meeting of the Society...

"...modern machinery...has reduced the labor and time elements in moving dirt."

"...greens, which would have taken 15 days to build by the old horse and shovel methos, could now be built in two days with modern dozers."

"The bulldozer has also made it possible to level off hills and thus do away with steep climbs which make many courses too exhaustive..."

"Mr. Ross indicates that there will be quite a business in this sort of operation in all hilly sections."

[Jim_Kennedy]

Forrest,
..........And? ? ? ? ?

[Scott Witter]

I believe, though Forrest I am not speaking for you, that if Mr. Ross was around during more modern times he would have taken a much different approach to the construction of courses, and perhaps even design.  There is no question that he was very bright and was always trying different methods of construction and thinking beyond many others practicing in the same time period.  Certainly, he has recognized the ease at which these "modern marvels" are able to build a golf green and the translation of these machines to areas between tee and green could also have been 'worked' for the benefit of golfers.

Many on this site have stated in the past that Ross and others would definitely have done things much differently had they had these machines at their disposal.

So then, what, how, where and when, would they have employed these machines and how would their work be different?  Would Raynor's, MacDonald's, Banks', or Tillinghast's work be drastically different?  Many modern architects work I know would be much different if they were forced to go back in time and lose the ability/flexibility of using the modern marvels, frankly, I don't think many would survive, simply due to the lack of imagination without the big machines to create for them!

[RJ_Daley]

I think that when Ross said this, one has to put the remarks in historical context.  As noted, Ross said this at the begining of the mechanized era when dozers were getting more flexible and manageable in operation.  So, like any new technology, Ross and all the others, including MacK, Tillie, Thomas, you name them, would have gone through a euphoric period of their own design evolution where they would have used the machines to excess.  

Once the downside of over grading and over shaping would creep into the design process, the most architecturally and desin astute of them would have backed off and used the machines more judiciously.  But, most of the old guys died before the use of the machines got into full swing.  So, the RB Harris types, RTJsr, leading into the Dye era took the machinery to the maximum of their capabilities, in the 50s-90s.

It is all about the evolution of design thought and aesthetic related to what "is possible" to be done with more advanced machinery.  It isn't a static process.  

It seems to me that the avant-gard design approach is really a retro concept now.  How many of these artisitic minimalist archies and their shapers are looking for the perfect "small scale" flexible or fine work machine, not the ham handed big dozers and huge scoopers, etc.?  Value is placed on the operator that can manage the finest of details.  You can bring in any big operator to knock down a hillock or ridge.  But, find the guy that can finely shape, near handwork quality, then you got something.

[Forrest Richardson]

I think that Ross — and others — would have had fun with equipment. They would certainly have had fun attacking dead flat land, or ever hilly sites that many purists disclaim as "being unsuitable" for a golf course.

The common thread of all good design is ideas. I think the great golf architects of the classic era would have gone forward with creative ideas using equipment, realizing that these area just tools — not the ends to creating necessarily great work.

Once again — "The invention of the typewriter did not necessarily make for better poetry." —Saul Bass

I do noth think that the greats of the classic era would ahve spent too much time going back and being "retro" in their pursuits. I suppose that is one of the thoughts that comes from reading some of this material...that Ross was interested in breaking new ground, not falling backwards.

[Peter Pallotta]

An interesting question. I side with Forrest on this one, i.e. I think Ross would be using all the equipment, science, know-how, and land at his disposal, and probably keeping pretty much within the spirit of his age.  I DO think that, as with any creative person worth his/her salt, in any field of creative endeavour, Ross had a "philosophy"; but like any other working professional, then or now, he would be ready to make allowances and practical compromises as demanded/required by the land, the client, and the likely final user/audience. I'm sure it's been said before on here, but it's only the amateurs who can afford to be purists (and that's not intended as a criticism: I'm a bit of a purist myself in some things, and amateur comes from the word "to love" - which is never a bad thing).

Peter

[BCrosby]

Ross courses always seem to have couple of features that were inspired by nothing more artistic than the need to find a nearby source of fill. He was a very, very frugal designer. That's not a criticism. He was a genius at turning necessity into opportunity. Maybe the best ever. He designed a lot of very good courses for very poor clubs. He respected construction budgets.

Having a D-6 at his disposal must have been a mind-blowing idea for him. It's too bad he only had one more year to live. It would have been fascinating to watch him struggle against his old, well-developed instincts.

RTJ came out of the same school, but in 1947 was still young enough to take off in a different direction. My guess is that his old partner Stanley Thompson wouldn't have recognized RTJ's output in, say, the 1960's, as coming from the same guy he partnered with in the 1930's.

Bob  

[Scott Witter]

Peter,

You have a good way with words.

BCrosby,

Maybe Thompson wouldn't have recognized the work of his apprentice... yet (and Ian Andrew can comment here) I believe that Thompson ran a fairly tight office asking/demanding that his employees follow his style.  All in all, it doesn't surprise me that the younger RTJ would branch out and "do his own thing"  When given the chance.  I don't think one can be a designer without taking your own road at some point.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Forrest,
Quite a few years ago I worked at restoring old post and beam frames and I also built some new ones.
Hundreds of years ago these frames were all hand hewn using axes and adzes. Then came "pit-sawn" material, a technique where two men, one of them in a pit, the other on top, used a long saw to hew a square beam out of a round tree. Then came the powered sawmill. If they had powered sawmills hundreds of years ago the axe, the adze and the pit saw would have never been used.
A post and beam structure built in 2006 is little different than a post and beam structure built in 1706. The technology used to create the parts has modernized itself, but not the basic elements. Craftsman then and now adapted the basic post and beam structure into a variety of shapes, but the fundamentals always stayed the same.  Why should golf be different? Don't the elements of The Old Course, or from many other old courses, have as much value today as they did when they were built? If that's "retro", what's wrong with "retro" ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I believe, though Forrest I am not speaking for you, that if Mr. Ross was around during more modern times he would have taken a much different approach to the construction of courses, and perhaps even design.

I'm not so sure of that.

Architectural expression vis a vis his creative designs were more a function of his mind, his concepts, rooted in his historical connection to the game as a superintendent, player and a designer.

I don't know that the convenience of modern day equipment would have altered those design principles which took years to develop.

He seems to indicate that the land could be altered to accomodate designs, rather then altering design principles because equipment could alter the land quicker.[/color]

Many on this site have stated in the past that Ross and others would definitely have done things much differently had they had these machines at their disposal.

I would disgree with that statement in terms of his design principles.  I would agree with it in terms of his construction techniques ......... over time.[/color]

So then, what, how, where and when, would they have employed these machines and how would their work be different?  

I believe that their design principles, their concepts would have remained relatively static, with their construction methods enhanced.[/color]

Would Raynor's, MacDonald's, Banks', or Tillinghast's work be drastically different?  

NO

Raynor's and CBM's work was heavily manufactured.[size=4x]

Modern day equipment would have changed their methodology, not their ideology[/size]

Many modern architects work I know would be much different if they were forced to go back in time and lose the ability/flexibility of using the modern marvels, frankly, I don't think many would survive, simply due to the lack of imagination without the big machines to create for them!


That's totally false.

One look at Sand Hills tells you that you're wrong.

Without the modern day equipment, less then ideal sites would not be used.

Architects who are into a great deal of land moving could still do so, but the time and cost would escalate substantially.

In addition, the invention of modern day equipment didn't happen overnight, so one can't throw architects back to the stone age in one fell swoop.

One look at Fazio's work on the short course at PV tells you that he could survive as well.   I believe that ALL of that work was done IN-HOUSE.

Creative, talented architects would continue to be successful.

Site selection would be dramatically altered.

How do you think the Classic Architects would adapt to today's environmental and permiting problems ?[/color]

[Scott Witter]

Patrick,

It appears that we 'agree' on the construction approach Ross would have taken, but I did say that "perhaps" even design, I didn't make this an absolute.

 "He seems to indicate that the land could be altered to accomodate designs, rather then altering design principles because equipment could alter the land quicker."

You don't think because of the technology he would have considered a different approach to design?  So tell us, why has man for the past 100 years + responded in kind to the ever-growing and expanding development and use of technology in practically every else in life.  I am not saying this would surely have happened, but I suspect the influence would become too overwhelming at some point and even Ross, the practical guy he was, would take a sip from this cup now and then.

"I believe that their design principles, their concepts would have remained relatively static, with their construction methods enhanced."

Sorry, but I can't agree, I still believe that even their conceptual thinking would have been expanded, you know, more options and approaches to use and develop their ideas a bit further and maybe even try something different just because they had other means to accomplish them.  Do you think a painter would limit themselves if they only hand canvas to paint on?  Don't you think their design approach and ideas would change/grow/evolve, if they used something else on which to express their thoughts?  There is a painter right across the hall from my office who does just this.  He paints on every damn thing he can find and as such, he says, he has certainly changed his approach, his thinking to work he has done one way for the past 5 years to something quite different.


"Many modern architects work I know would be much different if they were forced to go back in time and lose the ability/flexibility of using the modern marvels, frankly, I don't think many would survive, simply due to the lack of imagination without the big machines to create for them!"

I never mentioned any names here and your reference to The Sand Hills brings into discussion architects who I wouldn't include in my statement.  I simply said many modern architects.


"Creative, talented architects would continue to be successful."

I would agree, but again not all architects are created equal...and the ones you have named and referenced I think would do just fine.  However, don't you think it is easier to go back, if you are talented and creative as you say, in time and "retro"  design ideology once you know what can be done with modern technology as opposed to the opposite.  Here, your imagination is almost limitless because you know what could be done so your design thoughts essentially have no bounds.  It is easier, I think, for these individuals to step back a bit and achieve their intent using less, they are talented remember.   I also think there is a group of designers who would struggle, because they wouldn't be able to make the connection from ideas on paper and recognize the natural features because they have never had to "worry" about them before, they simply bulldozed them over.  I don't think these designers LOOK at design in the way perhaps that you and I might, they have an approach and make it work largely because the equipment will allow them to do so.

"How do you think the Classic Architects would adapt to today's environmental and permiting problems ?"

Just fine actually, but no less frustrated than the rest of us.  It would simply place a real limitation on and how what land they could use, not unlike being able to move a hilltop because they didn't have big equipment to use.  I am not sure if you meant to mix environmental issues into the technology discussion, but they are completely different in my view with respect to design thoughts and ideology.  An element and site parameter to be dealt with no less, but their impacts and approach to dealing with them are not related.

[TEPaul]

"Many modern architects work I know would be much different if they were forced to go back in time and lose the ability/flexibility of using the modern marvels, frankly, I don't think many would survive, simply due to the lack of imagination without the big machines to create for them!"

Scott;

Maybe, but you know what they say---"Necessity is the Mother of invention."

I'm quite sure if most all the architects from the beginning of the 20th century could see the ease with which modern machinery can do things with the Earth compared to what they were up against they would at first be delighted that so many of the things they perceived as obstacles (to the construction of golf courses) were removed (or so much more easily removable).

In my opinion, ultimately the ease with which earth can be moved in modern times simply makes architects lazier in their imagination for using landforms as they are for golf.  

I also think modern construction machinery has allowed the onset of landscape architecture (in a construction sense) into golf course architecture to far too great a degree. Ultimately this leads to the creation of too many "idealized" landforms for golf holes, and eventually to the over-riding expectation of them amongst golfers generally. The old guys did not have that luxury which perhaps has now become something of a curse for truly "natural" golf course architecture (natural in the sense of using landforms for golf far more the way they are).

(For instance, last night I was at Merion and we were all marvelling at just how gentlely the wonderfully effective 18th green is just basically laid on the ground!)

Take particular notice of what Ross said about golf being 'exhaustive'. He was of course talking about the difficulty of some walks due to natural landforms.

And so the machine that has obviously changed golf course architecture more than any other, particularly in a routing sense, is not construction machinery at all but the onset and now almost total prevalence of the mechanized golf cart. That removed altogether from golf and golf architecture that nagging obstacle to so many early golf course architects---eg that being the constant concern for exhausting golfers.

[Scott Witter]

Tom,

"Necessity is the Mother of invention."

Yes it is and it supports much of what was accomplished in the old days, but it isn't required in today's times of design and construction and many have/are proving to be so, thankfully.

"simply due to the lack of imagination without the big machines to create for them!"

"In my opinion, ultimately the ease with which earth can be moved in modern times simply makes architects lazier in their imagination for using landforms as they are for golf."

Tom I believe we are saying the same thing.

 "I also think modern construction machinery has allowed the onset of landscape architecture (in a construction sense) into golf course architecture to far too great a degree.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here?

"Take particular notice of what Ross said about golf being 'exhaustive'. He was of course talking about the difficulty of some walks due to natural landforms."

I realize that and I agree, but I was just taking the technological aspect a bit further and wondering that it would seem natural that Ross and others would have approached their work differently... hey it was just a thought, I have been proven nuts before and there is always another time.

[TEPaul]

Tom I believe we are saying the same thing.

Scott:

Yes, I believe we are.

"I also think modern construction machinery has allowed the onset of landscape architecture (in a construction sense) into golf course architecture to far too great a degree.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here?

I'm probably unusual in my feeling that some landscape architectural "principles" have become too prevalent in modern golf course architecture. I can go into specifically what I mean by that if you want me to but in the meantime let's just say that the ease with which modern construction machinery allows the natural landscape to be moved and manipulated has taken too many golf course architects to a place where they've just created "pretty pictures" and pretty scenes for golf holes. I think when that happens too often the golf itself can suffer or sometimes even take a back seat to what landscape architecture actually is which is "quiet enjoyment"---eg a pretty and soothing setting. That can be nice for golf if it really is natural but golf and golf architecture is so much more than just a pretty picture or pretty setting, in my opinion, and so I think golf course architecture should be too. One of the dedicated principles of landscape architecture, even amongst the classic English landscape architects, was to remove from the scene or hide what was not attractive or soothing to look at. I do not believe that is always necessary or good for truly "natural" golf course architecture.

"Take particular notice of what Ross said about golf being 'exhaustive'. He was of course talking about the difficulty of some walks due to natural landforms."

I realize that and I agree, but I was just taking the technological aspect a bit further and wondering that it would seem natural that Ross and others would have approached their work differently... hey it was just a thought, I have been proven nuts before and there is always another time.

There's probably little question that Ross and the others would have approached things differently. Frankly, that fact can be seen and proven if one looks had how much Ross's own style of architecture changed from pre-teens, during the teens and then into the 1920s and on. The evolution of Ross's style is very noticeable. He was far more "artistic" in the late 1920s and on than he was in the early part of his career. Obviously the evolutin of construction technology during his career helped him evolve like that.

[Scott Witter]

Tom,

"I'm probably unusual in my feeling that some landscape architectural "principles" have become too prevalent in modern golf course architecture. I can go into specifically what I mean by that if you want me to but in the meantime let's just say that the ease with which modern construction machinery allows the natural landscape to be moved and manipulated has taken too many golf course architects to a place where they've just created "pretty pictures" and pretty scenes of golf holes. I think when that happens too often the golf itself suffers or sometimes even takes a back seat to what landscape architecture actually is which is "quiet enjoyment"---eg a pretty and soothing setting. That can be nice for golf if it's natural but golf is so much more than just a pretty picture or pretty setting, and so I think golf course architecture should be too. One of the dedicated principles of landscape architecture, even amongst the classic English landscape architects, was to remove from the scene or hide what was not attractive or soothing to look at. I do not believe that is always necessary or good for truly "natural" golf course architecture."



Thanks for the discussion...I had suspected that was where you were going, but didn't want to assume at that point.  I agree again.

[TEPaul]

Scott:

The entire subject of this thread is something I've discussed for years now with Geoff Shackelford.

He has always said that many of the best of the old guys dreamed of the time when improved machinery and construction methods in the future could take golf course architecture to a different and higher level than they acheived but that he feels they would've been disappointed by so much of what happened in golf architecture that followed them and after their deaths.

If GeoffShac is right about that, even to some extent, firstly, what is it exactly about much modern architecture that would've disappointed them? And secondly, I really wonder if they did not realize, or should've realized that perhaps the likes of a Cypress Point was just about as good as golf course architecture ever could get?

Or was it?

In my opinion, a Cypress Point, as an example of perhaps the height of architecture is nevertheless somewhat "artistic" as opposed to even more "natural". Particularly MacKenzie's stunning bunkering there (highly artistic).

What I'm wondering--what I've always wondered on this subject in golf course architecture is what part should man-made "artistry" play in the art form? Or to what degree should it be used?

To be honest with you I think some of the new architecture I see today---eg the likes of Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes et al has taken the art form to another level compared to even the best of the Golden Age which so often was highly "artisitic". I think courses like that may be something of what GeoffShac says the old guys were dreaming of for the future.

The only reason I say that is because with courses like Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes so much about them looks to me like Nature really did make what's there--particularly the bunkering.

I can look at early photos of Cypress and as artistic as it is I sure can tell what MacKenzie designed and made (certainly those beautiful "artistic" bunkers) but at Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes there is so much out there that I really can't tell if Doak and Coore and Crenshaw designed and made it or if Nature did.

And in the final analysis, how can it get any better than that over-riding mystery?

Both GeoffShac and I have really studied Max Behr's writing. In that writing Behr said this;

"Golf architecture is not a art of representation; it is essentially, an art of interpretation. And an interpretative art allows freedom to fancy only through obedience to the law which dominates its medium, a law that lies outside ourselves."

An art of interpretation, not representation?? To be honest, I don't know that I've ever fully understood that distinction.

That quotation of Behr's above goes on to say this;

"The medium of the artist is paint, and he becomes its master; but the medium of the golf architect is the surface of the earth over which the forces of Nature alone are master.
     Therefore, in the prosecution of his designs, if the architect correctly uses the forces of Nature to express them and thus succeeds in hiding his hand, then, only, has he created the illusion that can still all criiticism."

Personally, I think Max Behr was right on about that, but the fact of the matter is he wrote that about 80 years ago and as one can see he did imply that Man, the golfer, would eventually likely demand this kind of thing from the architect.

However, I have told GeoffShac for years that 80 years have now passed since Behr wrote that and very unfortunately what Behr was wrong about, in my opinion, was what Man, the golfer, really would demand of the architect in this sense. I tell GeoffShac that in my opinion Max Behr COMPLETELY OVERESTIMATED, in this vein, the sensibilities of Man, the golfer, regarding golf course architecture.

I think the ensuing 80 years has proven that Man, the golfer, most certainly did not demand of golf course architecture what Behr apparently thought he would, and that furthermore many of the things that Man, the golfer, did end up demanding of golf and golf architecture were things that Behr never imagined---and had Behr imagined them, he most certainly would not have approved.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott Witter,

Donald Ross's last design was in 1948, long after modern equipment had evolved.

Just ask the seabees.

How were his design principles altered by the advent of modern equipment ?

The spectrum of courses from his first designs to his last don't support your view.

[Scott Witter]

Tom,

This thread has certainly gone to places I never thought...and I told myself when I first commented that I should probably not go too far and wind up toe-to-toe with the likes of Tom Paul, Wayne Morrison, or the ever stalworth news reporter Patrick Mucci, but alas I have fallen prey to the best once again.

Tom, I do appreciate your discussion and I love the stuff from Behr. In particular  "Golf architecture is not a art of representation; it is essentially, an art of interpretation. And an interpretative art allows freedom to fancy only through obedience to the law which dominates its medium, a law that lies outside ourselves."

and  "Therefore, in the prosecution of his designs, if the architect correctly uses the forces of Nature to express them and thus succeeds in hiding his hand, then, only, has he created the illusion that can still all criiticism."

"I think the ensuing 80 years has proven that Man, the golfer, most certainly did not demand of golf course architecture what Behr apparently thought he would, and that furthermore many of the things that Man, the golfer, did end up demanding of golf and golf architecture were things that Behr never imagined---and had Behr imagined them, he most certainly would not have approved."

What can I say...no agrument from me Tom!

[paul cowley]

I don't think that having modern earth moving equipment makes the design of courses any easier for today's designers than for the golden agers....I know its much more difficult to have to create something good from a site that has nothing, regardless of the ability to be able to do so with 'modern marvels' and mega budgets, and I feel sure most of the golden agers would feel the same.
Cypress, Pebble and many of the other classics from earlier days were built on very good sites.... similar to the Sandhills and Bandon sites of today, sites that exude wonderful design options......the Lidos of their day were few, but are more similar to the challenges facing today's designers.....challenges that I know the best of the old would appreciate.
.....especially if they were able to use the machinery that is available today.

I don't think modern equipment has made it any easier for designers to do good work, but their use has helped us tackle more difficult sites,  something that was not possible in the past....and what Ross was refering to in his comment.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I"d disagree with you.

Presenting Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes as representative of architecture today is a bit extreme.

The both enjoy super spectacular sites.

Bill Coore called the Sand Hills of Nebraska the best land for golf in America, and certainly the site at Pacific Dunes is world class as well.

It's hard to imagine the "MASKING" of nature's hand on either of those sites.

Who couldn't have created a good golf course at Cypress ?

Now examine the likes of Shadow Creek, hardly an ideal site for golf, yet, without the hand of man it's doubtful that a quality golf course could have been designed and constructed on that site..

Behr never contemplated the environmental and permiting restrictions that exist today, nor do I believe he ever fathomed the cost of land today.

One can't ignore the relationship between great sites and cost.

Surely, Mike Pascucci can attest to that.

$ 46,000,000 for just the acquisition of the land represents an impediment not contemplated by the classic architects, hence, many of today's golf courses are designed on inferior sites, which require the hand of man, and a lot of luck and work with environmental and permiting issues.

When you have a free hand on a cheap, blank canvas your product is often superior to one with a multitude of constraints.

Could Ross, Dr Mac and AWT have created Shadow Creek or a spectacular golf course on that site ?

I believe Raynor, CBM and Banks could.

Could C&C have built Shadow Creek "
Tom Doak ?

Could Pete Dye create "minimalist designs" on great sites ?

I believe he could.
And, I believe that if the modern machinery wasn't available, so could Fazio and a multitude of current day architects.

The sites the old guys got were pretty spectacular and they had virtually no environmental and permiting issues.
And, they were often funded by wealthy benefactors.

Try to build Lido today, and you wouldn't have a chance.

Some are of the mind set that certain architects are one dimensional and couldn't be successful in another era.  
I don't feel that way.

If Fazio could build the short course at PV I have every confidence that he could build good golf courses absent modern machinery.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I"d disagree with you."

So what's new and so what?  

"Presenting Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes as representative of architecture today is a bit extreme. The both enjoy super spectacular sites."

Last time I heard, Patrick, picking a great site for a great golf course was definitely part of the process of building a great golf course.

"It's hard to imagine the "MASKING" of nature's hand on either of those sites."

Maybe it is to you but not to me. I'm pretty sure there're numerous architects who couldn't have or wouldn't have been as minimal on that site as Coore and Crenshaw were."

"Who couldn't have created a good golf course at Cypress?"

Perhaps one of your dumbest statements to date.

"Now examine the likes of Shadow Creek, hardly an ideal site for golf, yet, without the hand of man it's doubtful that a quality golf course could have been designed and constructed on that site."

That is not doubt true. It would be really hard to near impossible for any golf architect to hide their hand on that site and also make a good golf course. I've never seen Shadow Creek but to my way of thinking trying to be "site natural" is pretty important in golf architecture. The unreal juxtaposition of creating a golf course that looks like Oregon or North Carolina in the middle of a Nevada desert isn't my idea of a good combination in golf course architecture. Is Shadow Creek's style called the "Mirage" style?  

"Behr never contemplated the environmental and permiting restrictions that exist today, nor do I believe he ever fathomed the cost of land today."

I'm pretty sure you have no real idea what Max Behr fathomed.

"One can't ignore the relationship between great sites and cost."

Is there a point relevent to this thread hidden in there somewhere?  

[wsmorrison]

"The bulldozer has also made it possible to level off hills and thus do away with steep climbs which make many courses too exhaustive..."

This seems a bit odd to me given Ross's enthusiasm for high tees, low landing areas and high greens.

[TEPaul]

"$ 46,000,000 for just the acquisition of the land represents an impediment not contemplated by the classic architects, hence, many of today's golf courses are designed on inferior sites, which require the hand of man, and a lot of luck and work with environmental and permiting issues."

That's interesting. I see you mentioned the Lido below. Are you aware that was advertized as the most expensive golf course ever built at the time? When it comes to cost between 1915 and 2006, Patrick, things are always relative.  

"When you have a free hand on a cheap, blank canvas your product is often superior to one with a multitude of constraints."

Hmmmm. Does a bear shit in the woods? Is there any particular reason to state the obvious?  

"Could Ross, Dr Mac and AWT have created Shadow Creek or a spectacular golf course on that site?"

Good question. Ross, Dr Mac and AWT probably would've passed on those projects.

"I believe Raynor, CBM and Banks could."

Those three were good architects but none of them created golf architecture that looked particularly "site natural", in my opinion.

"Could C&C have built Shadow Creek?"

Something tells me C&C would've passed on Wynn by saying they couldn't fit the project into their two at a time schedule.  

"Tom Doak?"

Since we have him on this website why don't we just ask him if he would've built what's at Shadow Creek? Something tells me he's probably a better source of info on that than you are.

"Could Pete Dye create "minimalist designs" on great sites?"

Has Pete Dye ever created a "minimal design"?  

I believe he could. And, I believe that if the modern machinery wasn't available, so could Fazio and a multitude of current day architects."

Pete Dye and Tom Fazio I have little doubt are as capable as any architect of doing whatever they want to do. However, we have only to deal with what they have done.  

"The sites the old guys got were pretty spectacular and they had virtually no environmental and permiting issues.
And, they were often funded by wealthy benefactors."

Just like today, the old guys got some great sites and some that weren't great.

"Try to build Lido today, and you wouldn't have a chance."

True.

"Some are of the mind set that certain architects are one dimensional and couldn't be successful in another era.  
I don't feel that way."

I'm fairly sure there were one dimensional architects in every era.

"If Fazio could build the short course at PV I have every confidence that he could build good golf courses absent modern machinery."

In my opinion, Tom Fazio has a real wealth of talent to do just about anything. The knock on him, in my opinion, is that he just didn't do more "less is more" projects. The reasons for that are probably fairly well known.  

[paul cowley]

...but Wayne, one must remember he made this comment before the introduction of the golf cart.......when 'exhaustive' had more relevance.

Dozers and CARTS [the other modern marvel], in tandem, were most responsible for ushering in modern era design.

IMH

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

When it comes to Ross, one realizes the more one studies what he said and what he did that the two can be remarkably far apart in all kinds of ways.    

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()