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.


Patrick_Mucci

Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« on: August 28, 2002, 06:46:07 PM »
Looking at the mystery aerial of the day, I noticed the rectangular bunkers and was wondering why they went out of fashion, and why no modern day architects seem to design and build them in significant numbers.

With all of the modern equipment it can't be due to the difficulty in constructing them, so it must be the lack of desire or willingness to design them.

Why have they disappeared  ?
Why aren't they being designed and built today, in significant numbers ?

Especially in conjunction with square greens.

Why aren't square greens being designed and built today ?

Did a generation of architects avoid/skip geometry ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim Weiman

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #1 on: August 28, 2002, 06:56:00 PM »
Pat Mucci:

You've asked an interesting question and I don't have an answer!

Anyway, Chicago Golf Club has "geometry" and it seems pretty cool. But, for some reason, modern architects don't seem to be able to pull off the same look.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #2 on: August 28, 2002, 07:05:07 PM »
Pat,

I am under the impression that the roundness has more to do with current maintenance techniques - ie riding mowers and trap rakes that go easier in circles every day for the life of the course versus once during construction - than due to ease of construction.

I can also attest - as of yesterday, when I tried to do an L shaped green, and demanded square corners, that it raises eyebrows as "unconventional."  I think I got it done (unless the super has a last minute change of heart)  I also have a square front green going right now, and it is grassed, so its there.  That was inspired by the third at TEPaul's Gulph Mills.  From the air, it would resemble the Liberty Bell.

As for other architectes, RTJ II writes about square greens in his "Golf by Design", and I have seen him incorporate them, most recently at Tiffany Greens near KC.

PS - I got A's in geometry!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #3 on: August 28, 2002, 07:29:56 PM »
Jeff Brauer,

Did you get those A's in Euclidian or Non-Euclidian Geometry ?

In looking through some of Geoff Shackleford's books, as well as other books, I noticed rectangular bunkers on California golf courses, as well as the Chicago Golf Club, Garden City Golf Club, and other old courses.

Somewhere in time this style of bunker was abandoned.
Many rectangular bunkers were altered/redesigned to amoeba shapes
Somewhere in time, the design of these bunkers, ceased in meaningful numbers.  

I could equate this with the end of hand maintainance, but, I'm not so sure that was the triggering event.  
Perhaps one of our archivists could provide an estimate as to when these bunkers ceased being created, and why.

I have heard the "Machine Maintainance" defense, but, if tees have continued to be rectangular, and maintained to almost green height, there would seem to be no impediment to designing and building sguare greens, with square bunkers adjacent to them.

From some of the pictures I have seen, rectangular bunkers appear to be mostly fronting and rear bunkers, though I have seen flanking bunkers as well.

Is it possible, when architecture made a departure from accepted design principles, when tees went from rectangular to free-form, that that new era also served as a catalyst for the demise of the rectangular bunker ?

From a design and construction perspective, what are the impediments to designing and building rectangular bunkers ?

With respect to a geometry quiz, will two parallel lines meet in a black hole ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris_Hunt

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #4 on: August 29, 2002, 04:50:53 AM »
Pat:

Don't know about in a black hole, but I have taken a class in Classical Geometries, and in perspective geometry (within a picture, say one point perspective), two parallel lines will meet on the horizon line, and this fact allows for calculations to be made in analyzing a perspective drawing or planning to draw one.  You can calculate the distance to the horizon, the distance from the artist's eye to the paper he was drawing on, the height of objects, etc. if you use a few angles and make certain assumptions such as parallel lines meeting finitely.

Take a look around #15 green at Friar's Head sometime if you are out there.

I think loose interpretations of geometric shapes are acceptable in greens and bunkers, etc.  But keep the sharp edges reserved for rectangular tees, please.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #5 on: August 29, 2002, 05:31:32 AM »
Pat Mucci (the ultimate question-asker):

This time you may have hit on the mother lode question in the history of Golfclubatlas or even the evolution of golf course architecture, for that matter!!

This question and certainly its accurate answers reverts back to so much of what is of interest in the "early evolution" of golf courses and their architecture!! Matter of fact, it gets back to that time that golf architecture itself was born and began to emerge away from golf's previously completely natural state!

It's important when beginning to even think about this subject to have an accurate definition of what even golf architecture is (or was) and to make a distinction between it and what golf before it (golf architecture) was played on!

We all know that TOC seems to be recognized as almost the genesis of golf itself! But was TOC itself originally golf architecture? No, apparently, it was not and only because it was absolutely natural in what it was and how it was originally used for golf!

Many years after TOC came into use for golf man began very slowly and very rudimentarily to change it (TOC) for one reason or another from its completely natural state to improve and enhance the golf played on it. This effort has been credited to Allan Robertson, probably the first man to consider altering the natural state for golf--and as such credited with being the first known golf architect!!

Some even think the Road hole itself (green and road hole bunker) may have been his first actual architectural effort although the expansion of the course (particularly the fairway areas) from their natural narrowness to their present basic width was the first real architectural effort. Why did he do that? Research shows me he was directed to do it simply for safety and function!

Of course this was in the Scottish linksland--still today considered to be the most natural golf ground on earth!

Due to the expanding popularity of golf from, but also away from, the Scottish linksland golf transitioned at first to the English "heathland" where the likes of Willie Park actually designed and constructed a golf course out of land that was considered wholly inadequate and unnatural for golf since it was little like the natural landform holes of the linksland! But Parks did it in the heathlands and from there golf and its early archtiecture began transitioning all over the globe!

The early European architecture and architects like Colt, Alison, Fowler, Hutchison, Abercrombie, The Dunns, Parks, Davises etc originally did things that somewhat mimiced the natural linksland but was clearly rudimentary although vaguely "natural" looking in architectural style!

Then golf arrived in America and virtually exploded in popularity and in a period of probably twenty five years more golf courses were built here than existed in Europe!

And this is where and when real "geometric" design came into existence and it proliferated beyond belief! The early "geometric" designs, however, were only basically  functional and quickly efficient to build, certainly not much  resembled "natural" or artistic golf architecture! These types of courses generally had their layout and architecture quickly staked and constructed (part of the 18 stakes on a Sunday afternoon for $25).

The designers would stake the layout and basic feature placement areas and probably be far down the road doing it again when someone else of no real architectural bent would come in and construct something where the stakes lay like tees, fairways, greens and the supporting bunker features and such that were generally square, rectangular or other geometric shapes that were simple and easy to build. Even the piling of the removed earth into things like perfectly formed "chocolate drops" became the norm!

If you want to see the best evidence of this "geometric" era refer to pages 2 & 4 in GeoffShac's "The Golden Age of Golf Design". It wasn't all completely square or rectangular but it certainly was unabashedly man-made looking with apparently not a single thought to the idea of "mimicing nature"!

And then, it's thought, the most interesting transition of all came in American architecture! C.B. MacDonald, with his severe reaction to this repugnant "geometry" in golf courses and their architecture decided things had to change! He considered these creations repugnant, terrible golf, in fact a visual blight on the American golfing landscape!

And he set out to change that by revisiting Europe and bringing back with him all the concepts necessary to build 18 very good individual golf holes into the first course of entirely good golf and good design! And that was NGLA!

But was MacDonald's (with his freshly hired engineer Raynor) NGLA devoid of a man-made architectural look with vestiges of "squareness", "rectangularity" and vague geometric forms?

Definitely NOT! But why not if he was so repulsed by this geometric look? That is the most interesting of all to me, anyway, and simply shows the natural evolution of things in what was possible at that time and what wasn't--and also what really mattered at that time and what didn't!

Unbelievable! I finally wrote a post sooo long that the Golfclubatlas post button rejected it and said "Tooo long" so hopeully I can cut it in half, copy it and paste the rest into a post later!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #6 on: August 29, 2002, 05:33:03 AM »
We might hesitate to admit it now but with NGLA the look was certainly important to MacDonald but the validity of the actual playing of golf and the interest in the possibilities in the design for golf itself was clearly more so! So if there was, and still is some evidences of manufacturing and even "geometry" in NGLA's design, so be it, and so what?--at least it was a clear departure from what perceded it for golf and quality golf!

It should also certainly be admitted that what MacDonald found in his return to Europe at that time to study design was also still at that early stage that was rudimentary and manufactured looking in its architecture! (And isn't it interesting that when Pete Dye journeyed to Europe to study the architecture there some 50 years later the thing that apparently fascinated him as much as anything was the rudimentary architectural efforts of the early European architects! Clearly that's where the railroad tie features came from, reminiscent of early bunker "sleepers" and such.

But from NGLA (1910) with its still vaguely man-made look, the additional fascination is that a mere ten years later, (just following WW1) architecture, at least the leading edge sophisticated architecture that became the real meat of the great "Golden Age" again exploded in its desire and direction to really produce designs that came remarkably close in every single way and look to mimicing the look of nature itself!!

This to me is so fascinating, and I feel the best evidence of all is where it sort of culminated and basically stopped which was in the creation of Cypress Point--possibly the most natural looking golf course, in every single way, ever created!

This entire evolution sort of inspired here by your question goes on though after it all hit a wall at the Crash and the depression!

Before that happened the likes of particularly Alister MacKenzie, probably Thomas, Maxwell, Flynn, Tillinghast etc, but far more the futuristic thinkers like Hunter and most of all Max Behr, dreamed of the time in the future, despite the natural work they had done, when golf architecture (when the impliments and techniques would finally allow it) would go all the way into naturalism and almost entirely hide the hand of man altogether in architecture, which amazingly they believed might even include tees, fairways and greens, the necessary requirements of golf that are inherently not particularly natural, at least to some areas and sites!

These are the kinds of things that the likes of Geoff Shackelford understands so well, in my opinion--certainly along with people with the sense of this like TommyN.

And there is additional fascination in much of what has been uncovered by Tom MacWood in his articles on the "Arts and Crafts Movement" and its inspiration and effects on golf architecture! It's interesting because the "arts and crafts movement" was essentially a reaction to the building architecture of that time that departed from the look and feel of nature too!

Amazingly, the building architecture that was primarily targeted by the "arts and crafts movement" as a departure from nature and the "natural look" was the classic Greek and Roman architecture, certainly considered, then and now some of the most awesome architecture ever created! But nevertheless, particularly it too was extremely geometric, albeit beautifully balanced and artistic but still man-made looking.

Why golf's geometric designs and the vestiges of it disappeared had much to do with the foregoing but certainly maintenance practices and such contributed to it for one reason or another--certainly mowing problems and requirements.

We at GMGC are restoring our original Ross greens and many of them are basically squarish because GMGC was designed in 1916 as Ross too was himself coming out of that era of geometrics and the man-made look to a degree!

Our greens, however, were not as square as say LuLu that preceded GMGC by 3-5 years and there is evidence of "flairs" on the square corners of some of our greens (which we will restore) and that to me is evidence of Ross starting his own expression toward a form of "naturalism" and away from "geometrics"!

Why would we restore those squarish green forms at GMGC now when "Golden Age" architecture went so far beyond it in the ensuing ten years (to the depression)? In my mind, simply because it IS so fascinating in the evolution of architecture and American architecture!

Great question Pat! I look forward to much more development of the answers to this question, and the answers and reasons for the evolution of architecture--certainly from those such as GeoffShac!

And when all is said and done I think you'll have a better idea of where we were coming from last year during some tangential and oblique discussions about this basic subject in architecture and "naturalism's" part in it all!

And you will have a better idea of where we want to go with it in the future. The architects appear to be here again who understand these things, are inspired by them, and might even someday realize the dreams of those "Golden Agers" who hoped somehow to take all of this back entirely to the look of nature!

I don't know how that will happen or even if the modern golfer will understand it or put up with it but I think we could be on the threshold, finally, of at least trying it!

This is all very fascinating to me and ultimately I think it means it's interesting to look at golf architecture in its entirety and the entirety of its evolution but it's very important too to look at any particular time and era in its own time with what came before it before you look at what came after it!

Only then, I think, can you understand it better and its evolution and of course where it might take us next!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #7 on: August 29, 2002, 05:36:53 AM »
Pat:

Lest you accuse me of failing to answer all your questions properly, I would like now to deal with your last question on the parallel lines meeting in a black hole.

I would say in the real world two perfect parallel lines would not ever meet in a black hole but if in fact you're the one drawing the two parallel lines, then, yes, eventually they will meet and end in a black hole!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #8 on: August 29, 2002, 05:48:25 AM »
Which one of the dead guys said, "there are no straight lines in nature"?  Why would the "modern" architects purposely not want to at least try to emulate nature in their designs?  

Remember, a lot of us on this site like quirky, old, and unusual design features.  Square greens for example fit that picture and I think that is why we enjoy "some" of those old architecture practices.  

I'm going out to play Fishers shortly and know I will see some geometric architecture.  I'm sure I will love it.  But why would a modern architect (like C&C for example) build similar features if given a site like that.  I believe it was Tom Doak who said something about Fishers along the lines of, "does the architecture really blend in"?  
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #9 on: August 29, 2002, 06:39:15 AM »
Mark:

To understand better the answers to those questions you just asked I think the only way is simply to understand better the entire evolution of golf course architecture! The answers are all there although the nuances are sometimes tricky to pick up on!

Doak is certainly correct about some lines not really blending that well into nature and such but to understand that too you only have to look at that time when those lines were created and to look at that time in its own unique and evolutionary time unaffected by what WE TODAY know was to come later!

The only reason we need to do it that way is to try to see and understand what was going on then and that THEY BACK THEN knew what preceded them but they did NOT know what would follow them although we today certainly do!

To look at any history correctly and accurately we must rid ourselves of all of what we know followed the time we are looking back at--if we don't we can get such a distorted view of things sometimes!

The prism of a view from our own times backwards is sometimes very distorting if it's a true understanding of a particular past era that we're looking for! I think of it as trying to get in a time capsule and going back to a particular time so then even I, like them, would not know what was to follow!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »

Stephen Hawking

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #10 on: August 29, 2002, 06:43:04 AM »
Pat,
Providing that your parallel lines have mass they would cease to exist once they crossed the event horizon. They would be broken into their basic components by the imense gravity and increase the mass of the hole.

As an aside, time would slow to a stop at the edge of the black hole, similar to the feeling you get in your gut when leaving an 8 footer for birdie right on the lip of the cup. :'(
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #11 on: August 29, 2002, 06:45:03 AM »
I agree with Mark.  Generally, curves and varying forms are found more often in nature, and hence are percieved as natural.  If natural is a stated goal of golf design, why use geometrics?

I don't think anyone got away from accepted principals in the geometry thing, I think they got away from "no thoughts" design and started deep thinking about individual features.  Square tees remain for "historical value" as Cornish puts it in his new book "Classical golf holes".
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #12 on: August 29, 2002, 07:05:31 AM »
Whaddya mean there are no straight lines in nature?  Tree trunks are straight, and we know how much they belong on golf courses!   ::)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Scott_Burroughs

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #13 on: August 29, 2002, 07:41:01 AM »
Also,

One architect tried to used lots of "unnatural" geometric and straight lines in a modern design, and he was blasted for it:  Bob Cupp's course at Palmetto Hall.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #14 on: August 29, 2002, 07:56:12 AM »
Mark Fine,

Anyone who said there are no straight lines in nature never sailed on a large body of water, examined a beehive or the stalks of long grass/wheat.

Chris Hunt,

Why wouldn't you want to see rectangular bunkers ?
If they work well at Chicago GC, GCGC and others, why couldn't they work well on other new courses ?

I think rectangular tees exist for more than just a "historical connection" and if rectangular tees are predominant, why not build some rectangular greens and bunkers ?

Variety should not be restricted, and rectangular bunkers also have a "historical connection".  Inland bunkers by their very nature are artificial, so, how valid can the objection that they are unnatural looking be ?

First the STYMIE, then RECTANGULAR BUNKERS.

If parallel lines meet, wouldn't they fail to qualify as parallel lines ?

TEPaul,

Could it also be that golf course architecture transitioned from a period where it was acceptable to copy other holes, other designs, other architects, to the period when everything had to be original, and rectangular bunkers certainly aren't original,
hence they shrunk and disappeared as egos expanded ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #15 on: August 29, 2002, 08:34:37 AM »
Pat:

Now that you seem to be finally getting onto the importance of nature and things natural looking in either their overall lines or other visual effects to match and mimic with golf architecture don't get too carried away!

Get off large bodies of water, beehives and long stalks of grass. I have yet to see a good course (architecturally) mimic the lines of a large body of water, I guess because I've never seen a good course built out on a large body of water! Things like mimicing the lines of a beehive or a long stalk of grass is getting a little out there, in my opinion--or at least just yet!

Things are complicated enough this way so for a time anyway why don't you stick to analyzing the contour lines of the ground both near, medium and far, the horizon lines, overall treetop lines and even skylines and clouds if you see them? The wind-blown look of the loose sand on a forming or disintegrating dune top is one of the most fascinating of all!

But it sounds like we should just take you out to a site like Talking Stick and let you see what you'd do with a horizon line like that! Then maybe you could start matching and mimicing it with sqaure and rectangular tees, bunkers, greens and such.

But on the other hand, maybe not--maybe that wouldn't be a great idea!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #16 on: August 29, 2002, 04:20:51 PM »
TEPaul,

Chicago Golf Club and GCGC are well regarded golf courses and seem to have passed the test of time, with their  rectangular bunkers.

I guess there are those that perceive that there is nothing creative or original about designing a rectangular bunker, and perhaps the "LOOK" has become too important.

Rectangular bunkers that surround a green would seem to offer great strategic and physcological hazards.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #17 on: August 29, 2002, 08:17:24 PM »
Pat,

I kind of regard square bunkers like square hamburgers from White Castle (or Krystals for the southern contingent) - When others have gone "round", they stand out as unique.  And I don't get a "taste" of either of them very often, but they are so bad they are good!

I don't think bunker shape really affects strategy, but I do think the rectangular bunkers offer addtional hyscological hazards, looking at those steep banks, and not even being able to aim a short wedge over the grassy cape for an addtional margin of safety.  I often use straighter edged bunkers on short approaches because they seem more intimidating.

I don't know whether square or free forms are more creative.  Part of creativity is putting something out there that is new to many players, and square bunkers are that.  Basically, free forms connote naturalistic design.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #18 on: August 29, 2002, 09:12:48 PM »
Like Tom said, first we had not geometry, just design upon nature as in TOC.  Then we had man using tools to create a course, and that descended into emphasis on formulas, measures, and excavations and such.  That looked ugly and some archies moved towads being more artistic than the trench diggers and tried to shape to emmulate nature, and thus various styles of course construction, looks, and a notion of traditional golf course features came into being.  The continued preference by some for the perfectly squared off tee is just that, a preference.  The early building formula  and method became the sqaurish greens and bunkers because they were rudimentary or early in the aesthetic development of GCA.  Some built more pleasing and interesting geometric golf features than others.  But the key is that they were "built". Then some guys came along and tried harder to match the non-standard or random forms of nature.  All this stuff boils down to style.  It used to be style to wear those funny little collars and a ties on the course while playing.  We found it is more comfortable and enjoyable to play in golf shirts and shorts now.  At some point supers found it more comfortable and efficient to mow greens that weren't square.  Some archies are trying to use gimmickery to build a green or two that has some squarness or geometry to inject a theme of old, quirky, etc.  Good golf course design doesn't require geometric style, and some say it abhors it.  Yet many of us get a bang out of playing a totally funky old geometric course for reasons of nostalgia, like we love looking at these recent AOTDs that depict the odd ball stuff.
« 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.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #19 on: August 30, 2002, 04:42:08 AM »
RJ,

What I don't understand is, why do rectangular bunkers look ugly ?

The rectangular bunker pictures I've seen, and the actual rectangular bunkers I've seen look pretty neat.

I would think that their unique nature would make them an interesting feature to add to a new course.

What am I missing ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ken_Cotner

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #20 on: August 30, 2002, 05:47:09 AM »
This is one I still struggle with.  Golf courses which appear to seamlessly blend features in with the natural surroundings are celebrated, and new courses which don't achieve this effect are panned.  But most Raynor/Banks courses are also praised, specifically for their distinctive geometric features.

Some have explained how these seemingly conflicting ideas are actually consistent with each other on the old courses.  Try as I might, I don't see the consistency; the explanations seem forced.

At the end of the day, though, it just doesn't matter to me.  I LIKE both "styles" when they are done well, and whether or not the style conforms to some supposed universal principle is far less important.

Variety is good.  And, as my dad always said, all things in moderation.

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

TEPaul

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #21 on: August 30, 2002, 09:37:13 AM »
KC:

You bring up such good points there about the apparent conflicting ideas and opinions on geometric (or engineered) styling depending on where it is or which course it is!

It is an extremely and complex thing to contemplate and attempt to explain and like you appear to wonder, I too have wondered if some people who pan some geometric styling on some courses (particularly more modern age ones) and then turn around and highly praise say NGLA are somehow being somewhat disengenous or else simply failing to really understand the subject they're discussing and the complexity or even mysteriousness of it!

But I'd like to give it another shot anyway. It'll be somewhat redundant to the two super long posts I made above about all this and also to the really good, explanatory and concise post from RJ Daley.

To understand this stuff better it's highly important, I think, to look at any of this geometric work of any age in architecture entirely in the context of it's time of creation and in the context of the evolution of architecture as a whole and where any architecture fits into that evolution!

Only then can you see what was going on and why and what it might mean today in answering these questions more accurately and honestly. Probably a better way to look at NGLA and MacDonald/Raynor would be to ask if we could somehow take them out of their very early age in the evolution of architecture and of the creation of NGLA (1910), with what they knew then (and didn't know or couldn't do) and put them into our own age would NGLA look the same as it did and does or not?

Alarmingly, and probably very sadly I would say probably not or certainly not entirely!! But even more interestingly it very well may be those extremely engineered and geometric areas of the course that would only look different somehow but not play different!

So, in my opinion, if they could do that (today) or would want to if they were working today, the very same playabilities of those areas (the very manufactured areas) would be intact and the same--but probably NOT IN LOOK--or at least not exactly like that!

One of the reasons I surmise that is that those extremely manufactured areas, as opposed to those on the course that aren't so much so are frankly the ones that PLAY the best of all.

Look at the most manufactured looking greens and green-ends--#1, 2, 3!, 4, 6, 7!!, 8!!, 11, 12. These are the greens and green-ends that have some of the best, most interesting and challenging playabilities despite what they look like in comparison to their natural surrounds or that of the overall site.

If MacD and Raynor could work today and had the capability to do today what they couldn't do then what they probably would do to lose that manufactured, engineered or even sometimes geometric look would be simply grade way out away from those super engineered green-ends and blend and tie them in better with the natural landscape!

But we have to remember too that those guys like MacDonald, Hugh Wilson, Crump went to Europe for inspiration and hole and architectural concepts and what they found there looked a lot like the holes they built back in America anyway--because again in Europe there was so much of that manufactured look too because that was the best they could do at that time over there as well! But what if they were making their research trips today?

But another and simpler way to look at an engineered or geometric style in any time or era in the evolution of architecture is to just forget how it looks and concentrate on only how it plays.

In that sense NGLA is a clear winner over other courses with somewhat the same engineered or geometric look or vestiges of it!

But we do know, I think, why they did what they did then--that was their era and that was their time in the evolution of it all, basically they had to.

But if they could do it today with what's available would they do it differently and if so how and how much.

That we'll never know!

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

Ken_Cotner

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2002, 12:30:47 PM »
Tom,

You made one critical point much more concisely [did "Tom Paul" and "concise" just collide in the same post?  :o ) than I - how does it PLAY?  If that redan or Biarritz or Alps sticks out like a sore thumb versus the surrounding area, but offers all the opportunities for thrills and catastrophe that it should, then in the words of the Great Philosopher -- bring it on, b***h!

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

Tom Doak

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #23 on: August 31, 2002, 01:52:31 PM »
I have a thought on this one.

On all the older courses Pat cites -- his top two are both places where I've been consulting -- the squareness of the lines is muted by the natural selection and mottling of grasses in the roughs.  Of course, this is even more true in Scotland.

However, on a brand-spanking-new golf course where the owners expect turfgrass purity, square lines are sharper and (IMHO) look much the worse for it.

This has a lot to do with why some architects are considered better at renovation than others.  A big-budget renovation which totally re-sods all the bunker faces with pure new turf is bound to look sterile.  A few years ago I remember sitting through a presentation on the "renewed" East Lake, and the director of golf after showing many photos asked the audience if the course didn't look 100 years old.  I thought it looked like it had been built the day before.

P.S.  I was really good at geometry, but the only times I use it are to calculate earth quantities and how much bunker sand we'll need.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Did all modern day architects flunk geometry
« Reply #24 on: September 01, 2002, 03:12:23 AM »
Now that there has been some interesting contributions to this topic, including one from an architect (Tom Doak) and the only instances where there might be an geometry attached to his productions, it's probably worth asking about geometry and the very early squarish sytle of architecture.

Did that very early style in American architecture known as the "geometric era", that era and style that C.B. MacDonald so adamantly objected to, actually have any geometry attached to that style itself?

Ironically, there are vestiges of that squarish, engineered and manufactured looking style in almost all the courses of MacDonald/Raynor themselves.

It seems to me that "squarish" style and even the vestiges of it at NGLA is simply a product of the times NGLA was built and some of the "prototypes" MacDonald may have found in Europe too. It's just that that time was an early one in the evolution of architecture and there was simply vestiges of rudimentariness of both construction methods and style in it!

In other words, is there any more geometry or the use of it in the features of NGLA than the highly "natural looking" Cypress Point or Coore and Crenshaw or Doak's products today?

Probably not! It's probably nothing more than an early more rudimentary style of architecture which again, can best be understood by analyzing the entire evolution of golf architecture itself and any particular time or "style" era in that evolution.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »