An Ode to Perry Maxwell

[Peter Pallotta]

For no particular reason except that we haven't had an ode in a while. And also, the tag-line I borrowed from Kelly Blake Moran got me thinking again. Here are snippets from a 1930s article by Bob Davis:

Can it be, at last, that a Moses has appeared who will lead us out of the wilderness, into green pastures, over rolling hills and onward to inviting landscape where the beauty of fields and brooks and alluring undulations born of kindly nature merge in loveliness? Is it to be that we are to have tees and greens and fairways, yea even rough, that rain and sunshine and the cleansing winds have brought to perfection through the seasons?

Is the Great Architect of the terrain, the Landscape Gardener of all outdoors to be approved, after all these centuries, by a mere mortal who would leave undisturbed the splendors time hath wrought? Hail to the newcomer who craves not to remake the world. Salute to simplicity. Hosannas!

Oh pshaw; I can't go on this way indefinitely, like a duffer addressing the ball. Don't seem right. Anyhow, getting down to brass tacks, I've just had what I consider a swell chat with Perry D. Maxwell, who hails from Ardmore, Oklahoma, out where the west separates from the east and goes its own way, regardless.

[He says] “Many an acre of magnificent land has been utterly destroyed by the steam shovel, throwing up its billows of earth, biting out traps and bunkers, transposing landmarks that are contemporaries of Genesis. We can't blame the engineers, surveyors, landscape experts and axmen for carrying out the designs in the blueprints, most of which come into existence at the instigation of amateurs obsessed with a passion for remodeling the masterpieces of nature."

[On Ardmore] “To date no man has played Ardmore in par, yet my daughter, still in her 'teens, has broken 100 on it. Professionals and topnotch amateurs who have played it pronounce the greens and fairways perfect. The total cost of construction and upkeep over a period of eleven years is less than $35,000. By that I mean about $3,000 per annum. Nature has been kind, because we have not defied her. We co-operate with the seasons, and dividends never fail."

Peter

By the way, though I haven't re-read them in a while, my thanks to Chris Clouser for his very fine essays on here about Maxwell, my introduction to him.

[Chris_Clouser]

Peter,

Glad you enjoyed the essays.  

If you want more about Maxwell and his work I'm sure I can point you a certain direction.  

[TEPaul]

Peter:

I sure will be part of or support an ode to Perry Maxwell.

I don't know how many times I've said to people that I think he may be the finest green designer there ever was. I think I've also added it's my understanding that Crenshaw and Coore feel the same.

But for years my experience with Maxwell's architecture was sort of different in that most of what I'd seen from him had been green redesigns.

I've known Crystal Downs well for years but that course is attributed to Mackenzie and Maxwell so it's sort of hard to just praise Maxwell and his talent for it.

I did finally see Melrose here in Philadelphia and I wasn't that impressed with its architecture but some of that may be because it's been so changed over the years. Some of the greens and holes are pretty neat architecture though but not that impressive compared to all the rest I'd seen of his.

It wasn't until I went to Prairie Dunes last year for a couple of days that I really got the full impact of Maxwell and his architecture---both Perry and Press, and I do know which is which on this course.

Out there I said to those I was with that Prairie Dunes just may be the most sophisticated natural looking golf architecture I've ever seen and I definitely am sticking to that opinion to date.

It took me maybe a few days to appeciate what-all it was about the course in that atmosphere that made it such sophisticated and natural looking architecture in my opinion, but I'd just say that all-in-all it is what I would definitely call "The Full Boat"!

[Tom_Doak]

Perry Maxwell:  Obsessed with par!

Of course, he preferred par-70 courses, so we might give him a pass on it.

[TEPaul]

Peter:

Of the old-guy architects and their architecture I'm aware of here's the way I'd rate them;

#1 Mackenzie and Maxwell right together at the top without as much as a tenth of an inch separating their talent stature.

#2 Probably Colt, Alison and Fowler although I don't know enough about the latter's work. And right with them and in no way below them I'd put George Thomas.

#3 Although most of them didn't do that much I'd put the likes of Wilson, Crump, and Leeds in there with other higher production architects like Emmet, Macdonald, Raynor etc.

#5 Park Jr, Langford, Banks etc

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

It is unlike you to rank, but as you are, where is Flynn in your ranking?  He doesn't seem to be in your top 15.  That's a bit of a surprise.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D - that's funny. I thought he was obsessed with having beginners break 100.  Is that the same thing?

Tom P - thanks. As you know, when it comes to the great old guys, my familiarity comes only from pictures and readings. I'd list Maxwell and Fowler as my favourites. It's interesting that you put Maxwell and Mackenzie so close together in terms of talent -- i.e. since I don't think I'd confuse their courses, it seems to me their talents manifested themselves differently. I mean, both put their talents to the service of a natural look, but what each meant by a natural look seems different. Yes?

Peter  

[Jeff_Brauer]

I always thought PD regressed a bit in his architecture.

Dornick Hills originally looked a lot like NGLA.  The club gradually took out most of that, but there are some grass depressions that were very big angled fw bunkers, now long gone.

How he got from that to clamshell bunkers in repetitive patterns (and his son was probably a bit more guilty of that) is beyond me.  Its almost as big a mystery as to how Tilly could do SFGC in 1915 and then do some plain bunkering at Golden Valley in MN in 1916.  Once I did some great looking bunkers like that, I don't think I would go back to the other style.  Of course, it could be a plan only job, and a result of differing field foreman.

[Jay Flemma]

I enjoyed the essays as well, thanks for posting.  Having been to Dornick on the same day as Wyatt Halliday, I was struck by some of the interesting routing, especially 16.  That was sheer genius and cheek directing us in to the teeth of that monster...

[TEPaul]

"I always thought PD regressed a bit in his architecture."

JeffB;

Who is PD?

[Chris_Clouser]

Tom,

PD stands for Perry Duke.  He actually was called that by his friends.  

Jeff,

I'm curious about your comment as well.  The "clamshell" bunkers that are often associated with Maxwell are not of his doing.  His original bunkers were much more ragged on the edges.  Not as much as C&C are known for today, but nothing like what many of his courses have adopted.  That is through years of maintenance and upkeep.  All you have to do is look at early photos of Southern Hills, Crystal Downs, Prairie Dunes, Old Town, Oklahoma City, Twin Hills, etc.  to see that was not the case.  Is there something else beyond that making you think that way?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Chris,

Thanks for taking my side on that. However, I think I started with the PD initials thinking of Prairie Dunes and got lost. As my math teachers used to say, I had self correcting errors.....

I suppose I should re-read your book again before answering any more off the top of my head!  Most of my comments were based on the clamshell bunkers which may or may not be true.  But also, the original DH had angled carry bunkers, etc. whereas the work he is more famous for got more into lateral bunkering. I know Prairie Dunes has the great bunker on 13 (14?) you have to carry.  I haven't see too many photos of Southern Hills that show the same flare the orginal Dornick Hills had.

Lastly, I think I see design differences in both CD and the U of M course, collaborated on by Mac and Maxwell.  The attribution of various holes is about as obvious as attributions to a Lennon-McCartney song (i.e. if Paul sings, Paul wrote)  In both cases, both partners seem to have put in some of their pet holes, but Macs are more to my liking.

I also may be mixing Press and Perry together.  In all the Dallas work, which is more Press that Perry, club members who have studied the work refer to his greens as the "3 mounder, 4 mounder, or occaisional 2 or 5 mounder"  In one sense Press was to his Dad what Raynor was to CBMac, just taking the concepts he learned and using them repetitively.

For whatever reason, at least on Press courses, when I look at the greens, I see more bunker than I see green target, which I think is a poor way to design a green.

[JC Urbina]

Jeff
I find it interesting that you think a green should have a blinking red light telling everyone here I am aim for me.
I see it the opposite way, the green should blend in as part of the landscape hiding all of its twists and turns.
That's why I think Maxwell greens became famous for the inside rolls, they appeared to be just part of the overall landscape.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

I don't see internal contours as totally related to the natural landscape AND target visibility. Thinking of the Press Maxwell greens I see around Dallas, those are mostly built out of fill pads, not set at ground level, and look built, rather than part of the landscape. At other places I have seen Perry Maxwell Greens, they are better at tying in than Press, but I don't think Maxwell put the rolls in for that reason. For one thing, courses like DH, UM and a few others really didn't have those micro contours anywhere else, but they showed up in the greens - but not always even in the surrounds - regardless.  

But generally, yes, I think golf holes work better when the eye is led to the target through composition than hiding the ultimate target, for both play and aesthetic reasons.  

I think most gca's throughout the US history of architecture feel the same.  

I think most players want to see most of the target, most of the time.

Blending greens into nature to the point where they disappear sounds good to some, but   artistic composition is usually better if there are some logical focal points rather than a bunch of random nature to look at.  Man needs some kind of organization to appreciate the built landscape, at least IMHO.  

As always, others study this more than I and I could be wrong.

Press' greens are simply not as artistic.  Its not so much that the green is partly hidden by bunkers, its a relationship of that scale of bunker (as I saw them 30 years or more later) to what you saw of the green, the repetitivenss of bunker left, bunker right, etc.

[Peter Pallotta]

A couple of thoughts/questions - the article also mentions Maxwell noting that on Ardmore, only six bunkers were created, i.e. 'were not there already'. That's very neat; and strikes me as a difference between him and MacKenzie (was it a difference? did that change over the years?). Maxwell was also proud of that miniscule building and maintenance budget, not only for its own sake but because it went a long way to keeping golf affordable. That's also very neat (did he stay on that theme for much of his career?)  

From what I can tell, Maxwell's one of those relatively rare 'quiet' architects: their courses are truly low to the ground and humble, and even their naturalism seems muted and unforced (is that an accurate assessment? If so, curious as to how his courses have held up as 'championship tests')

Peter  

[Jeff_Brauer]

Peter,

I find that hard to believe, as its heavy clay soils there. He may be speaking of natural depressions he only had to fill with sand, but there are no Pine Valley like scrub at DH.  From memory, the big grass depression on 10 that was originally a bunker was certainly shaped.  Others had long been obliterated when I saw it, so I couldn't say on those.

I would have to go look at Chris' book again and search the memory bank to get a better read, but I really had the impression from being there, seeing the original plans, etc. that the original was more along the lines of NGLA, shamelessly built to achieve great holes, not naturalistic to a fault.

He certainly knew how to follow the land in a routing, though.

Maybe he was cranking up his PR machine?

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - thanks. You sent me back to the article to check and get the wording right -- it doesn't get into the specifics, but here's the snippet I was thinking about:

"Not a square foot of earth that could be left in its natural state has been removed. No pimples or hummocks of alterations falsify its beauty. There are but six artificial bunkers, the rest are natural, and all the driving tees are within a few steps of the putting greens."

I didn't know about the clay soils (and thus the difference to PV), and I wish more people then and now could be happy with grassy depressions instead.

Peter

[Chris_Clouser]

Jeff,

I think you are totally correct in your thoughts about Dornick being a NGLA style of course.  

As for the six natural bunkers, I also think you are correct in that he filled natural depressions with sand from the photos and stories I have seen and heard about the course.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

See Chris, I DID read your book! (and shamelessly recommend every one else here get a copy......)

[J Sadowsky]

Maxwell's greens at the University of Michigan golf course in Ann Arbor (he was an assistant for MacKenzie at the time) are spectacular.

[Sean_A]

Jim,

At other places I have seen Perry Maxwell Greens, they are better at tying in than Press, but I don't think Maxwell put the rolls in for that reason. For one thing, courses like DH, UM and a few others really didn't have those micro contours anywhere else, but they showed up in the greens - but not always even in the surrounds - regardless.  

Jeff

Above is an interesting comment of yours.  I know UofM fairly well and never thought the Maxwell Rolls were present.  Unfortunately, I have only seen one other Maxwell course, Old Town, and the greens were far more contoured - perhaps matching a bit more of an up and down landscape than UofM.  

I would like to see Old Town again because the green complexes were most impressive.  They didn't strike me as grade level greens as many had slight (and sometimes abrupt) rises which made bumping shots in most difficult and not really a smart play - one aspect I didn't care for as it may have been over-used.  However, the contours of the greens seemed to carry on to the surrounds, but perhaps not more than 15 yards or so.  UofM's greens seemed much more manageable from a ground game perspective and I suspect were less built up than Old Town's (but I think we must remember that Old Town's greens may have been altered bit with front lifts etc - if I am not mistaken).  Both sets have a strong attraction for me.  

Any thoughts?

Ciao

[Craig Van Egmond]

Justin,
 
          See the quote below...

          " Chris Clouser, author of “The Midwest Associate” may have compiled the most comprehensive synopsis of Perry Maxwell’s body of work as a golf course architect. “Actually, Maxwell is misunderstood by many people” he notes with a hint of regret in his voice. “For example, he wasn’t Mackenzie’s associate, he was his partner.” Clouser goes on to explain that, during their period of collaboration (1924-1935) “Mackenzie would get the contracts, then they would collaborate n the design. Then Maxwell finished everything.” History reflects this arrangement at such famous places as Crystal Downs and The University of Michigan Golf Course, but did you know they also did Oklahoma City Country Club and Melrose Country Club in Pennsylvania?"

 

[J Sadowsky]

Jim,

At other places I have seen Perry Maxwell Greens, they are better at tying in than Press, but I don't think Maxwell put the rolls in for that reason. For one thing, courses like DH, UM and a few others really didn't have those micro contours anywhere else, but they showed up in the greens - but not always even in the surrounds - regardless.  

Jeff

Above is an interesting comment of yours.  I know UofM fairly well and never thought the Maxwell Rolls were present.  Unfortunately, I have only seen one other Maxwell course, Old Town, and the greens were far more contoured - perhaps matching a bit more of an up and down landscape than UofM.  

I would like to see Old Town again because the green complexes were most impressive.  They didn't strike me as grade level greens as many had slight (and sometimes abrupt) rises which made bumping shots in most difficult and not really a smart play - one aspect I didn't care for as it may have been over-used.  However, the contours of the greens seemed to carry on to the surrounds, but perhaps not more than 15 yards or so.  UofM's greens seemed much more manageable from a ground game perspective and I suspect were less built up than Old Town's (but I think we must remember that Old Town's greens may have been altered bit with front lifts etc - if I am not mistaken).  Both sets have a strong attraction for me.  

Any thoughts?

Ciao

UM's course definitely has Maxwell rolls.  Take a look at the green complexes in the tour:

http://www.mgoblue.com/clubs/article.aspx?id=28612

I think Hills may have smoothed them a bit when he "restored" the course, or at least did not restore the rolls to their original glory, but they are still there.

[TEPaul]

Craig Edmund:

Yes, I think most of us are aware that Perry often needed to check up on Alister due to perhaps some flask architecture practices or whatever via that funny and cool Crystal Downs story.

Alister:
"Maxwell, I think this front nine is the best nine I've ever done."

Perry:
"Ah, Alister, this front nine is only eight holes."

Alister:
You're (hick) shittin' me (gulp), right (hick) PD?"

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

At other places I have seen Perry Maxwell Greens, they are better at tying in than Press, but I don't think Maxwell put the rolls in for that reason. For one thing, courses like DH, UM and a few others really didn't have those micro contours anywhere else, but they showed up in the greens - but not always even in the surrounds - regardless.  

Jeff

Above is an interesting comment of yours.  I know UofM fairly well and never thought the Maxwell Rolls were present.  Unfortunately, I have only seen one other Maxwell course, Old Town, and the greens were far more contoured - perhaps matching a bit more of an up and down landscape than UofM.  

I would like to see Old Town again because the green complexes were most impressive.  They didn't strike me as grade level greens as many had slight (and sometimes abrupt) rises which made bumping shots in most difficult and not really a smart play - one aspect I didn't care for as it may have been over-used.  However, the contours of the greens seemed to carry on to the surrounds, but perhaps not more than 15 yards or so.  UofM's greens seemed much more manageable from a ground game perspective and I suspect were less built up than Old Town's (but I think we must remember that Old Town's greens may have been altered bit with front lifts etc - if I am not mistaken).  Both sets have a strong attraction for me.  

Any thoughts?

Ciao

Sean,

Haven't seen Old Town, so I won't comment. At both CD and UM, I got the feeling that some greens were true MacKenzie and others Maxwell between visits by the Doc.  A few seem like experimental Maxwell green prototypes and fewer still seem like the two might have collaborated.  The two boomerang greens at UM are pure Mac, I think, based on similar ones at Pasa and elsewhere.  I have notes in a yardage book somewhere if you need real hole numbers.

IMHO, if the gca only carries the poofs out ten or fifteen yards, it looks as man made as if he kept them on the green.  When building such things, there is often no logical place to stop, which is similar to the reason that Rees and others have mounded all the way down fairways!  You can keep it going or you can accept that your greens, tees, and bunkers are man made features and stop apologizing for it! (Not that you can't add some fill to the base slopes to blend in better, which is what MacK did.

Maxwell was a minimalist/naturalist in the sense that he tried to move little dirt, usually balancing cut and fill on site.  However, he did it by keeping greens generally lower to the ground, sloping greens with the ground, no matter which way that might have been, and only moving fill in to build up the back of bunkers for visibilty, where he wasn't shy about it.

But he did develop some prototype or at least oft repeated holes, with the bunkers in similar locations from course to course, and was not bashful about adding fill when needed.  Granted, he tried to fit the greens and bunkers to the topos, as noted, but I never got the impression that using every natural feature was quite as important as building his prethought concept as efficiently as possible.

As always, this is just my take in viewing several PDM courses.  I really haven't been able to channel him or anything!