They Don't Call Them Classics For Nothing

[Mike Hendren]

During my 16 years teaching an adult Sunday School class I've taught on a variety of subjects, utilizing a myriad of materials.  Invariably the "classics" have more depth and are more intellectually and spiritually challenging that the modern writings that rarely transcend self-help.  I am currently teaching from a book entitled "Spiritual Classics" which includes a compilation of classic writings edited by the outstanding contemorary writer Richard Foster.  The writings of such stalwarts as Catherine Marshall, Thomas Merton, A. W. Tozer, Martin Luther, John Milton, Leo Tolstoy (Why do men stupify themselves? - gotta love that title), Evelyn Underhill, and Hannah More are timeless, challenging and enlightening. 

Can the same can be said for golf course architecture?  Much of the modern courses, even those routinely praised here are often more fluff than substance and designed to appeal to a certain audience, be it Joe Six Pack or the cognoscenti on GCA.com.   

Just as Joel Osteen is no C. S. Lewis, is it possible that ___________________ (insert the name of your favorite current architect) is no Ross, Colt, Mackenzie, Flynn Tillinghast or Raynor?  At least not yet.?

I'm not saying.  I'm just wondering.

Mike

[John Sheehan]

Michael,
I would guess that part of the continuing allure of the classics in both literature and GCA are the timeless themes.  Part is the art itself.  In both arts, the classics represent a very small portion of the whole.  I don’t think that has changed.

We are very fortunate indeed to be living in a true renaissance period of GCA.  The courses that will likely be looked upon as fluff are most that were built from the 1940’s to the 1980’s and the majority that have been built since.  “Hard par – easy bogey” is not a design philosophy that is based on any principles of design.  It represents no underlying principles, strategic or otherwise, where the drawing board meets the land.

But, we are blessed to have a number of current architects (Doak, Eckenrode, Hanse, Poellet/Moore, Ken Kavanaugh, Brian Costello, Kidd, Coore & Crenshaw, etc., and more I'm sure) who have returned to the classic, timeless, strategic themes and principles, and are humble enough to allow Mother Nature to both have the upper hand in, and to act as the muse for their designs. 

For my own tastes, most of the courses I am asked to review are either a disappointment or a travesty.  Up until the last few years, there were very few new courses that inspired me; now, at least there are a few that meet my own criteria for what makes a timeless design.  Fashions and fads change, art lasts.  It is my own belief that many of today’s strategic and minimalist designs will last.  None of those architects I’ve named (and probably many I have not listed) will ever be compared to Osteen.

[Jim Nugent]

I don't think there's any way to know which current archies, if any, will be considered classics.  Only the passage of time can answer that. 

Also true in literature and art.  Plenty of writers and musicians were seen as giants in their day, but now are just footnotes to history.   

[Peter Pallotta]

Michael -

I've thought about this question before, but never in the context of golf course architecture.

When it comes to the classics I think you've got it right and phrased it well:  invariably they have more depth and are more intellectually/spiritually challenging than modern writings that rarely transcend self-help.

Evelyn Underhill is a perfect example, i.e. I found her book on mysticism  an outstanding and comprehensive look at the history and theory and practice. And, from what I can tell, every book on that subect written since then is based mostly on hers, but is shorter and more superficial and less intellectually rigourous, i.e. there's been a devolution in the quality of the writing. (I'm guessing one of the reasons is that Ms. Underhill spent a decades studying/writing on the subject; today, with her book as a reference and with the internet, someone can discover the subject and write a book on it in about 6 months.)

Is there a parallel to golf course architecture? I'm not sure. I don't think so, especially if we're talking about the very good and dedicated modern day architects.

But I do think there's always the risk that the followers (as in the case of those who've followed Ms. Underhill) will focus on the surface of things and not the depth; will get the letter of the message right but not the spirit; and will get to the final work by means unknown of in the past, thereby changing the dynamic/process and the final work in some (albeit subtle) ways.     

Peter

[hhuffines]

Mike,

I have been wondering the same thing but mostly here in NC, just east of hillbilly.  Pinehurst #2 has been challenging the very best of pros and ams for generations and now we read that its over rated and will be bested by a new course which "looks to be" great.

We also have the deluge of new Fazio tracks that immediately jump to the highest of the rankings.

Fluff versus substance - excellent question!

[Mike Hendren]

Excellent posts, gentlemen,

John,  you are correct in that I did a disservice to many of today's architects by comparing them to Osteen.  It was a cute attempt at hyperbole that frankly deserved a harsher response.  I'm grateful that yours was mild. 

My spirit soars more on a "good" classics that it does on a "great" moderns - a bias that I continually fight and try to reconcile.  Frankly, I'm having a blast doing to.

Mike

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

None of us as architects know whether we have produced something that will really be accepted as a "classic" 50 years hence.  We can probably make good guesses about WHICH of our courses will be most highly thought of, IF ANY OF THEM ARE.

I suspect the same is probably true of classic novels and their authors, but I don't have any experience there.

I do share your preference for many second-tier Golden Age courses over many of the top 50 Modern courses ... because I think they had their priorities better sorted out in the old days, and because the Modern list is more biased by paid promotional influences.  But it could be just our individual tastes.

[John Sheehan]

Michael,

I think Mr. Doak is correct when he says that the “modern list is more biased by paid promotional influences.”  I wasn’t really thinking of “lists” themselves in my response.  The lists are meaningless in every respect except that they do influence opinions, reflect current tastes and inspire discussion.  In that regard they are probably good; but they also probably help perpetuate as much bad design as inspire good.  I rarely write a negative review of a golf course. Instead, I choose not to write about them and instead focus on the good new courses being designed and built.  I made an exception recently when a certain new course started getting a lot of buzz. It was starting to be touted as one of the “best new courses,” etc.  I felt it was my duty to point out the defects of this course, if for no other reason than I did not want to see this type of architecture encouraged or perpetuated.  We have quite enough poor penal designs without encouraging more.  After playing the course and analyzing its design, I could only deduce that the hype surrounding the course was part of that “paid promotional” influence at work. 

I too share a love of and a bias towards the older “classics” and prefer many of the second tier Golden Age courses over some of their modern equivalents.  But I have played a number of modern courses that are truly wonderful, Mr. Doak’s included.  That some of these do inspire me leads me to think that many of them will never be thought of as fluff.  Whether they will end up on a “Best Of” list some day is irrelevant to me.   Just as I enjoy finding an obscure book or author who I like, or a $9 bottle of an obscure wine that ranks up there with a more expensive “classic” equivalent, so too do I enjoy finding architects’ work that brings back the ecstatic pleasure of playing a great classic design, regardless of whether it will end up on a list.  It is easy to look at a list of courses and check them off like some old west gunslinger.  It’s much more difficult, and ultimately more rewarding to find a truly fine new course that no one else is talking about.

Oh, and by the way Michael, I never even imagined that my response to your “Osteen” comparison should be more harsh.  I thought your choice of a simile was perfect.   

[Mike_Young]

Michael,
Check this group out if you haven't already....lots of classic stuff   www.ttf.org/index/resources/readings/  and a good site.

A comparison i see re golf architecture and books etc would be to use a modern author such as john Grisham...made lots of money...lots of writing but will never be considered a classic....same goes for much of the "pop" golf architecture brought on via RE developments....architect may have done a lot of expensive "pop" projects but none will ever be a classic....
Mike