[TEPaul]

"......a course which is properly designed and located in good golfing country can no more get out of date than can Old St Andrews. I always thought one of the charming features of Myopia was its lack of artificiality. Very much like Garden City, Myopia always offered a most welcome relief from greens banked up in the back and closely guarded by bunkers according to the type of architecture seen all over the country today. Our modern courses lack the individuality that the old ones built with more trust in nature always had."


Bob Jones wrote this in 1939. It seems to me it was by no means the only time he said virtually this same thing about what he referred to as 'America's modern courses'. It seems like he was saying the same thing back in the mid to late 1920s. He talked about some standard in 'modern' American architecture where the backs of greens were 'banked up' and he also mentioned that modern American championship courses, in his opinion, basically played the same way day after day in comparision to something like TOC or in the case of his remarks above, Myopia and GCGC. He referred to Myopia and GCGC as courses with "charm" that put a certain trust in nature.

Assuming that American architecture when he wrote that letter above in 1939 was well on its way to a form of standardization this way that might last for a number of decades, what else was it that Bob Jones had a problem with?

I guess one way to look at it is to compare, in detail, his own architectural experiment, ANGC, and particularly its green and bunkering style and design to the rest of what was going in architecturally in America before it and well after it.

It sure looks to me like the great Bob Jones did not really appreciate the way American architecture was going and probably would go for the next half century or more. It seems like he was already looking back to some of the old ways just about the time American architecture was beginning to head off in its own unique direction.

It's certainly not lost on me that Jones didn't seem to be a harsh critic but it sure looks like he was trying to say something important and we shouldn't miss the fact that he said basically the same thing for a number of years. It also seems like Bob Jones never seemed to want to get on some public soap box with his opinions and feelings about these things as many of his observations seem to only appear in some personal and private letters like the quote from the one above to Mr. Batchelder of Myopia.

What was Bobby's problem with modern American architecture and the direction it looks like he felt it was going?

And lastly, and probably most important of all, was Bob Jones and some of his friends and fellow-travelers in architecture, such as Alister Mackenzie and Max Behr trying to articulate some things which are just pretty hard to articulate and understand for the general golfer or even the overall world of golf architecture practioners?

[Sean_A]

"......a course which is properly designed and located in good golfing country can no more get out of date than can Old St Andrews. I always thought one of the charming features of Myopia was its lack of artificiality. Very much like Garden City, Myopia always offered a most welcome relief from greens banked up in the back and closely guarded by bunkers according to the type of architecture seen all over the country today. Our modern courses lack the individuality that the old ones built with more trust in nature always had."


Bob Jones wrote this in 1939. It seems to me it was by no means the only time he said virtually this same thing about what he referred to as 'America's modern courses'. It seems like he was saying the same thing back in the mid to late 1920s. He talked about some standard in 'modern' American architecture where the backs of greens were 'banked up' and he also mentioned that modern American championship courses, in his opinion, basically played the same way day after day in comparision to something like TOC or in the case of his remarks above, Myopia and GCGC. He referred to Myopia and GCGC as courses with "charm" that put a certain trust in nature.

Assuming that American architecture when he wrote that letter above in 1939 was well on its way to a form of standardization this way that might last for a number of decades, what else was it that Bob Jones had a problem with?

I guess one way to look at it is to compare, in detail, his own architectural experiment, ANGC, and particularly its green and bunkering style and design to the rest of what was going in architecturally in America before it and well after it.

It sure looks to me like the great Bob Jones did not really appreciate the way American architecture was going and probably would go for the next half century or more. It seems like he was already looking back to some of the old ways just about the time American architecture was beginning to head off in its own unique direction.

It's certainly not lost on me that Jones didn't seem to be a harsh critic but it sure looks like he was trying to say something important and we shouldn't miss the fact that he said basically the same thing for a number of years. It also seems like Bob Jones never seemed to want to get on some public soap box with his opinions and feelings about these things as many of his observations seem to only appear in some personal and private letters like the quote from the one above to Mr. Batchelder of Myopia.

What was Bobby's problem with modern American architecture and the direction it looks like he felt it was going?

TomP

They don't call the period of architecture from roughly the opening of Old Town in 1939 to whenever (either cutoff point is immaterial) the bad old days for nothing. 

If you look at the example of raised rear sections of greens it is likely a problem for BJ for a few reasons.  First, the runout of the ball is of less concern.  Second, it artificially means that folks didn't have to work as hard to get the ball higher in the air - it wasn't so critical.  Though I spose, with the popular design theories of Colt etc placing so many greens on plateaus or other (mainly later archies) having sudden, sharp rises to the fronts, it could be argued that raised backs weren't so "necessary" as in earlier times when greens were often grade level or if they were raised it was usually the sides or rear to make the green playable rather than simply easier.  The fronts were nearly always receptive to grounders. 

I don't know Augusta well enough to make a determination.  But it seems to me that BJ had a lot of plateau greens and trouble short of greens.  However, he seems to have kept a good variety so shots didn't seem too repetitive.

Ciao
Ciao

[TEPaul]

Sean:

In a shot making or "shot value" sense it isn't hard to understand Jones's problem with the idea of some architectural standardization with greens banked up in the back----Max Behr, a man he was certainly speaking with about these things explained that problem pretty comprehensively.

I think it's a lot more than that though. I think they both felt it was simply departing from the really cool use of all kinds of natural landform greens and all types of slopes and grades in numerous directions. I think that's what he meant by both "trust in nature" and how that created "charm" (lack of artificiality).

It was a "look" (of Nature) and the commensurate shots and strategies that went with the various flows of land (and greens).

One only needs to look at the greens of Myopia to understand this picture---eg they pretty much flow fairly naturally in all the directions that're possible.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
Perhaps he was lamenting the lack of unpredictability and surprise that was being supplanted by predictability and sameness.   

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

It sounds to me as if he was not a big fan of what I'll call "Platform Architecture", in which every green and tee were raised up above natural grade, with rather rote, predictable bunkering patterns that created a sameness in look and playability that his genius mind found very limiting and probably less than challenging.

It sounds to me like he was advocating at grade greens that took advantage of the limitless variability of natural terrain.

[TEPaul]

JimK:

I don't think there's any question about that. The trick is, however, to identify what the specifics were of what he didn't like and what specifically it meant to him with the playing of golf and golf shots.

For starters, given what he said about greens in that quotation was Jones particularly appreciative and admiring of well placed and well situated NATURAL green sites that provided really interesting natural grades with their various directional grade flow? If he didn't like some standardization of greens banked up in the back it would certainly seem so!  

Furthermore, that really is both Myopia and GCGC's greens.

[Adam Clayman]

Tom, There's another thread started by Phil Benedict on goofy golf, where Jeff Brauer lists some of the no no's in gca. You should find that list interesting in the context of what Bobby was trying to say.

He was too much of a gentleman to be forceful. His word was good enough, not the tone or volume.

[Michael]

Tom,

It sounds to me as if he was not a big fan of what I'll call "Platform Architecture", in which every green and tee were raised up above natural grade, with rather rote, predictable bunkering patterns that created a sameness in look and playability that his genius mind found very limiting and probably less than challenging.

It sounds to me like he was advocating at grade greens that took advantage of the limitless variability of natural terrain.

 Mike,

 Was "Platform Architecture" more of a trait because of drainage issues?

[Sean_A]

Sean:

In a shot making or "shot value" sense it isn't hard to understand Jones's problem with the idea of some architectural standardization with greens banked up in the back----Max Behr, a man he was certainly speaking with about these things explained that problem pretty comprehensively.

I think it's a lot more than that though. I think they both felt it was simply departing from the really cool use of all kinds of natural landform greens and all types of slopes and grades in numerous directions. I think that's what he meant by both "trust in nature" and how that created "charm" (lack of artificiality).

It was a "look" (of Nature) and the commensurate shots and strategies that went with the various flows of land (and greens).

One only needs to look at the greens of Myopia to understand this picture---eg they pretty much flow fairly naturally in all the directions that're possible.

TomP

You are undoubtably right.  Remember, you are talking to the guy who despises probably 1/3 of all bunkers!  In a way, the use of natural hazards compared to bunkers can be described as a difference of approach.  Generally speaking, I prefer bunkers to be used in a such way that requires me to give them thought.  As we all know, many, many bunkers don't accomplish this.  It is very different for natural hazards, or at least it can be very different.  Much of the time good natural hazards don't pop into our thoughts until we tangle with them.  The golfer is focused on the main challenge if it be a bunker, water or some sort of natural hazard as a large pimple guarding a hole location to really give due attention to the mini-hazards.  Of course there are exceptions and great examples to counter this, but ideally the use of the land and architecturally enhancing features should go hand in hand.  This is what I think BJ may have been speaking to, archies approaching their designs with a more softly softly approach - temper themselves with the odd bit of flair here and there, but still allow the land to be the guide. 

So far as I can see, much of modern architecture fails miserably to live up a more modest approach.  Perhaps there are many reasons for this. 

1. The advent of championship courses.  Folks had more specific goals in mind in later years - largely driven by marketing ideals, but in earlier times also to build bonafide championship courses.  Many of these classic courses were tough SOBs.

2. Perhaps more of a demand from the punters for the archie to create something other than  a "field".  Tastes change, the world is much more into crash bang stuff (just look at albums list for Shivas! - what a headache I had just looking at it) golf is not immune from this. 

3. Archies are much more likely to want to stamp their brand on stuff in more recent times. It helps with creating a brand. 

4. It may sound silly, but there is much better equipment around these days - of course archies want to use it!  The problem is how to use this stuff without making it too obvious.  It must be much more difficult than punters realize because so many courses are out of a cookie cutter mould. 

5. A corollary to #4, many punters are much more demanding.  They know what elite places look like from the telly and they want it and they want it fast.  When you look at how long it took to create some masterpieces, nearly all of them were fiddled with and often improved.  We judge newish courses a bit unfairly.  Shouldn't it be reasonable to hold off judgement for 10, 20 or 30 years?  Sounds reasonable, but the folks paying the bills don't see it that way.  Getting a lot of cool natural features (or unnatural features made to look natural) into play can take a lot of time.

Ciao   

[Thomas MacWood]

In the 1920s and 1930s there was some serious soul searching go on in the UK based upon American domination in big events. Tom Simpson wrote an interesting article comparing British architecture to American architecure. He concluded the American architecure had led to an American game which was more aerial and demanded accuracy both off the tee and on approach (basically more penal and less strategic). Jones description matches Simpson's findings.

Jones believed American golf architecture produced a mechanical golfer, and he preferred the British model which was based largely on the natural links, courses like the Old Course. It sounds like Jones believed GCGC and Myopia had more in common with British model than the American.

[Peter Pallotta]

There's just so much there, TE - much of which you gents covered already.

It's interesting his take on what helps a course remain relevant and prevents it from becoming obsolete, namely a trust in nature.

(What's implied there, given that Mr. Batchelder was asking his opinion of a Myopia that hadn't been altered to accommodate the longer game and that Jones suggests in his reply that lengthening a course to keep up with technology is not necessary, is that for Mr. Jones preventing low scores or protecting par were not what good architecture was about.  He obviously came from a mindset in which "bringing a course to its knees" was not an important consideration, one way or another.  It's ironic that, then and now, golfers of vastly less skill that Mr. Jones are prone to that way of thinking.)     
 
But how can nature actually manifest itself on a golf course (and affect play)? There's only two things, it seems to me - the wind, of course, and the ground...and for inland golf I'd imagine that the ground is the more important manifestation. The natural lay of the land, with its slopes and hollows and undulations, is that bit of nature that the golf ball comes into contact with, and so Jones seems to be saying that as long as what happens to the ball after it hits the ground was was left as 'natural' as possible, it would serve as constant and never out of date shot-testing and skill-testing and judgement-testing component of the game...which is what good architecture is supposed to allow for. 

And maybe this line of thinking is related to Behr's emphasis on the fact that, in golf, the ball is not vied for, i.e. your opponent is not another golfer trying to affect or control your golf ball, which leaves only the wind and the ground (nature) to serve that role/function.

I'd imagine that any architect today who creates courses under 7,000 yards and uses/allows natural features and resists the urge to protect par is probably thinking much as Bobby Jones did.

Peter

PS - if Bob Crosby is reading this, your posts on the other thread about Jones' 'early years' were really good. Here's my vote for you gathering some of those insights and details in an essay. I'm sure you don't need the extra work, but I'm also sure that we can never get enough of Jones...
       

[BCrosby]

I've thought about this topic for years. Not sure where to begin.

Jones expressed clear opinions about courses he liked. TOC is the obvious example. His reasons were not just personal preferences. He had principled reasons for liking links courses like TOC. It had to do with design philosophy.

MH and GC were close enough to such models that he appears to like them too. That's what he is getting at when saying don't worry about lengthening them, they will never age. MacK, Behr and others made similar arguments that links courses were timeless and will never need to be changed. (They said something similar about good gca generally.)

So Jones had strong opinions about architecture he liked.

But as to specific courses he didn't like, Jones said almost nothing. He noted that too many American courses played the same way day after day and that he found them "monotonous". But he didn't name names. Contrast his effusive praise of TOC, Hoylake and other links courses with the total silence about the most famous US courses such as NGLA, PV or Oakmont.

I'm not sure what that means.

Anyone with strong opinions "pro" tends to have strong opinions "con." The obvious guess is that Jones didn't like most "American" course very much. Certainly the PV's and the NGLA's didn't have much influence on the "ideal" course he built in Augusta.

But to turn Rumsfeld upside down, I'm not ready to take the absence of evidence as evidence of much of anything.

Bob

[Kirk Gill]

To continue on from what BCrosby wrote above - who were the pre-eminent American architects of 1939? NGLA and PV were much earlier, and while neither course lacks artificiality, they were both well established by 1939, and wouldn't be referred to by Jones as "modern."

So who WAS he referring to?

[Thomas MacWood]

I believe Jones was complaining about American architecture before 1939, and before he embarked on ANGC.

In 1935 Jones came up with his own ideal eclectic course:

Par-3s ~ 6-ANGC, 8-Oakmont, 8-St.Andrews, 16-Cypress Point
Par-5s ~ 14-St.Andrews, 13-ANGC, 4-Lido, 18-Baltusrol
Par-4s ~ 14-ANGC, 16-St.Andrews, 13-St.Andrews, 8-PBGL, 10-NGLA, 15-Hoylake, 4-PVGC, 5-Sandwich, 15-CCCleveland, 16-Merion

It is interesting note neither GCGC or Myopia appear. Also there are two Macdonald holes, which leads me to believe Jones was not so much complaining about man-made architecture per say but a lack of appreciation for the qualities found on old natural links....like greens that are often sloped away from play (like at St.Andrews) or the major role contours play. I don't believe he was a fan of the scientific trapping that was prevelant in America in the 20s and 30s. I doubt Jones was talking about a single architect or architects who were to blame, they were all guilty to some degree.

[BCrosby]

I believe Jones was complaining about American architecture before 1939, and before he embarked on ANGC.

In 1935 Jones came up with his own ideal eclectic course:

Par-3s ~ 6-ANGC, 8-Oakmont, 8-St.Andrews, 16-Cypress Point
Par-5s ~ 14-St.Andrews, 13-ANGC, 4-Lido, 18-Baltusrol
Par-4s ~ 14-ANGC, 16-St.Andrews, 13-St.Andrews, 8-PBGL, 10-NGLA, 15-Hoylake, 4-PVGC, 5-Sandwich, 15-CCCleveland, 16-Merion

It is interesting note neither GCGC or Myopia appear. Also there are two Macdonald holes, which leads me to believe Jones was not so much complaining about man-made architecture per say but a lack of appreciation for the qualities found on old natural links....like greens that are often sloped away from play (like at St.Andrews) or the major role contours play. I don't believe he was a fan of the scientific trapping that was prevelant in America in the 20s and 30s. I doubt Jones was talking about a single architect or architects who were to blame, they were all guilty to some degree.

I agree with the above. Well before ANGC Jones had a developed set of design preferences. He clearly loved the spirit of adventure he found on links type courses and disliked rationalized US courses with their stress on competitive "fairness".

Jones favorite hole list above never made a lot of sense to me. Some choices I can see, but some odd choices too. The 8th at TOC over the 11th? The 13th at TOC over the 12th or 17th? The 18th at Baltusrol as one of the four best par 5's in the world? The 5th at Sandwich?

I've wondered if he wasn't having a little fun with some of his picks.

Jones didn't say much negative about specific courses. He came pretty close on Oakmont however, noting about its bunkers that "Well, here you are in a bunker, and it doesn't matter how good you are, or how much nerve you have, the only thing to do now is blast." But that's about as negative as he got.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"(What's implied there, given that Mr. Batchelder was asking his opinion of a Myopia that hadn't been altered to accommodate the longer game and that Jones suggests in his reply that lengthening a course to keep up with technology is not necessary, is that for Mr. Jones preventing low scores or protecting par were not what good architecture was about.  He obviously came from a mindset in which "bringing a course to its knees" was not an important consideration, one way or another.  It's ironic that, then and now, golfers of vastly less skill that Mr. Jones are prone to that way of thinking.)"


Peter Pallotta:

That's a pretty beautiful statement, really, and I think it catches the essence of Bob Jones's philosophy about golf and architecture.

As you say, "bringing a course to its knees" was not something Jones thought should be anathema for a club or its members (in a championship such as the one he won at TOC in 1924-5 for which people criticized TOC as obsolete and not of championship calibre any longer).

I think Jones believed if a great golfer played really great, had luck, whatever, great architecture should give him that---a low score. If it gave most of the field that, then fine, it probably isn't great, and maybe an attribution of less than great or even too easy is warranted.

I think he was saying that if a golfer plays really great, has luck, has things go his way and a course gives him low scores and most of the rest of the field can't do that----then what you have is some great or even ideal golf course architecture. 

We just had that today at Rolling Green in the Pa State Mid-Amateur. One player who has not done all that much basically putted the eyes out of the rest of the field and decimated some really good players by winning at -7 over two rounds where a guy who could probably beat him six days a week came in second nine shots back.   

To me that's ideal and shows Rolling Green to be what a great golf course can be and can yield with great play and good luck.

Let's just hope the club looks at that as ideal and not that -7 in two rounds shows the course to be too easy because one player had the tournament of his life and shot that score!    

[Sean_A]

I too agree with Peter P.  I think "championship" course implied something a bit different to Jones as in the course won't be brought to its knees.  I also think Jones is referring to the more standardized formulas of championship courses, probably the lack of ground game effects and over-bunkering/predicatable bunkering/placement of bunkering.  In other words, bunkering which made the game almost exclusively aerial and which doesn't require much thought.  IE - hit it down the middle and one doesn't have to worry about sand or natural hazards.  The bottom line is Jones wanted alternative ways to get to the hole.  One way or the highway is almost the very definition of championship golf and that is true for many shots on many championship courses.   

Ciao

[Steve Lang]

  

He was addressing .. from the perspective of a golfer who graduated from Georgia Tech with a mechanical engineering degree in 1920 when he was only 18 years old and with English degree in three semesters from Harvard College and with a law degree under his belt, .. the ageless debate of whether form follows function or function follows form.

His eye preferred nature's definition of gca function over man's

[Mike_Cirba]

Isn't he the one who started that university that John McCain had to speak at where they believe dinosaurs were here around the same time that golf started in Scotland?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()