The Raynor Paradox

[George Bahto]

Patrick: I have not seen anything about SR's involvement at Hollywood - have you?

one of the "new" Raynor discoveries was a course in FL - N Palm Beach - now a muni - I'm working with the super right now 0 the found a reference in the minutes

[Patrick_Mucci]

George,

I think that sometime golfer Ran, has dug up some interesting information on the subject.  It appears his research may be improving as his golf deteriorates.  Give him a call.

[T_MacWood]

An interesting thread dealing with the aesthetic appeal of Raynor's architecture.

[Tom MacWood]

bump

[Mac Plumart]

Tom M...

thanks for bumping this.

I am not to the end of the thread yet, but seeing how you guys interacted back in 2002 is pretty cool and the knowledge base you were building out (the foundation if you will) is beneficial to me...and probably others like me.

Cool stuff!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac,
That is a fun thread to read, there were some good points made and interesting facts contained in those responses. My favorite, the one that gets to the heart of the question, was reply #37, by Gib.

The paradox is not a paradox at all. Simple and crisp can be just as beautiful an artistic expression as intricate and complex. You just have to look at it through different eyes.     

....and he fired on another cylinder when he wrote about the asthetics of some of the most revered and ancient holes that weren't creations of extreme natural beauty when they were built, and the ravages that time and maintenace has had on a lot of 'made-to-look-natural' GCA .

It was also fun to read one of TEP's replies from back then stating:

I would also dare say that NGLA was not just the first really good course built in America, it was also probably twenty times the construction effort than anything that had come before it! That's important to consider too.

..especially as it relates to recent "Father of American GCA" thread. 

[TEPaul]

To me the real interest in this thread and particularly perhaps the clearest expostulation of its subject and the questions involved in its subject came in Post #72 with its questions and points. Here's some of Post #72:





"TE
The original intent of this thread was to explore why Raynor's golf courses were visually or aesthetically pleasing to me and to others who felt the same way. To attempt to answer the question of why the designs of a man who is known for an engineered and artificial style are so appealing? Are they visually pleasing to you?

Some of the conclusions were extraordinary sites, a talent to recognize and utilize interesting natural features, contrast, simplicity, proportion and the fact that Raynor courses may not be as engineered or linear as they are reputed to be. Do you disagree with these conclusions as to why they are aesthetically pleasing?

The question was not why do engineered features look so natural. And the answer was not engineered features are actually quite natural. I believe I'm firmly planted in reality."





I don't think I answered it all that comprehensively in my response in Post #74 regarding my perspective on the subject. And so I will do that more comprehensively henceforth. But for now as to the question----Do you disagree with these conclusions as to why they (the Raynor Paradox or juxtaposition) are aesthetically appealing?-----I would say I agree with some of the conclusions and disagree with others of the conclusions and I would also disagree by saying that to some they (the aesthetic juxtapositions of Raynor architecture) are not particularly AESTHETICALLY appealing at all and for what I think are some very interesting and apparently some very deep reasons.

[TEPaul]

"It was also fun to read one of TEP's replies from back then stating:

I would also dare say that NGLA was not just the first really good course built in America, it was also probably twenty times the construction effort than anything that had come before it! That's important to consider too.

..especially as it relates to recent "Father of American GCA" thread."



Jim Kennedy:


Very good point indeed. I think that goes right to the heart of what some of us do with this interest of ours. When I wrote that back in 2002 I think I had been interested in architecture for only about four years and I had also recently returned to NGLA for the first time in over forty years to play in the NGLA Singles Tournament.

I hold NGLA just as high as I did back in 2002 but in the ensuing eight years since this thread I have returned to Myopia for the first time in over forty years too and I now believe Myopia was the first really good golf course architecture in America. This is not to say it is better or worse than NGLA, just that I think it was the first really good architecture in America because it preceded NGLA by a number of years.

And because of this, despite the fact Leeds seemed not to want to promote himself or what he was doing at Myopia at all like Macdonald promoted himself and his ideas with NGLA, I tend now to think of Herbert Leeds more as the Father of American golf architecture because I think it was he who built the first really good golf architecture in America.

And unbelievably he didn't even have Macdonald and Raynor or HH Barker to do it for him as some think Hugh Wilson did with Merion East. And Leeds didn't even have Willie Campbell to help him or do it for him either as one misguided contributor on here seemed to think. Part of that had to do with the fact that when Leeds really got rolling on the architecture of Myopia Willie Campbell WAS DEAD!

But knowing that particular contributore and Willie Campbell promoter on here even that may not have been a show-stopper for Willie's participation and attribution on Myopia.   

This goes right to the core of another thing I believe more strongly in on here as time goes by----eg when considering architecture and architects back then or even what we say ourselves about our own opinions on here about various things, it is always important to consider something called "TIMELINING" too.  

[Mac Plumart]

These last few posts touch on what I was meaning about the "foundation" that you all are building off of.

Think about mathematics...you start with basic math, move to algebra, trig, calculus...etc.  It is a progression.

Same thing here...pour your heart and sould into an effort to learn, understand, elaborate and build on your foundation, and your conclusions might shift.  That is not a bad thing.  In fact, I think it is interesting.

In fact, what first got me interested in golf course architecture was playing East Lake.  A unanimous gem in the golfing world.  Well, it was the third time I played golf and I didn't see what the big deal was.  Seriously, no water falls, no visual stunning sights, etc.  So, I started to dig into why it is a great course.  As I got better  at the game, learned more about architecture, Ross' style, etc...I began to get it.  Strategy, options, subtlties, etc.  Is East Lake the greatest course in the world?  No.  But it is worthy of study and certainly more of a golf course than I thought at first with my ignorant eyes.  This was the start of my foundation and I have been building off of it ever since...frankly, Bobby Jones and Donald Ross is not a bad place to start.

Tom might have changed his opinion as he educated himself.  Heck, this thread started in 2002 (8 years ago).  I hope he has gathered an immense amount of knowledge and CONTEXT in 8 additional years of study.

Like I said before...thanks Tom M...great bump!

[TEPaul]

"Tom might have changed his opinion as he educated himself.  Heck, this thread started in 2002 (8 years ago).  I hope he has gathered an immense amount of knowledge and CONTEXT in 8 additional years of study."


Mac:

All very true. Eight years ago I had enough accumulated knowledge on architecture and its history to tutor Pat Mucci on the subject even though he has proved a dreadful pupil. But today, eight years later, my accumulated knowledge is so great my head has become unbearably heavy and that's one of the reasons I don't play golf anymore and why I also need to either sit down or lie down most all the time these days.

[Tom MacWood]

TE is an idiot savant. On the one hand he clearly suffers from a lack of substantive historical information (and has no the ability to independently gather substantive historical information), but on the other hand he is one of the world's foremost experts on golf architecture history.

[Jeff_Brauer]

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.......(except for the Merion threads)

[TEPaul]

"TE is an idiot savant. On the one hand he clearly suffers from a lack of substantive historical information (and has no the ability to independently gather substantive historical information), but on the other hand he is one of the world's foremost experts on golf architecture history."



What's the matter, Tom MacWood, are you starting to get desperate now?

I guess I can at least understand if you are seeing as how many times as your information and opinions  on here have been proven wrong by those you seem to insist on compete with on what you consider research.

With the architects and courses I've concentrated on which certainly include Merion, Pine Valley and Myopia I have probably conservatively ten times more research information on them right here in my office and on my computer than you ever have or ever will with the way you go about it.

It's just that I can't post information on this website and even if a could I would not post unpublished information on here without the direct permission of the clubs. Consequently I just talk about the information I have rather than posting it. If anyone feels some burning need to check on my accuracy or bona fides of what I have and what I know they are perfectly free to approach these clubs about it as I always have.

You have no such concerns or constraints apparently. To me that just boils down to a matter of a real lack of good old fashioned commonsense and ethics, and personally I think yours totally stinks on both counts. If you don't want to hear this from me on this DG or otherwise or if you don't want to believe me then just start by calling up that New Jersey township manager you conned information out of and let him explain it to you or for you. Or you could always just go there and talk to him face to face but if you decided to do that I'd advise you to bring a lawyer with you because that guy told us both if you ever showed up there he would personally sue you for a complete failure to properly represent yourself and what you were after.

Frankly the way you go about it on here and apparently elsewhere unfortunately has the potential to give numerous others who are beginning to do some good and deep research and analysis a bad name and doubly unfortunate is it involves some of the most significant clubs and courses in America and probably elsewhere as well.

[Jim_Kennedy]

"It was also fun to read one of TEP's replies from back then stating:

I would also dare say that NGLA was not just the first really good course built in America, it was also probably twenty times the construction effort than anything that had come before it! That's important to consider too.

..especially as it relates to recent "Father of American GCA" thread."

Jim Kennedy:


Very good point indeed. I think that goes right to the heart of what some of us do with this interest of ours. When I wrote that back in 2002 I think I had been interested in architecture for only about four years and I had also recently returned to NGLA for the first time in over forty years to play in the NGLA Singles Tournament.

I hold NGLA just as high as I did back in 2002 but in the ensuing eight years since this thread I have returned to Myopia for the first time in over forty years too and I now believe Myopia was the first really good golf course architecture in America. This is not to say it is better or worse than NGLA, just that I think it was the first really good architecture in America because it preceded NGLA by a number of years.

And because of this, despite the fact Leeds seemed not to want to promote himself or what he was doing at Myopia at all like Macdonald promoted himself and his ideas with NGLA, I tend now to think of Herbert Leeds more as the Father of American golf architecture because I think it was he who built the first really good golf architecture in America.

And unbelievably he didn't even have Macdonald and Raynor or HH Barker to do it for him as some think Hugh Wilson did with Merion East. And Leeds didn't even have Willie Campbell to help him or do it for him either as one misguided contributor on here seemed to think. Part of that had to do with the fact that when Leeds really got rolling on the architecture of Myopia Willie Campbell WAS DEAD!

But knowing that particular contributore and Willie Campbell promoter on here even that may not have been a show-stopper for Willie's participation and attribution on Myopia.   

This goes right to the core of another thing I believe more strongly in on here as time goes by----eg when considering architecture and architects back then or even what we say ourselves about our own opinions on here about various things, it is always important to consider something called "TIMELINING" too.   

So in past discussions when you have said that for many decades you have been initimately familiar with all these clubs and with the goings-on as they pertain to the architecture of their golf courses, you really mean one decade or less, and it's really only in the last few years that you have come to believe that Leeds or Emmets efforts are greater than those by CBM at NGLA? Am I correct? Thanks.

[Carl Nichols]

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.......(except for the Merion threads)

And now we have all in one place

[TEPaul]

"So in past discussions when you have said that for many decades you have been initimately familiar with all these clubs and with the goings-on as they pertain to the architecture of their golf courses, you really mean one decade or less, and it's really only in the last few years that you have come to believe that Leeds or Emmets efforts are greater than those by CBM at NGLA? Am I correct? Thanks."



No, you're not correct. Thanks.

[TEPaul]

This thread was about six and a half years old before it got bumped up today by the man who started it six and a half years ago.

Frankly I wonder why that was. I'd love to hear from him on that because he didn't say.

I just went back over this thread particularly concentrating on Tom MacWood's posts and some of my responses to them and I noticed in his posts from six and a half years ago he first admitted that this thing he called "The Raynor Paradox" was essentially his own inability to understand why he felt that man-made golf architectural features that appear engineered or artificial were aesthetically appealing to him. He admitted back then that he'd always felt he tended more towards golf features that either really were natural or else a very good man-made man imitation of what is naturally occuring. Later in the thread he said he figured out this dilemma of his and/or paradox with Raynor architecture and that it wasn't a paradox anymore since he'd figured out why he found Raynor (Macdonald) architecture aesthetically pleasing.

As an aside, I feel with plenty of experience it's very possible to tell the difference between even Raynor and Macdonald courses.

Personally, I feel the questions he at first posed were very interesting for all of us to consider in our own ways and with and through our own unique aesthetic sensibilities and perhaps other sensibilities and I think a really elucidating number of posts were produced on here by others in that vein.

I also believe I found a few things he thought back then were somewhat exclusive or unique to Macdonald or MacD/Raynor to be just a real misunderstanding of some of the realities of architecture back then.

I also noticed going back over his posts that even though this particular thread may be by far and away the closest thing MacWood ever got on here to being really expostulatory about his own basic feelings about architecture and perhaps aesthetics, that his abilities to carry on an intelligent discussion with others and what they say has never improved; matter of fact it seems to have worsened.

So I wonder why he bumped this thread back up again after six and a half years. Again, it would be edifying to hear from him about that and perhaps this time with at least a modicum of honesty. Will he answer that and do it honestly. I wouldn't put much on that from so much experience with him on here.

This thread hasn't been bumped up for even twelve hours and yet what did we have today? We had a post like MacWood's #86 and seemingly right out of the blue and unprovoked and then we had some of the usual subtle snipes by Jim Kennedy albeit it that thankfully have been absent on here for a few months.

It just seems like the subject of Macdonald or even Raynor on here brings out the worst in at least those two guys as it did with that other fellow who appears to be gone now whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Other than that this thread and its subject is both really interesting and viable, in my opinion. But will those two let it be viable is the question I frankly have, at this point. I know I have a lot more I'd like to say about my own feelings on this good and interesting subject, what I used to feel and what I've learned over the years and how my feelings may've changed and why.

Did I ever have a "Raynor Paradox" like MacWood said six and a half years ago he had? Not at all; I know precisely why some of the look of Macdonald/Raynor architecture sort of bothered my aesthetic eye in the past and I know why it does not bother me so much anymore and perhaps even more edifying why it bothers some people and why others may think it is aesthetically pleasing. As I said earlier, I believe some of the answers to these questions just might be relatively subliminal and perhaps as fundamental as the inherent historic and more modern relationship of Man himself to Nature itself, and how in interesting ways that has evolved over time perhaps lots of time such as in eons!

[Anthony Gray]

As a registered Professional Engineer myself I find the repeated notations to Raynor being an Engineer somewhat offensive.  Engineers are some of the most creative designers of beauty time has ever known.  From the Pyramids to the St. Louis Arch our sense of form against natural backdrops is not surpassed by any profession.  I personnally would believe we would have more strategy and less eye candy if more golf course architects were schooled in Engineering than Architecture.  

  What does this guy know. i love the eye candy.

  Anthony

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEP,
Other than the sentence of yours that I posted, i.e.: "I would also dare say that NGLA was not just the first really good course built in America, it was also probably twenty times the construction effort than anything that had come before it! That's important to consider too" .....which seems totally at odds with your later position on the "Father" thread, you pretty much say the same things today that you did then.

How could anyone resist a 'gift' like that.  

[TEPaul]

Anthony:

What that man knew or didn't know was basically incalculable. He was somewhat controversial, could be incredibly funny in a most pensive sort of way but always fascinating and thought provoking, even at his most outrageous.

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

I have no idea what you're talking about on that last post and I really do wonder if you do.

[Mac Plumart]

.

[TEPaul]

Mac Plumart:

There is nothing quite so sublime in life as really good punctuation.

[Bill Brightly]

This is a classic thread with classic GCA charcacters!. In memory of Tom MacWood's recent passing, I think it deserves a bump.

If you have not read it, I sugest you do.

[William_G]

Tom
The paradox is not why Raynor produced features that appear geometric or engineered, the paradox is why I find these courses with engineered features so appealing when my tastes tend toward natural features. Is not Raynor's paradox it is the paradox in my tastes.

I believe the reason Macdonald, Raynor and Banks designs work so well has to do with their ability to utilize nature, setting up a very appealing contrast between there man-made features and some wonderful sites.

If you look at Macdonalds 'essential characteristics' in designing a golf hole you will find 'nature of the soil and perfection in undualtions and hillocks' at the top of the list. He goes on to discuss 'the monstrosites of modern golf courses with are travesty on Nature.'

My point is despite the apparent man-made or engineered features that these men produced they also were keenly aware of Nature and how to maximize the interesting features that Nature provided. And that these engineered features for some odd reason work well with Nature, possibly because they are devoid of style, almost neutral, and for that reason they seem to blend in.

The aerial of Chicago is a good example. The course is full of bunkers with embankments and raised geometric greens, but if you stand at a corner of the course gaise out over the property what do you see but acres and acres of gently undulating prarie grassland with a few scattered trees here and there, the hand of man is not apparent - it is a paradox.

golf as it should be