GCA Book Club - Golf Architecture in America Book Club Forward - Chapter II

[Joe_Tucholski]

Wanted to post a reminder that the reading period for the first portion of Golf Architecture in America, its strategy and construction by George C Thomas has begun.

Again a free electronic copy of the book can be found here:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?skin=mobile;id=mdp.39015007183372;#page/viii/mode/2up

Additionally I thought it might be a good idea to post some rules.
1)  Please read and follow the 4 guidelines posted by Ran here:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,50636.0.html
2)  Please do not post discussion prior to the discussion period.  I'll post a discussion thread when it's time to discuss.  We want as many people to participate and learn from the discussion as possible and discussing a topic as soon as you finish reading a page may prevent some from posting because they have not had the opportunity to read the topic.  Taking notes while you read might be helpful to recall topics you found interesting or needed clarification.
3)  If you are going to post an observation that is not in response to a posed question please state the observation in the form of a question.  Even if the question is "what did you think of____?"
4)  There are no dumb questions.
5)  Keep politics, religion, feuds and any other off topic issue out of these threads (unless it is on topic in the book).


Here is the current schedule:
Chapters                                           Reading Period                           Discussion Period
Forward, Appreciation, I, II                  23-29 Apr                                    30 Apr-6 May
III, IV, V                                            30 Apr-6 May                               7-13 May
VI, VII, VIII                                        7-13 May                                   14-20 May
IX, X, XI, XII, XIII                               14-20 May                                   21-27 May

[Joe_Tucholski]

Hope everyone enjoyed the first segment of the book.  I know I enjoyed it from the very start.  As such my first question comes from the first line of the forward.

Thomas starts by staying "there are not enough good golf architects for the tremendous amount of golf construction under way and to be developed during the next few years."  He then goes on, in the appreciation, to list roughly a dozen well known architects of the day.  So was the statement an accurate statement?  Is it true there were not enough good golf architects in the 1920's for the number of courses built during the time period?  Are there enough good golf architects today (I'm guessing many will say there are too many good golf architects today for too few jobs)?

Please discuss anything and everything you found interesting or perplexing...

[Garland Bayley]

What I found interesting is that he knew Egan, but didn't make any mention of Macan. Don't know off hand the timing of the book with respect to their respective works in California, but since both seem to have been associated with MacKenzie's work in California, it would seem if he knew one he might know the other.

[Tom_Doak]

Thomas starts by staying "there are not enough good golf architects for the tremendous amount of golf construction under way and to be developed during the next few years."  He then goes on, in the appreciation, to list roughly a dozen well known architects of the day.  So was the statement an accurate statement?  Is it true there were not enough good golf architects in the 1920's for the number of courses built during the time period?  Are there enough good golf architects today (I'm guessing many will say there are too many good golf architects today for too few jobs)?

There were not enough good golf architects in the 1920's.  There were certainly more than the dozen Thomas named, but most of the best of them were spread very thin ... and the busiest of them weren't necessarily the best.

There are more than enough good golf architects for the amount of courses being built right now ... and probably for the next 5-10 years.  Sadly, just when the business really picks up again, many of those good architects will have had to find something else to do, and a lot of them may not return when they are needed. 

[Mac Plumart]

This book might be my favorite golf course architecture book.  Not really because Mr. Thomas says anything in particular that I found brilliant (even though he did/does), but because I can feel his passion coming right through the pages.  I feel that he loved golf and golf course architecture and I am "with" him regarding this love.  Examples of this:

Foreward, 5th paragraph: "...we should revere the cradle of golf ...but we may also be proud of our own development...the ultimate in golf and golf course architecture is not attained."

In the appreciation, I particularly liked it when he said the following; "to learn golf course architecture one must know golf itself, it companionships, its joys, its sorrows, its battles---one must play golf and love it."

Also in the appreciation, I love what he said about Pine Valley.  In fact, I feel we all need a club we love as much as he loved Pine Valley.  "How we all loved George Crump who made his dream possible and how we all sorrowed when he left us!  No matter where I live I will always hold my Pine Valley resident membership."

The last thing in the appreciation that struck me was how collaborative these Golden Age architects were.  It made me feel like they all did it out of pure love for their art rather than purely a business venture.  I've always thought this pure love of something is what makes greatness manifest itself.  To sum this up, I love when Mr. Thomas wrote this, "It is impossible to mention all those who have given me valuable aid, shown me different courses, and to whom I am indebted..." 

Obviously, the first chapter's focus on the different requirments for differnet types of courses is really interesting.

[Tom_Doak]

The last thing in the appreciation that struck me was how collaborative these Golden Age architects were.  It made me feel like they all did it out of pure love for their art rather than purely a business venture.  I've always thought this pure love of something is what makes greatness manifest itself.  To sum this up, I love when Mr. Thomas wrote this, "It is impossible to mention all those who have given me valuable aid, shown me different courses, and to whom I am indebted..." 

Mac:

Surely we all stand on the shoulders of the many who have come before us.  But, even in those great days, there were differences between the practitioners:

True amateur golf architects who never took money for their designs [because they were wealthy]:  George Thomas, C. B. Macdonald, Robert Hunter [as far as I know].

Passionate but professional architects:  Donald Ross, A. W. Tillinghast, Harry Colt, Alister MacKenzie, Seth Raynor, William Flynn.


Note that I did not include the famous "amateur architects" such as George Crump or Hugh Wilson, since they worked almost exclusively on one or two projects of their own conception, and did not take on "clients" per se.  But, it's also worth noting that Thomas and Macdonald designed many fewer courses than the guys who were making their living at it, because they had no interest in taking on more than one job at a time.

[Mac Plumart]

it's also worth noting that Thomas and Macdonald designed many fewer courses than the guys who were making their living at it, because they had no interest in taking on more than one job at a time.

Do you think this is a wise choice to make if your sole priority is achieving greatness?  I get the vibe those guys did.


EDIT...Didnt'/doesn't Pete Dye, essentially, take up residence at the courses he is building?

[Tom_Doak]

it's also worth noting that Thomas and Macdonald designed many fewer courses than the guys who were making their living at it, because they had no interest in taking on more than one job at a time.

Do you think this is a wise choice to make if your sole priority is achieving greatness?  I get the vibe those guys did.


EDIT...Didnt'/doesn't Pete Dye, essentially, take up residence at the courses he is building?

Mr. Dye didn't always work that way, and especially not once he was trying to get his sons into the business.  But, he did live on site for the majority of construction while building The Golf Club, Crooked Stick, Harbour Town, Teeth of the Dog, the TPC at Sawgrass, Long Cove, and Kiawah (Ocean), among other projects.

You just have to be independently wealthy to work that way, nowadays, with permits and financing being so unpredictable.  For instance, Gil Hanse has promised to be down in Rio for the construction of the Olympic course, presuming there is no way the politics can allow for a delay ... but what if that land dispute caused a delay, what would he do with himself for a year while they were resolving it?  You can't just find another project to build in the interim, unless you are committed to several projects, and once you've signed the contract you don't control the timing.

The only architect in recent years who has managed his pipeline of work was Mike Strantz ... made easier by the fact that half his courses were built for the same client group.  It allowed him the freedom to concentrate on one project at a time, but took him out of the running for many projects where the client wouldn't grant that flexibility.

It's much easier to take that approach when you just consider golf course architecture a passionate hobby, as George Thomas did.

[Joe_Tucholski]

What I found interesting is that he knew Egan, but didn't make any mention of Macan. Don't know off hand the timing of the book with respect to their respective works in California, but since both seem to have been associated with MacKenzie's work in California, it would seem if he knew one he might know the other.

Garland when looking at timing Macan worked on some fairly well regarded courses prior to the 1927 publication of this book.  Specifically I would have thought Macan would have become known to Thomas when working on Cal Club in 1924.  Interestingly enough the courses by country then notes MacKenzie was chosen to work the bunkers at Cal Club in 1927 instead of sticking with Macan.  

That being said he did mention some stellar folks and probably wanted to keep the the list of thanks to those who directly provided assistance.

There were not enough good golf architects in the 1920's.  There were certainly more than the dozen Thomas named, but most of the best of them were spread very thin ... and the busiest of them weren't necessarily the best.

Tom,  you indicated there weren't enough so I'm wondering what a good number of courses per architect would have been enough?   I think I recall reading that some architects like yourself and Coore and Crenshaw prefer to limit the number of courses you are working on in order focus your attention.  When contrasted with the numbers that were put out by the likes of Ross, Colt, Alison and others do you think your personal opinion on the right number per architect skews your opinion on the lack of architects for the number of courses built?  I know there are differing opinions on the manner in which Ross worked on a number of courses but my opinion is his work was more than adequate.  It sounds bad to say but many courses don't need as much focus to fulfill their purpose.  Did you spend as much time working on Common Ground as you did say Pacific Dunes?  Similarly to bring Pete Dye into the question I assume he didn't spend nearly as much time at


When running a list of great golf architects this era is full of them.  
The individuals listed include:
A.W. Tillinghast, Donald Ross, William Watson, William Bell, Max Behr, Robert Hunter, Dr. Mackenzie, Norman Macbeth, Chandler Egan, Herbert Fowler, Sam Heebner, Horace Leeds (was he referring to Herbert Leeds or is Horace a family member) and George Crump (some others listed may have been involved with architecture as well but were not referred to as such or I didn't recognize as such)

Not listed but active in the period:
William Flynn , Perry Maxwell, Seth Raynor, Charles B. Macdonald,  Stanley Thompson, Walter Travis, Harry Colt, Charles Hugh Alison, John Stanton Fleming Morrison, Herbert Strong, A.W. Macan, William Langford, Theodore Moreau, Wayne Stiles, John Van Kleek and others that are certainly noteworthy.

If asked to create an all time top 25 greatest architects many if not most of the lists would be drawn from the folks above.  I understand that's probably due to the fact that a large number of courses were built during the golf "golden ages".  My short search for a number of courses built in the 1920's and 1930's has come up empty.  Does anyone have at least ball park numbers - 100ish a year or am I way off in that blind guess?

Foreward, 5th paragraph: "...we should revere the cradle of golf ...but we may also be proud of our own development...the ultimate in golf and golf course architecture is not attained."

In the appreciation, I particularly liked it when he said the following; "to learn golf course architecture one must know golf itself, it companionships, its joys, its sorrows, its battles---one must play golf and love it."

Mac I have to agree the forward and appreciation especially show the “for the love of the game” aspect which appears to motivate Thomas.

To comment on the two selections above.  The first comment combined with the paragraph prior mentioning "our different climatic requirements and topographical peculiarities" made me think Melvin was going to come out and use the quotes as proof indicating most courses in America are not fit for golf

Relating to the second paragraph I thought it was interesting that Thomas states on digital page 45 professional golfers “know better about the value of the holes played” and their “opinions on construction matters are generally sound.”  I wonder if Thomas would say the same thing about today’s professional golfers.

[Joe_Tucholski]

We didn't get the number of posts I expected so I figure I'm now free to post more of the topics I wondered about.

From page 3 (electronic page 50) Thomas writes municipal greens keepers say “impeding obstacles as long grass, traps, hazards, one shot holes, and so forth, are best elsewhere and there is much truth in his belief.”

I do believe the design for a muni vs. a high end private course will be approached differently.  I'm not sure how differently however.  Part of the joy of playing golf is overcoming challenges so a muni that is devoid of hazards likely won't be as interesting or fun.  Whenever I take classmates of mine out to play golf if they are only occasional golfers we play a little 9 hole muni.  The course is short and lacks a lot of architectural interest but it serves its purpose (provide recreation for locals).  How does an architect balance interest vs. ease of play?  Am I way off in stating interest and ease of play are partially mutually exclusive?  Is it up to those paying the bill to define set criteria for the course?



Page 4 (electronic page 51) mentions a "skin" course at the bottom third of the page.  What is a "skin" course?  I'm envisioning a course with sand greens and a layout like the sheep ranch?



Back to things Thomas thinks should be different at muni’s.  Page 7 (electronic page 54) he mentions what I would consider very lax local rules stating “ground rules for such courses should give every chance for lifting from tree bases or water hazards.”  Do people think such local rules should be in place at muni’s?  I know I've played some desert courses where the starter says at the first tee the desert is to be played as a lateral if you cannot find your ball.  When I was keeping a handicap I kind of felt like I was cheating a bit with those scores as I'm sure the course raters did not rate the course with the desert as a lateral hazard.



Any guesses on what course Thomas was referring to on page 11 (electronic page 58) where he states they asked for a best in the west course on under 100 acres and land unsuited to golf but with a beautiful clubhouse?



Does anyone think the description of the generally accepted golf course in electronic pages 16-20 (electronic 63-67) which resulted in a par 69 at 6600 yards is generally accepted today?  Were the two longer par 4's requiring full woods what we would generally consider reachable par 5's today, making the course a par 71?



At the bottom of page 29 (electronic 76) there is mention of the "station masters’ houses" as a hazard.  Where is this type of hazard seen in the US?

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...I am in no way attacking the modern architect for doing what they are doing.  Almost all of the modern guys are running businesses.  In a business, you've got to do what you've got to do to generate revenue, keep people employed, and keep clients happy.  In my limited experience, I've found a huge chasm between the ideal golf course per the architectural junkies opinion and the desired golf course of entrepeneurs and golf club members.  And this is what I like about Thomas' first chapter in the book, he seems to touch on this concept of tailoring courses for clientele.


I did mention Pete Dye specifically because I get the sense he has the same true passion for building golf courses that I feel coming through the pages of some of the Golden Age guys.  And that list of courses he lived on during construction is quite impressive.

Mr. Dye didn't always work that way, and especially not once he was trying to get his sons into the business.  But, he did live on site for the majority of construction while building The Golf Club, Crooked Stick, Harbour Town, Teeth of the Dog, the TPC at Sawgrass, Long Cove, and Kiawah (Ocean), among other projects.



You just have to be independently wealthy to work that way, nowadays.

And on this I think you are correct, but I am unsure if "nowadays" needs to be included.  Weren't most of the "hobby" guys we are talking about flat out rich?

[Garland Bayley]

Garland when looking at timing Macan worked on some fairly well regarded courses prior to the 1927 publication of this book.  Specifically I would have thought Macan would have become known to Thomas when working on Cal Club in 1924.  Interestingly enough the courses by country then notes MacKenzie was chosen to work the bunkers at Cal Club in 1927 instead of sticking with Macan.  
...

I can understand why MacKenzie "worked" the bunkers. Macan did not build golf courses. He provided the design and instructed others on how to build the courses. If Macan is not going to build the bunkers, then a good choice to do it would be MacKenzie.

“impeding obstacles as long grass, traps, hazards, one shot holes, and so forth, are best elsewhere and there is much truth in his belief.”

When you have a benefactor such as Phil Knight, you can build a basketball court that is a work of art (University of Oregon). However, for utilitarian purpose, it is far more than what you need to properly play the game. There is a highly diminishing return in building a lot of "traps" into a course. This is something that the well heeled had built into their great courses, seemingly (to me) to be adding artistically (such as MacKenzie bunkers on a Macan routing would) to the course more than functionality. AWT wrote that for effectiveness you could bunker a course using a single greenside bunker per hole. So 18 or fewer bunkers provide very nearly as good a test as 98.

Another interesting comment here that has not made it into design is the restriction on one shot holes. Interestingly he tells of building a course with the first one shot hole being the 9th and it being beyond the range of most players drives. I can understand the philosophy for speed of play, but not for the interest of the game. AWT goes the opposite of this writing that one shot holes should test the approach shot clubs, specifically the irons.

And who knew that ANGC by mowing everywhere was providing the municipal golf course experience.

[Garland Bayley]

The most important sentence is the first chapter seems to me to be:

"It is most important for the future of golf in this country that every aid should be given to the building and upkeep of Municipal courses, because such will eventually become the greatest value to the game, and from them we may expect to produce many of our future great players."

IMO this country has fallen down on this endeavor. The country does not understand the value of low cost healthy recreation for the public at large. It appears to me that too many on this website think that Municipal golf is an infringement on the businessman's right to make a buck. Unfortunately, the businessman most likely does not see his golf course as a benefit to society, but instead sees it as a benefit to him.
 

[Garland Bayley]

If you read his recommendations for one shotters and three shotters, he is recommending no course with par more than 69. Did he ever build courses of par 69 and less?

[Matthew Petersen]

We didn't get the number of posts I expected so I figure I'm now free to post more of the topics I wondered about.

From page 3 (electronic page 50) Thomas writes municipal greens keepers say “impeding obstacles as long grass, traps, hazards, one shot holes, and so forth, are best elsewhere and there is much truth in his belief.”

I do believe the design for a muni vs. a high end private course will be approached differently.  I'm not sure how differently however.  Part of the joy of playing golf is overcoming challenges so a muni that is devoid of hazards likely won't be as interesting or fun.  Whenever I take classmates of mine out to play golf if they are only occasional golfers we play a little 9 hole muni.  The course is short and lacks a lot of architectural interest but it serves its purpose (provide recreation for locals).  How does an architect balance interest vs. ease of play?  Am I way off in stating interest and ease of play are partially mutually exclusive?  Is it up to those paying the bill to define set criteria for the course?

Back to things Thomas thinks should be different at muni’s.  Page 7 (electronic page 54) he mentions what I would consider very lax local rules stating “ground rules for such courses should give every chance for lifting from tree bases or water hazards.”  Do people think such local rules should be in place at muni’s?  I know I've played some desert courses where the starter says at the first tee the desert is to be played as a lateral if you cannot find your ball.  When I was keeping a handicap I kind of felt like I was cheating a bit with those scores as I'm sure the course raters did not rate the course with the desert as a lateral hazard.

Joe, the first comment about munis (in one of your previous posts) seemed to me to be related to maintenance more than playability/strategy. I would suspect the disparity between maintenance practices between private clubs and munis a hundred years ago was as great or greater than it is today. And if a course isn't going to be able to properly maintain a feature (be it a bunker, mounding, or even unusual fairway cuts) then the architect is probably better off not building that feature and trying to inject some interest into the hole elsewhere.

As for your thought about desert courses, that is such a common local rule at courses out here that I suspect (but don't know, and would be interested to find out for sure) that it is factored in when a course is rated. You can look at the desert, in many instances, as not all that different from the pervasive lakes on courses in Florida.

[Mac Plumart]

Chapter II is really something special.  I love reading it and re-reading it.  But rather than go over every paragraph, I think a lot of the gist can be summed up with these two lines:

"The strategy of the golf course is the soul of the game."

"The essence of golf strategy is diversity."

[Garland Bayley]

...

"The essence of golf strategy is diversity."

But then he goes on the be quite prescriptive about how a hole should be configured. 

[Mac Plumart]

Diverse, but the same.  Golden Age stuff...real deep...tough to get on the first few reads.  But when you finally get it, it is like WOW!

 

[Tom Yost]

I foolishly skipped over this thread for a week now, not realizing what it was.  Wow.  Thanks for the opportunity to read and discuss.

So far, I find things that align themselves with my own self developed thoughts about what makes good golf courses. 

"The made course cannot compete with the natural one..."

Thomas asserts that the terrain is all important, and the "thrill of nature" is needed to "secure the complete exhilaration and joy of golf."

As well the seemingly basic discussions of the use of varied distances and arrangements to create balance.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom...I am in no way attacking the modern architect for doing what they are doing.  Almost all of the modern guys are running businesses.  In a business, you've got to do what you've got to do to generate revenue, keep people employed, and keep clients happy.  In my limited experience, I've found a huge chasm between the ideal golf course per the architectural junkies opinion and the desired golf course of entrepeneurs and golf club members.  And this is what I like about Thomas' first chapter in the book, he seems to touch on this concept of tailoring courses for clientele.

Mac:

This is where we differ, philosophically.  Many people in the world today seem to think that running a business allows one to rationalize ANYTHING they want to ... including things that are dubious from the standpoint of ethics or law, and sometimes things that aren't even dubious, but brazen.  Indeed, there are many CEO's of public companies now who seem to tell us they HAVE TO do these things because they owe it to the shareholders to be as sneaky or cutthroat as they can get away with.

George Thomas probably never imagined such a world.  Luckily, though, golf course architects are not public companies.  Our companies are so thoroughly tied up with our own personal reputations that we must always be thoughtful.  Beyond that, some of us have been tutored in our profession by people in Mr. Thomas' tradition who truly loved the game, and we are honor-bound to hold up their standards.

Sure, there are lots of "entrepreneurs" as you call them who wanted their golf courses a certain way because they thought they could make more money that way, or sell more houses that way.  They may have been entrepreneurs, but they weren't really golf developers at all -- they weren't interested in golf.  And they only got to be "clients" because some architect was more interested in taking their money than in building good golf.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom...

Where do we disagree?  I'm reading what you wrote and I think we agree.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom...

Where do we disagree?  I'm reading what you wrote and I think we agree.

Sorry, I thought in the paragraph I quoted that you were excusing modern businessman-golf architects [and, just as importantly, modern developers] from their duty to golf, in favor of their duty to make a buck.  I apologize if I misread you.

[Garland Bayley]

Tom...

Where do we disagree?  I'm reading what you wrote and I think we agree.

Sorry, I thought in the paragraph I quoted that you were excusing modern businessman-golf architects [and, just as importantly, modern developers] from their duty to golf, in favor of their duty to make a buck.  I apologize if I misread you.

That's what I thought he wrote too.

[Mac Plumart]

Perhaps you think we are saying different things because of this phrase you used, "their duty to golf".  

It appears to me that SOME of the Golden Age guys have this gut busting love for the game of golf and they felt they had a duty to golf.  Maybe that is why they wrote books like Thomas wrote and praise other architects discuss collaborations and highlight others work.  It was all for the good of the game, it was not solely about self-aggrandizement.  (I probably spelled that wrong   ).

I think a few modern guys have that feeling of duty to the game.  And like I mentioned before, I feel Pete Dye is one of those guys.  Living on work sites, getting Jack Nicklaus into the design side of things, and getting you, Tom, into the business.  Obviously, there are more modern people in the game who feel this duty...but I really sense it from Mr. Dye (and Mrs. Dye).

Now, the other side of the coin.  I don't think ALL Golden Age guys felt they had a "duty to golf".  I think a lot of them saw it as a viable business endeavor.  Their "duty" was to providing for their family.  I also sense a lot of modern people feel their "duty" is the same, provide for their family.  In this line, they do what they can to get jobs, give the client (an entrepeneur in some cases who is starting a golfing business from scratch) or members in a private club what they want.  Make the client happy and they've fulfilled their "duty" to their clients and fulfilled their "duty" as head of their household and provided for their family.

I don't "excuse" them for this, as their is nothing to "excuse".  They are running a business, not achieving a furthering of an art form or fulfilling any "duty to golf".  

I am neither agreeing with or disagreeing with this tact.  It happens.  I know it happens.  However, the people with a gut busting passion, most likely, will build or contribute something to the history of the game that the pure businessman, most likely, will not.

Back to Thomas' book and his words in the forward and intro, I feel he had this passion and felt this "duty" and it comes through in his words.  I respect it.  I love it.  And I hope my passion for the game and the courses on which it is played comes through via my actions...like it did for Thomas.  I think anyone, and everyone, who shares this common love would strive for the same.

With this, I think we are saying the same thing.  However, it might appear you have, at least, some disdain for participants in the golf industry who don't feel a duty to the game.  I respect that, but simply understand that not everyone is cut from the same cloth.

[Garland Bayley]

Can someone tell me what "a punch bowl with all fairway sloping away" is?