Do classic architects get too much credit?

[Jeb Bearer]

First of all, this is an honest question. I'm not trying to be contrarian, just playing Devil's advocate more than anything else.

We often praise the "minimalist" school of design today for harking back to classic architecture, where golf courses were designed around the land's existing features, without extensive earthmoving projects.

But in those days the technology simply didn't exist for architects to move a lot of dirt if they wanted to. If Mackenzie, or Macdonald, or Raynor, an engineer by trade, had been working today, would they have produced the same sort of work?

[Carl Johnson]

Of course the difference you have to take into account is the land.  Modern architects are called upon to design courses on landscapes that the classics wouldn't have even considered.  So, you pose a great question.  My guess, and it's only that, is that if the oldsters had had the technology, and were getting paid to put a course on land that technology allowed them to use, they'd do it in a heartbeat.  Beyond the money aspect, I expect that they'd find it fun to deal with the challenge of difficult land, given the resources.  Thus, my answer is based both on the money/income aspect of their work and on creative drive.

[John Kavanaugh]

Do you ever read letters that civil or revolutionary warriors wrote to their loved ones?  As with all things technology breeds crap. Everyone wants to get paid, loved, remembered or forgotten. The tools we use reflect the end result we desire.

[Jeb Bearer]

John:
Not sure I understand your comment.

[Carl Johnson]

John:
Not sure I understand your comment.

Frankly, I don't either.  That's JK's "genius" compared to the rest of us.

[Jason Thurman]

Hemingway would've just been a dude with a Tumblr and a Twitter account. We're all greatly shaped by our era and the resources at our disposal.

[Tom_Doak]

First of all, this is an honest question. I'm not trying to be contrarian, just playing Devil's advocate more than anything else.

We often praise the "minimalist" school of design today for harking back to classic architecture, where golf courses were designed around the land's existing features, without extensive earthmoving projects.

But in those days the technology simply didn't exist for architects to move a lot of dirt if they wanted to. If Mackenzie, or Macdonald, or Raynor, an engineer by trade, had been working today, would they have produced the same sort of work?

Jeb:

One of my favorite Saturday Night Live skits of all time was an early-season "show" called What If?  The highlighted dramatization they used was "What If Spartacus Had a B-52 to aid him in his rebellion?"  

By the end of their careers, all the architects you named did have the technology to move a lot of dirt if they wanted to.  MacKenzie moved quite a bit more than you imagine to build Augusta National.  Macdonald and Raynor's work at Yale cost a pretty penny, too.  What does that have to do with anything, really?

[Peter Pallotta]

Some were saying in the early 1900s that the world was moving too fast - trains and telegraphs and radios etc; and some were saying that in the 40s and 50s, with interstate freeways and television and jet planes; and of course some were saying that a couple of years ago, with cell phones and the internet and twitter. You know what? I think they were ALL right -- the world was moving too fast then, and it was moving even faster later on, and now, today, it's moving faster and faster and faster. Now, you tell me how it's possible in a world that is moving, say, 3 xs faster than it was 100 years ago to take the same amount of TIME doing anything - writing letters, thinking thoughts, building courses.  We might TRY to take the time, but anyone who actually manages -- in absolute terms -- to take as much time doing anything today as they did 100 years ago would probably seem to us like a lazy, dull-witted, and remarkably un-ambitious fellow.

Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

I always preferred the SNL skit/game show riff where they had to answer like a high school senior would, not with the real answer.  I always expected that one to show up as a real game show concept one day.

I think the footprint for most gca was set by the Golden Age guys, the basics we still use and build upon today.  Hard to believe they get too much credit, given how good they were.

Now, in some ways, I do see your point.  I believe the current/modern trend towards historical study and analysis leads some to believe to overanalyze all the thought that might have gone into greens contours (when they probably were working hard to drain them, and later they settled, etc.).  I also recall the Woody Allen bit where they are standing in line for a movie, debating the directors intent, and then said director walks up, says he was drunk that day, and an assistant handled that scene.  Given how few site visits they could make in that slow moving era, assistants handled a lot of that stuff. 

Of course, schedules were still schedules, and a lot of stuff got built once, just to keep things moving, with less architectural arm waving by the main guys as we have now.

In short, they certainly got the big picture, but I think many here give them far too much credit for little subtle nuances that they probably didn't think about nearly as much as we do now.

[Carl Rogers]

I do think there is at times an excessive bit of drippy romanticism of yesteryear.

Perhaps in the name of equal time, a thread should be started that names any clunkers they might have done.  Did Flynn do any "bad" work?

[John Kavanaugh]

The new Cadillac XTS is the finest Cadillac ever made but not even in the top ten ever built. I don't know if it's nostalgia or fact.  I would hope that even with modern computers I would not have been robbed of the sting that a 1977 Cadillac Eldorado brought to the loins of a 17 year old strapping youth.

My point being that design is influenced far more by market forces than technological advances. People gotta get paid.

[jeffwarne]

I do think there is at times an excessive bit of drippy romanticism of yesteryear.

Perhaps in the name of equal time, a thread should be started that names any clunkers they might have done.  Did Flynn do any "bad" work?

Well no doubt many of the clunkers are NLE.

Maturity and yes even improvements have helped many classic courses (and no doubt hurt many as well)
Many of my favorite UK courses were "designed" by James Braid.
What was done after 36 stakes were laid out would be up to the builders/greenkeepers, and no doubt many of these courses evolved over time.
Certainly he would get credit for the routing,and the siting of greens and tees, and perhaps a plan, but no doubt there was minimal supervision by the "architect", who usually was simply the best player around, who had gravitated to laying out courses.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Some were saying in the early 1900s that the world was moving too fast - trains and telegraphs and radios etc; and some were saying that in the 40s and 50s, with interstate freeways and television and jet planes; and of course some were saying that a couple of years ago, with cell phones and the internet and twitter. You know what? I think they were ALL right -- the world was moving too fast then, and it was moving even faster later on, and now, today, it's moving faster and faster and faster. Now, you tell me how it's possible in a world that is moving, say, 3 xs faster than it was 100 years ago to take the same amount of TIME doing anything - writing letters, thinking thoughts, building courses.  We might TRY to take the time, but anyone who actually manages -- in absolute terms -- to take as much time doing anything today as they did 100 years ago would probably seem to us like a lazy, dull-witted, and remarkably un-ambitious fellow.

Peter

What a great post.
I know I reached a point as a Superintendent where things slowed down for me. Where I felt comfortable enough with my plan, decision making, and instincts to not rush, or get tense. I was at my best during those periods and I miss those times as I've complicated my life and I find myself rushing a lot. Usually after realizing I was hurrying, I look back and smack myself upside the head because I know better. This drive to efficiency has its drawbacks. I will never have the knowledge or shaping abilities that Brian Slawnick or Brian Schneider possess, but just as I felt during those calm periods as a Super, I hope to work on a construction site with the same calmness, confidence, and understated leadership those two gentlemen exhibited. I think knowing you are doing what's right, the best work possible, is the best reward we have. I also think to get there you need the courage and confidence to trust what you know and block the noise.

[Nigel Islam]

To some extent modern architecture has been hurt by the assembly line mentality. I know that Doak, C&C, and lot of the archies on this site have not fallen into that trap, but the joy I find with great or even just good classic courses is that I see things I won't likely find anywhere else. For example I know if I am playing a Fazio course I most likely will have 2 par 3s, 5 par 4s, and 2 par fives a side. Its just predictable.

[Kris Shreiner]

Don,

You really nailed where we have it all wrong in today's hamster-wheel madness that global greed has accelerated. If you think about it, we're mammals. If you look at EVERY other longer-living mammal species, significant portions of their day are spenting resting or in a relaxed state. This is in ADDITION to sleeping for most of them.

Now while our brain may be capable of processing multilple tasks at nano-second, digital speeds... NO WAY can that be healthy at the constant level expected by today's "business" world. Need proof? Look at the alarming rates of: depression, mental illness, suicide etc. etc. today.

Life has many influences that affect us, but there is no question that the best human endeavors, that possess the timeless qualities and benefits to mankind, are seldom rushed. Quality really can't be forced. Certainly not sustained quality; that's for sure.

I'm with you...take your time, think it through, make a light footprint, get it right the first time and share the process when practical. These enduring principles will always guide man in a healthy, intelligent existence.

Cheers,
Kris

[Tom_Doak]

Some were saying in the early 1900s that the world was moving too fast - trains and telegraphs and radios etc; and some were saying that in the 40s and 50s, with interstate freeways and television and jet planes; and of course some were saying that a couple of years ago, with cell phones and the internet and twitter. You know what? I think they were ALL right -- the world was moving too fast then, and it was moving even faster later on, and now, today, it's moving faster and faster and faster. Now, you tell me how it's possible in a world that is moving, say, 3 xs faster than it was 100 years ago to take the same amount of TIME doing anything - writing letters, thinking thoughts, building courses.  We might TRY to take the time, but anyone who actually manages -- in absolute terms -- to take as much time doing anything today as they did 100 years ago would probably seem to us like a lazy, dull-witted, and remarkably un-ambitious fellow.

Peter

What a great post.
I know I reached a point as a Superintendent where things slowed down for me. Where I felt comfortable enough with my plan, decision making, and instincts to not rush, or get tense. I was at my best during those periods and I miss those times as I've complicated my life and I find myself rushing a lot. Usually after realizing I was hurrying, I look back and smack myself upside the head because I know better. This drive to efficiency has its drawbacks. I will never have the knowledge or shaping abilities that Brian Slawnick or Brian Schneider possess, but just as I felt during those calm periods as a Super, I hope to work on a construction site with the same calmness, confidence, and understated leadership those two gentlemen exhibited. I think knowing you are doing what's right, the best work possible, is the best reward we have. I also think to get there you need the courage and confidence to trust what you know and block the noise.

Don:

Well said.  I know for myself there is a fine line between wanting to be out there participating in the construction, and not wanting to get in the way of my associates when they are in the flow and doing their best work.

At the same time, it's a battle.  I am writing a design proposal for a potential new job this morning, and the client always wants to quantify in writing how much time I'm going to spend on site, who does what, and how much our travel expenses are going to be.  We try not to let these contractual promises affect how the work gets done ... but depending on how many other concurrent commitments you have, they can start to sometimes.

I just looked back on my calendar for 2012 and out of 150 days on the road this year, less than half were for our four new projects under construction, and the measly 14 days I spent on-site at Dismal River [plus five travel days, over four trips] were the most of anywhere.  I entered the job thinking I wanted to spend far more time there, but it seemed like I always had to be somewhere else after a few days, whether I was off to New Zealand or our family vacation in Montana.  Still, at the end of it, I can't imagine the course would have turned out much different or much better had I stayed another week ... although I am dying to see how the fill across #13 turned out after I left.

The real answer to this question is that as Bill Coore always says, ALL architects get too much credit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I do think there is at times an excessive bit of drippy romanticism of yesteryear.

Perhaps in the name of equal time, a thread should be started that names any clunkers they might have done.  Did Flynn do any "bad" work?

Carl,

Their courses passed the ultimate test, the test of time.

There's no "drippy romanticism" in that fact

[Bradley Anderson]

I think they moved a lot more dirt than we may realize. Last time I played Beverly it looked to me like Ross made some huge cuts in several places. And there is quite a bit of earth moving at Oakmont.

[Tom_Doak]

I think they moved a lot more dirt than we may realize. Last time I played Beverly it looked to me like Ross made some huge cuts in several places. And there is quite a bit of earth moving at Oakmont.

Challenge!

I played Beverly again this fall, and really enjoyed the round.  But it was built in the earlier years of Ross' career, so I doubt there would have been much earthmoving at the time ... only afterward.

I was told the tee shot on #11 was originally blind out of a hollow, and that the knob in front of the tee was shaved down and used to build up the tee sometime subsequent to Ross.  Otherwise, I didn't see much evidence of big cuts, just some fills for greens and tees.  Where did you imagine them to be?

[Peter Pallotta]

Don - yes, well said indeed. 'Blocking the noise' is a challenge, one made harder sometimes because deep down we don't WANT to block the noise, i.e. those other voices -- what we're told is viable and valuable, what the industry says is possible and profitable, the chatter of clients dangling the carrot of work (if we just give the impression that we'll respond to their whims) -- they can all be very powerful, because they seem to show us the way or offer a promise of success and acclaim and a career....and so I think it's all too easy/common to shut one ear to the noise while having the other ear wide open. And in fact, maybe that is the middle way, the golden-mean - the way to manage to do work and have a career while managing to at least do a semblance of what we think best. But man, I find that a hard knife-edge to walk.

Peter

[Carl Johnson]

Some were saying in the early 1900s that the world was moving too fast - trains and telegraphs and radios etc; and some were saying that in the 40s and 50s, with interstate freeways and television and jet planes; and of course some were saying that a couple of years ago, with cell phones and the internet and twitter. You know what? I think they were ALL right -- the world was moving too fast then, and it was moving even faster later on, and now, today, it's moving faster and faster and faster. Now, you tell me how it's possible in a world that is moving, say, 3 xs faster than it was 100 years ago to take the same amount of TIME doing anything - writing letters, thinking thoughts, building courses.  We might TRY to take the time, but anyone who actually manages -- in absolute terms -- to take as much time doing anything today as they did 100 years ago would probably seem to us like a lazy, dull-witted, and remarkably un-ambitious fellow.

Peter

I see Alvin Toffler's 1970 classic, Future Shock, as relevant here.

[Phil Benedict]

They may be overrated in the sense that cultural perceptions become ingrained if they last long enough.  Citizen Kane usually tops the list of best ever movies, and it's hard to imagine the Beatles being supplanted as the highest rated band in my lifetime, no matter who else comes along to make great music.

[Greg Taylor]

I'd be interested to know how many courses from the classic designers have gone to the wall.

What Colt eat al all have to their advantage is that their best work may only remain, AND they had the best sites,("first mover advantage" in maths speak). 

I think there is some merit at least to the OP's argument.

Greg

[Carl Rogers]

I do think there is at times an excessive bit of drippy romanticism of yesteryear.

Perhaps in the name of equal time, a thread should be started that names any clunkers they might have done.  Did Flynn do any "bad" work?

Carl,

Their courses passed the ultimate test, the test of time.

There's no "drippy romanticism" in that fact

To over state my point: .... Let's review the definition of "quirk" as is often used on this site.
If the course is in the UK and 100 years old, then "quirk" becomes charming or endearing. 
If the course is on an 80's development course, then it represents a hideous compromise due to illegitimate external pressures.
(I think that problem is why TD's Riverfront doesn't enough positive print.)

[Jeb Bearer]

Carl,

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. On many old courses, quirk is the odd use of a landform, a half par hole that today would be deemed, weak, etc. On development courses, the compromises are often long walks houses and OB encroaching on play. Granted there are exceptions in both categories (no one complains about buildings in play on the road hole) but in general...