News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #25 on: April 29, 2003, 03:12:09 AM »
Craig -- I have a notebook of some green plans drawn by Floyd. Everything he did was very simple in terms of approach and plan. He told me that he would often create grass bunkers because he knew that the limited budgets would not allow sand to be kept and maintained correctly. This was, I believe, during the depression and wartime. I am to guess that most of his layouts are low in sand bubker total...right?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2003, 03:24:30 AM »
I just posted this site address on another thread and thought it was very appropriate to Mark's topic here. This is a site by golf architect, Clyde Johnston. I encourage all of you history buffs to assist Clyde in filling in many blanks:

http://www.deadarchitectssociety.org/
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

TEPaul

Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #27 on: April 29, 2003, 05:03:34 AM »
Terrific thread, particularly posts #11, 12, 13. Those posts and others should clearly point out to us numerous ironies involving some of the Old Guys; what they were willing to do to other courses and why, and also point out clearly that we should all be very careful in tending to glorify everything about them and also in attempting to attribute to them ideas and actions that may not be accurate.

Some today who really are interested in "restoring" or "preserving" the older classic courses who also glorify everything the old guys thought and did in this sense are attempting too often to fit a square peg into a round hole.

So if we can get away from glorifying every single thing they said and did it can then give us a better perspective to make our own intelligent decisions on what some of those old architects of the "Golden Age" did leave us with in the way of design intent and architectural priniciple.

As Tom Doak has said often a great deal of what was built in the so-called "Golden Age" of architeture really wasn't great architecture--even some of what was built by otherwise famous and respected architects both then and now.

As hard as we may continue to try to create "dos and don't" of how to treat and handle what we consider classic architecture or even interesting architecture of an era we will always have to face squarely and objectively one undeniable fact--which is does that architecture work well for the purpose it was designed to serve. If it does it will endure and be preserved, if it doesn't it won't.

That to me was what happened to a lot of the old Golden Age architects and their architecture in their era and also to their architectural era after them.

In a way I sort of hate to say it but good architecture has an interesting way of becoming respected and consequently being preserved because it simply inures itself against change through respect.

Certainly there may be some notable exceptions to this due to subjectivity and its inherent disagreement and lack of consensus. Such would probably be ANGC and others of that ilk.

But on the other hand for every course like ANGC there are others such as the Road Hole that most everyone seems to admit might never be able to be built today anywhere and anyhow but its inherent respect puts it in a category of its own never to be touched!

That's a reality I guess we will never be able to avoid or deny. Again, really good architecture generally endures on its own with or without a famous architect's name attached to it although the famous name generally can't help but increase its liklihood of preservation.

I think my own course is an excellent example of this reality. The course was designed by Donald Ross--a famous architect. But a few of his holes didn't work well for the members, weren't respected--just basically weren't good golf holes. And Perry Maxwell came in and changed them, and did his own thing--his own look--his own style--his own everything.

The holes that Maxwell did, except one, did work well and became respected and they endured without change and will continue to. And the real irony and proof of their quality is until a few years ago probably not 1% of the membership remembered which architect did which holes.

Golf holes and courses will become respected on their own ultimately but of course if some architect does enough of them he too will become respected and famous.

Of course the supreme irony of architecture is that isn't the ONLY way an architect can become famous and even respected.

It just shows how complex and subjective golf architecture really is but it particularly shows that again,

"Golf and its architecture is a great big game and there really is room in it for everyone."

But intelligent cues and intelligent directions of how to handle some of the "Golden Age's" architecture should not necessarily be sought by analyzing everything those "Golden Age" architects said and did.

Unfortunately, we will all just have to continue to make our own best decisions about any architecture. There will always be a time and a place to apply the idea of--"just leave it alone" and there can also be the time and the place to apply the idea that it can be made better. But in the end no matter which idea is applied that architecture will have to stand on its own and hopefully become respected. If for whatever reason it doesn't, no matter who did it, it will probably be changed again someday.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Craig Van Egmond

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #28 on: April 29, 2003, 09:35:02 AM »

Forrest,

    From what I've read about Floyd Farley his first job in Oklahoma was as head pro at Twin Hills and he met Perry Maxwell. He built his first course in Oklahoma in 1932 in Oklahoma City called Woodlawn and ran that for 15 years, it wasn't until after WWII that he became a full time architect and was fairly prolific up until his retirement in the mid 1970's.  His courses usually had fewer bunkers than holes, very little if any rough, usually par of 70 and his inital goal was for people to play in about 3 hours.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #29 on: April 29, 2003, 11:28:48 AM »
Craig

From what you say, Floyd Farley is a "dead" guy who really gets it!  Not only that, if you believe Forrest, he is still alive!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris_Clouser

Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2003, 01:05:24 PM »
Mr. Farley is indeed alive and kicking.  I talked to him about an hour ago.  

I only got to see one of his courses on my trip to Oklahoma last year, but it appeared to be somewhat similar to Maxwell's early work in style.  One of his favorite courses was the Oklahoma City GCC course by Maxwell.  When I go back, I'll make sure to check out a few others by Farley.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2003, 06:27:39 PM »
Mr. Farley is indeed alive. He is mentioned here in relation to Tillinghast, who by all accounts is, in fact, dead. Farley met Tillinghast briefly during a tour of Oklahoma courses, of which we have it on good authority that Tillie spent almost no time at each club (unless they had good drink and food) and took no credit for remodeling or changes undertaken.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2003, 07:05:31 PM »
Forrest,
Do you think Mr. Farley is implying that all those remodeled courses attributed to Tillinghast are in addition to those "he took no credit for"?  Or did someone give him credit that he didn't deserve?  
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #33 on: April 29, 2003, 09:24:15 PM »
I was speaking only of Oklahoma courses, for which I'm now aware of any attributed to Tillinghast -- are there any?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #34 on: April 29, 2003, 09:29:29 PM »
I guess there are a few, huh? Cannot answer your question about what farley would say. He admitted not spending too much time with Tilinghast, but did meet him and show him around. From what I gathered Tillie made visits and gave advice. But for Oaks CC and Oklahoma CC, I guess there is more credited to Tillinghast. Perhaps someone can ckear all this up.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Chris_Clouser

Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #35 on: April 30, 2003, 05:20:47 AM »
Tillie designed two courses in Oklahoma from what I've been able to find out.  The first is the Tulsa CC.  The second was originally called Oakhurst CC and is now the Oaks CC in Tulsa.  Perry Maxwell did some major renovations to the course in 1936.  The other two courses I have seen Tillie's name attached to are the Hillcrest CC in Bartlesville and Oklahoma City GCC.  He actually did nothing at Hillcrest, and along with Walter Travis, was beat out for the job by Maxwell.  He did visit OKCGCC as part of his tour with the PGA and made some recommendations on the design, but none of them were followed.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #36 on: April 30, 2003, 05:45:40 AM »
One has to remember a certain minor event that impacted the architectural situation at that time, as well.  A little thing called the Great Depression.  

By the 1930's, architects were scrambling for work...any work.  New course construction essentially stopped dead.  

Tillinghast was hired by the USGA?  to go around the country (sounds like a "make-work" job consistent with the NRA's and WPA's) helping courses to find cost-efficient ways to stay in business through his suggested redesign changes.  He once remarked that he removed thousands of bunkers at courses, and probably helped advise on matters of improved drainage and other austerity measures.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #37 on: April 30, 2003, 06:19:27 AM »
Mike Cirba:

I was trying to avoid insulting anyone's intelligence by mentioning that little thing called the Depression. The idea that significant "remodeling" work was going on during this period seems silly. The Tillinghast reports made clear there simply wasn't the money.

Maybe I should have taken your approach and been more direct.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

TEPaul

Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #38 on: April 30, 2003, 06:32:19 PM »
Tim:

Actually a good deal of remodeling did go on here and there during the depression. Strange to say but there was far more architectural remodeling in the decade of the 1930s than any other decade in the history of my golf club. Thankfully it was all done by Perry Maxwell. But I would still caution anyone to rationalize remodeling just because some of the best and most respected "Golden Agers" did it all the time.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #39 on: April 30, 2003, 06:47:07 PM »
I agree with Tom about work going on during the depression.  Heck look at what is going on now with the slow down in our economy.   I bet each of us knows a few architects out there that have now all of a sudden become classic course "restoration" experts.  These are guys who's first thought when someone mentioned the name Ross, was the make of a bicycle!  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the
« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2003, 07:51:13 PM »
Tom Paul,

I can't speak to what happened at your club specifically. I can only repeat what I've said previously. To my knowledge, Tillinghast did more consulting than any other prominent architect during this period and the documentation he left strongly suggests significant "remodeling" wasn't part of the picture. Rather, frugality was the order of the day.

What we may be running into here is the desire of some to cite the big names of yesteryear to justify work they want to do today.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #41 on: May 01, 2003, 04:32:47 AM »
Tim,
I assume you are suggesting it is incorrect to credit Tillinghast the dozens and dozens of courses that he is said to have remodeled?  You don't just change one bunker and get remodeling credit!

Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #42 on: May 01, 2003, 04:47:24 AM »
The varying opinions on this thread lead me to believe that we really aren't sure if the "dead" guys saw it differently.  Some feel they did what ever they wanted to a course regardless of who designed it.  Others feel they only made slight changes (mainly to reduce maintenance costs) and didn't tinker with the orginal designers intent.

Who's right?  Maybe we'll never know for sure!  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #43 on: May 01, 2003, 05:19:05 AM »
"What we may be running into here is the desire of some to cite the big names of yesteryear to justify work they want to do today."

Tim:

That's precisely the type of thing that concerns me too. Basically I think that's sort of a cheap rationalization. We've had a rewakening of sorts to the idea of preserving and restoring the classic course not wholesale remodeling of them the way some of the "Golden Agers" may have done to other Golden Agers' architeture pre-WW2.

We should simply concentrate on that new reawakening--something that clearly was not going on in the 1930s or even the 1950s, 1960s or 1970s. That's the thing to concentrate on not what the Golden Agers did in a remodeling context way back when!

I don't like how some people attempt to use for whatever their particular purpose happens to be every single thing those apparently respected architects did once upon another time.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #44 on: May 01, 2003, 05:49:22 AM »
"The varying opinions on this thread lead me to believe that we really aren't sure if the "dead" guys saw it differently.  Some feel they did what ever they wanted to a course regardless of who designed it.  Others feel they only made slight changes (mainly to reduce maintenance costs) and didn't tinker with the orginal designers intent.

Who's right?  Maybe we'll never know for sure!"

Mark:

There's absolutely no quesiton many of the so-called "dead" guys remodeled all over the place--there's no quesition of that whatsoever. Checking almost any significant club's architectural evolution can show us that. Obviously there were all kinds of reasons to do that but it certainly happened bigtime. And the even more amazing thing is not a single one of them EVER appeared to care to do something sympathetic with the original architect.

And you said;

"You don't just change one bunker and get remodeling credit!
 
Actually you do. In the setup for architectural attribution in Cornish and Whitten, the single most comprehensive architectural "Bible" available today, if an architect made some even minimal change to a single hole and C&W became aware of it they would attribute that architect an (R1) in their book. They spell that fact out pretty clearly.

But of course most clubs don't really understand those particular distinctions (as you may not have despite the amount you obviously do know about these things) and just see something like the name Tillinghast listed in C&W with architectural attribution under their club at some point. And then if some think it's worthwhile they probably go on and assume or claim that Tillinghast redid their whole golf course and that it's now a Tillinghast.

Actually, in Cornish & Whitten distinctions between restoration, rennovation, redesign, remodel, reroute, whatever, are not made at all. It all falls under the heading of "remodel". And we all know how those terms were and still are used interchangeably anyway.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #45 on: May 01, 2003, 09:04:44 AM »
Mark Fine:

Tom Paul has correctly summarized my understanding of how C&W prepared their listing or "Bible" of course design credits. The bottom line is that I don't think you can draw many conclusions simply by looking at this listing. You have to dig deeper to understand what was really done. You have to look case by case. Again, Tillie's documentation provides a far more complete picture than C&W.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #46 on: May 01, 2003, 10:11:29 AM »
Yes I know how C&W's book works as far as credit.  The point here is as Tim points out, I believe a number of architects use this "remodeling" angle to justify making household changes to older designs.  They say, "Tillinghast, Ross and every other noted architect went in and changed other designer's golf courses.  Why shouldn't I!"

It's a dangerous thing and probably why we see so many restorations that are not restorations.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #47 on: May 01, 2003, 10:31:42 AM »
"They say, "Tillinghast, Ross and every other noted architect went in and changed other designer's golf courses.  Why shouldn't I!"
It's a dangerous thing and probably why we see so many restorations that are not restorations."

But Mark;

There is a big difference between today and back then--a very big difference! Back then restorations weren't something anyone thought about much less wanted to do. The term probably wasn't even known. But that's just not true today--it just isn't! Why do you think some of these so-called "restorers" such as Hanse, Doak and Prichard are so damn busy today?  

The biggest impediment to real restorations today isn't so much architects today saying if Ross wholesale remodeled a course why shouldn't I? The biggest impediment to real restoration today are things like the distance problem, how much the game really has changed and clubs and even architects and contractors not really understanding how to actually restore a look or a playability or even what it really means.

But the fact that the game has changed so much has to be the primary reason. And there really is a lot of truth to the effects of how the game has changed the requiremnts of architecture and how that makes true restoration in every way a very difficult thing to do.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #48 on: May 01, 2003, 05:10:31 PM »
Tom,
Your point is well taken.  So what do you do today vs. back then?
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Did the "dead" guys see it differently?
« Reply #49 on: May 01, 2003, 05:32:48 PM »
"So what do you do today vs. back then?"

Mark:

I'm not sure what you mean. There's a whole laundry list of things to do to prepare for a good restoration--certainly the architectural side but then the side of communicating and preparing the membership for what you're trying to accomplish in detail is huge. Not sure why you're asking me though. Didn't you go through a restoration of sorts with Lehigh and Ron Forse?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back