[Patrick_Mucci]

a more formidable defense against par than today's designs  ?

The more photos I see of old courses with geometric architecture, the more challenging they seem.

Did Geometric architecture fall out of favor because of the stern challenge it presented, in conjunction with the rising popularity of the game amongst a broader spectrum of golfer ?

[Joe_Tucholski]

My personal opinion is it fell out of favor because it looks bad.

[Patrick_Mucci]

My personal opinion is it fell out of favor because it looks bad.

From whose perspective ?

An aerial from 5,000 feet or from the golfer's eyes ?

Tell us what looks bad about the square greens surrounded by rectangular bunkers at Chicago golf club ?

[Kirk Gill]

I'd be interested, Patrick, in how you feel geometric features would inherently present a greater defense to par than more naturalistic features. I suppose it would depend on which specific features are used.

Photos and examples, please !

[Bradley Anderson]

a more formidable defense against par than today's designs  ?

I would say yes. When you hit from those deep greenside bunkers that were built with steam shovels you can't even see the hole location - sometimes you can't even see the flag! And with a hickory shafted club that was a very muscular shot - an almost impossible shot.



The more photos I see of old courses with geometric architecture, the more challenging they seem.

Did Geometric architecture fall out of favor because of the stern challenge it presented, in conjunction with the rising popularity of the game amongst a broader spectrum of golfer ?

I wouldn't say that geometric fell out of favor. Geometric golf course architecture was sympathetic to the landscape designs of Olmstead and Raynor's work was generally tied in with those developments. I wonder if that design style simply faded with the fortunes of Olmstead and the death of Raynor. Or did it just became archaic to build golf course features with steam shovels? The contours and grades just became less obtuse with the use of less wieldy machinery. Gigantism did not necessarily go away; RTJ, and RB Harris probably moved more earth than Raynor and they built big bunkers, they just spread the fill out over a broader area.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd be interested, Patrick, in how you feel geometric features would inherently present a greater defense to par than more naturalistic features.

Reduced margins of error between green and greenside bunkering

I suppose it would depend on which specific features are used.

Bunkering

Photos and examples, please !

Go to "Google Earth" and look at the Chicago Golf Club

[Jeff_Brauer]

If you read the writings of the Golden Age guys, they preferred the angle hazards to provide a shorter and safer way around than those forced carries of geometric hazards, so yes.

Geometric hazards present a big test to bad players, and none (or well less) to good players, so yes, it was a move to make golf more popular and accessible for the masses.  I guess you could call the zig zag fairway and safe way around the 15" cup of its day, no?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

Over what period of time do you think the transition took place ?

[Jim Sherma]

I wonder how much maintenance cost had to do with the changes as well. Steep slopes involve labor intensive mowing. Once the depression hit even the quality private clubs had to be somewhat concerned with costs.

[Peter Pallotta]

Patrick - I think the answer is yes, and I think that was overt and intentional, i.e. a design style/ethos that was consciously aimed at ensuring that poor shots would be identified and penalized as such, and that 'par' would not so much be protected as be indicative, hole after hole, of excellent play. The 'topshot' bunker and cross hazards that went hand in hand with geometric architecture seem to have essentially disappeared from the architect's bag of tricks at about the same time as that the style of architcture fell out of favour (which fall began in American around the time of NGLA, I'd suggest.)  Ironically, given all the changes to technology, it was lucky that this 'par protecting' style feel out of favour. Imagine a course where the challenge/interest was predicated on having cross-hazards at 220-240yards out on every landing/driving zone; that course would've become obsolete almost the moment it was finished, and even if it wasn't, they'd have to move every single tee box further and further back with each passing decade just to stay even.

Peter      

[Tom_Doak]

I am not sure I agree with the thesis.  Most of Raynor and Macdonald's courses are quite easy to play nowadays.  Of course, 6400 yards doesn't go as far now as it did in the 1920's.

The thing is, we may build a lot of 7400 yard courses now, but we are usually obliged to make them a bit softer in their hazards since they are 1000 yards longer than the old courses.

[DMoriarty]

I don't understand what people mean when they are referring to "geometric architecture" in this thread.  Raynor may have produced obviously manufactured features, but I'd hardly characterize his work or the work of CBM as "geometric architecture," at least not as it compares to much of the architecture that came before CBM.   When I think if "geometric architecture" in the context of the history of the development of gca, I think of the early attempts at uniform architecture, where greens were graded to table flat, and cops, bunkers and traps were placed at specified distances from the tee and the golf hole.

[Sean_A]

David

I thought that style of architecture you describe was called Victorian  .  In any case, I think of MacRayBanks work as linear.  A lot of sharp lines and angles in succession.

If we are to believe Dr Mac, a more naturalistic archie style should be more difficult because best lines of play are not readily apparent and hazards are blended better making it harder to discern yardages, elevation changes etc.  Anyway, at least for Yeamans Hall, what made the course difficult was not hazard placement itself, but the choice of hard sand and greens which are firm.  Put softer sand in those greenside bunkers and venom of recovery from the hazards is largely mitigated. 

Ciao   

[Patrick_Mucci]

I wonder how much maintenance cost had to do with the changes as well.
Steep slopes involve labor intensive mowing.
Once the depression hit even the quality private clubs had to be somewhat concerned with costs.

Jim,

I'd agree that maintanance was a factor, but, I don't think it was "THE" factor.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't understand what people mean when they are referring to "geometric architecture" in this thread.  Raynor may have produced obviously manufactured features, but I'd hardly characterize his work or the work of CBM as "geometric architecture," at least not as it compares to much of the architecture that came before CBM.   When I think if "geometric architecture" in the context of the history of the development of gca, I think of the early attempts at uniform architecture, where greens were graded to table flat, and cops, bunkers and traps were placed at specified distances from the tee and the golf hole.

David,

I'd agree, although Chicago GC has some great examples of "Geometric" design.

There were a number of old photos of courses with their sharp geometric lines and features.
I wish I could recall the names of the courses.
One was Annandale in California, another was the College Arms Golf Club in Deland, Florida.
Shinnecock pre Wilson's redesign in 1930 was another.
GCGC has remnants of geometric architecture with a number of bunkers.
St George's in Stony Brook is another.

I think CBM/SR/CB utilized some geometric designs in their bunker but generally initiated the trend away from it.

[DMoriarty]

David

I thought that style of architecture you describe was called Victorian  .  In any case, I think of MacRayBanks work as linear.  A lot of sharp lines and angles in succession.

It has been called lots of things - especially around here - but "Victorian" works for me.  I think of Raynor's work as having a manufactured aesthetic, but I don't think it fits at all with the previous "Victorian" (or whatever you call it) approach.  At best there were aesthetic similarities, but I don't think they were similar in terms of feature placement/use, which is to my mind is a much more important aspect of gca than things like whether bunker edges are linear.   For example, I wouldn't consider a strategically placed bunker requiring a diagonal carry off the tee to be "geometric" or Victorian even if the bunker was built like a trench and featured the straightest of edges.

And as for CBM, I don't think the aesthetics of the original NGLA fit at all with how we have come to think of his work.  And as for the architectural substance, his work was a definite departure.  

I agree that MacKenzie tried to take the natural aesthetic to a different level, and he incorporated things like deception into design in a much more sophisticated way.

_______________________________________________

Patrick,  I've never played Chicago, but I know what you mean regarding Garden City.  It is interesting that both those courses had a long history pre-NGLA, and so it is possible that what we are seeing is the remnants of the past era.  

As I wrote above to Sean, it think it is helpful if we distinguish between feature aesthetics and feature placement/use.  Some of the Golden Age guys seem to stick with manufactured and geometric aesthetic, but their courses were nonetheless a departure from the previous architecture.

As for whether or not the earlier Victorian Age geometric approach was "a more formidable defense against par than today's designs" I'd have to say that for better golfers, that old era provided a less formidable defense.   Take the two courses you mentioned which bridged the two periods; Garden City and Chicago.   Prior to their remodels, both of these courses were heavily criticized for being too easy for the better golfers.  Generally, the types of hazards upon which the old approach relied were easily avoidable to better players, and only really an issue for hacks.   For example, a cross bunker or cop 150 yards off the tee was little issue for an top golfer, but it caused havoc for the hack.  Likewise a cross bunker or cop 30 or 40 yards short of a green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

Not so sure that I'd agree that GCGC was perceived as easy, especially given the tournaments held there.

There are some great photos in the clubhouse where the bunkers were right next to the green, deep and shored up with sleepers.

While I'd agree that top shot bunkers didn't present a challenge to the better player, the flanking fairway bunkers and greenside bunkers were and continue to be quite formidable.

I'm trying to remember how many you, Lynn and Mike were in.

You have to forgive me but it's difficult to recall Mike's and your round as I tend to look the other way when lefties are swinging.

Or was that Lynn and Mike ?

It's hard to remember because my lefty quota was always one.

The olde fronting bunker on # 14, a huge square/rectangle and the long flanking bunkers on # 3 and # 7 along with the cross bunker on # 10 and # 15 are clearly geometric.  The cross bunker on # 8, less so, the cross bunker on # 9 and the large left bunker on # 11 are definitely geometric.

[DMoriarty]

It was me, you, and Lynn. I don't remember either, but experience tells me that Lynn probably wasn't in any bunkers, but I was probably in most of them.  I recall being in one of the bunkers on 18 for so long that a priest showed up to bless the body.

Travis made extensive changes to the bunkering around 1906=1909.  I was referring to the course before these changes.  Do any of those pictures predate those changes?  

[Joe_Tucholski]

My personal opinion is it fell out of favor because it looks bad.

From whose perspective ?

An aerial from 5,000 feet or from the golfer's eyes ?

Tell us what looks bad about the square greens surrounded by rectangular bunkers at Chicago golf club ?

I indicated it was my personal opinion so it's from my perspective.

This is my opinion based on both an aerial and from the playing perspective.

You ask about Chicago Golf Club, which is a course I've never played.  If you want examples of images of Chicago Golf Club that I don't find esthetically pleasing below are two.


Luckily each of us can have an opinion and I understand some people may look at this image and think it looks great.  I don't like the look of the first bunker it seems out of place and far too sharp.  I think the right side of the green with the distinct rise out of the bunker and then the straight line sloping down to the left creating a well-defined angle looks fake, especially given the flat surroundings and the level backdrop.


I really like the biarritz green complex but I'm not in love with the symmetrical bunkering.  It reminds me a bit of a shape from an old Atari game.

I don't mean any disrespect to Chicago Golf Club I can recognize it as great for its style, just these few attributes aren't appealing to me visually.  Similarly there are styles of paintings I don't find pleasing (a good comparison would be variations of cubism) but they are still great and valued by many.

More examples of great design that I personally do not find pleasing.

The 5th at Yeamans Hall


Such an amazing setting and I really love many photos of this course but if I were to hang this image on my wall I would prefer one with the moat photo shopped out.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave,

I think there are a few, but most photos are circa 1936

[Sean_A]

David

I thought that style of architecture you describe was called Victorian  .  In any case, I think of MacRayBanks work as linear.  A lot of sharp lines and angles in succession.

It has been called lots of things - especially around here - but "Victorian" works for me.  I think of Raynor's work as having a manufactured aesthetic, but I don't think it fits at all with the previous "Victorian" (or whatever you call it) approach.  At best there were aesthetic similarities, but I don't think they were similar in terms of feature placement/use, which is to my mind is a much more important aspect of gca than things like whether bunker edges are linear.   For example, I wouldn't consider a strategically placed bunker requiring a diagonal carry off the tee to be "geometric" or Victorian even if the bunker was built like a trench and featured the straightest of edges.

And as for CBM, I don't think the aesthetics of the original NGLA fit at all with how we have come to think of his work.  And as for the architectural substance, his work was a definite departure.  

I agree that MacKenzie tried to take the natural aesthetic to a different level, and he incorporated things like deception into design in a much more sophisticated way.

_______________________________________________

Patrick,  I've never played Chicago, but I know what you mean regarding Garden City.  It is interesting that both those courses had a long history pre-NGLA, and so it is possible that what we are seeing is the remnants of the past era.  

As I wrote above to Sean, it think it is helpful if we distinguish between feature aesthetics and feature placement/use.  Some of the Golden Age guys seem to stick with manufactured and geometric aesthetic, but their courses were nonetheless a departure from the previous architecture.

As for whether or not the earlier Victorian Age geometric approach was "a more formidable defense against par than today's designs" I'd have to say that for better golfers, that old era provided a less formidable defense.   Take the two courses you mentioned which bridged the two periods; Garden City and Chicago.   Prior to their remodels, both of these courses were heavily criticized for being too easy for the better golfers.  Generally, the types of hazards upon which the old approach relied were easily avoidable to better players, and only really an issue for hacks.   For example, a cross bunker or cop 150 yards off the tee was little issue for an top golfer, but it caused havoc for the hack.  Likewise a cross bunker or cop 30 or 40 yards short of a green.

David

Sure, I agree, Victorian and MacRayBanks style while related aesthetically are still quite different.  I have only seen one example in the flesh and the fairway bunkering is quite strategic.  The greenside bunkering though is quite formulaic in its placement and very reminiscent of Victorian design.  There can be no question the bunkers are the bite of the course.  I watched decent to good golfers struggle mightily with combined depth, sharp bunker walls and hard packed sand.  I can only imagine back in the day it was even more difficult with primitive wedges.  A balancing effect would have been much slower greens.  I couldn't say if that style is more difficult then relatively equal quality modern designs.  The presence of water these days may be a deal breaker.

I too think the linear style of MacRayBanks fell out of favour because it is generally less aesthetically appealing.  MacRayBanks happen to have their shining moment at the time a much more naturalist style was being developed and heavily promoted in Britain.  I think this movement took much longer to fully grab hold in the US, probably not until Ross and Tillie were properly settled.  I think by the time Dr Mac came over the writing was clearly written on the wall - MacRayBanks linear style was all but dead.  Maybe difficulty played its part, but Tillie and Flynn were designing some very difficult courses which looked much more naturalistic.  So I think the bottom line is style changed.  The odd thing is NGLA doesn't strike me as as nearly linear as other MacRayBanks courses and that was meant to be the mother of the style.  What happened with later courses?

Ciao

[John Chilver-Stainer]

The „geometric“ style as you call it, has also gradually disappeared here in the UK. A few square greens are left, however I believe they have been considered as a primitive form of golf course architecture.

The celebrated architects didn't use strict geometeric features and they weren't inherent on the ancient links.
I'm not familiar with the names of the golf course architects that deliberately favoured this style.
I assume the tee and green centres of these early courses were laid out by old golf pros and left to the locals to construct.

I believe these old geometric features, which could be maintained by a hand mower in earlier years, were rounded out over time to suit the turning circles of the triplexes

Of the geometric greens and golf courses I'm familiar with, one golf course, Freshwater Bay on the Isle of Wight was altered by the greenkeepers in the 80's to improve the aesthetics and to suit the turning circles and gradients of their sit-on mowers.

The other one, Corrie Golf Course on the Isle of Arran, still has what I call „gun emplacement“ greens.
They can't afford any major changes and so they remain.

Ideally the square greens should be preserved as one of the last examples of this early style of primitive golf course architecture.
I'd love to hear from the DG of other similar courses.

As far as their defence is concerned, if one is confronted with a steep corner of the embankment in the path of your chip, it certainly meant pitching over the corner rather than running it through. Generally low steep embankments surrounding the lower side of such greens made shots more difficult - however I do relish the bounce shoot into the higher banks which then land softly on the greens.

Getting stuck in the corner of a square bunker is also challenging,

Maybe a rut iron was the answer!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Tucholski,

So your perspective is based on photos of three holes on courses you've never played ? ?  ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

I am with David and Sean on this one. Victorian sounds right.  The time period would have been the earliest American courses dating from pre 1900 to 1910 at the outside limit.  NGLA wasn't as geometric as later Raynor courses, and Merion and Shinney certainly weren't, so there were some early classics bucking the Victorian trend.

In reality, I was sort of associating the Victorian or early American style with how far those geometric bunkers crossed the fw as much as the bunker style itself - basically cross bunkers went out of style with the better architects.  Not sure how all those other courses got built.  In hindsight, boggles the mind. Certainly, not as much of that style in GBI.  Were early courses in the US laid out by city planners?

Funny though, as the Golden Age architects were getting away from that style really started the move perhaps 10-15 years before they wrote their books describing their philosophy.  (Not sure of the publish date of all those, and would be interesting to know....don't have time to dig out books and look it up, but I bet someone here has it on the tips of their fingers.......)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I am with David and Sean on this one. Victorian sounds right.  The time period would have been the earliest American courses dating from pre 1900 to 1910 at the outside limit.  NGLA wasn't as geometric as later Raynor courses, and Merion and Shinney certainly weren't, so there were some early classics bucking the Victorian trend.

Jeff,

I might expand the time frame from 1890 to 1911.

SHGC was geometric prior to Flynn/Wilson's work

GCGC clearly had geometric roots, roots which thankfully, still exist today

In reality, I was sort of associating the Victorian or early American style with how far those geometric bunkers crossed the fw as much as the bunker style itself - basically cross bunkers went out of style with the better architects.  Not sure how all those other courses got built.  In hindsight, boggles the mind. Certainly, not as much of that style in GBI.  Were early courses in the US laid out by city planners?

That's an interesting question.
Since many early course crossed active roads, one has to wonder what role city planners may have taken.

GCGC has an abundance of cross bunkers/features that remain today.
Maybe that's part of it's appeal.
A throwback to another form of architecture not seen today.......geometric architecture.

In one form or another you have complete or semi-complete cross bunkers/features on 11 fairways/approaches with all three par threes having deep bunkers or water fronting them, forcing a carry.

Funny though, as the Golden Age architects were getting away from that style really started the move perhaps 10-15 years before they wrote their books describing their philosophy.  (Not sure of the publish date of all those, and would be interesting to know....don't have time to dig out books and look it up, but I bet someone here has it on the tips of their fingers.......)

Jeff, I wonder how much "cost to construct" impacted the style as courses moved away from Sandy soils to clay and Rock sub surfaces ?

Form may have followed function in terms of cost and the difficulty to construct rather than a conscious effort to depart from the geometric style so familiar to them

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()