[Forrest Richardson]

Had there been an internet and a Golf Club Atlas in the 1930s, what would the advice be from those of us stuck here in 2003?

Would we suggest bashing the "name brands" of the 1930s?
Would we suggest seeking out new, unheard-of talent?
Would we talk of the old — those British courses?

What would we be talking about? And, most important, what would we be suggesting to preserve the future of this wonderful game and its playing board(s)?

[JohnV]

Somebody would be beating up the USGA for not banning steel shafts.

[Forrest Richardson]

Do you really believe that, John? Or are you putting thoughts into your ancestors' mouths?

[RJ_Daley]

Well, if we were talking about the same 1930s most of our ancestors had to endure, we would be begging them to conserve and do their best not to let the great works of golf course architecture die from lack of funds to keep them open, but wouldn't loose any sleep with the weak rudimentary courses of the day dying a natural death of economic circumstances.  Most of us would be watching our ancestors looking through the gates at the last remaining few wealthy enough to continue to play the game at the great courses.  

To a very minor degree of a slightly down economy by comparison, we 2003 occupants are faced with a similar  micro scene where too many courses in some areas, overbuilt and costing too much to play are not doing well financially due to weakening financial conditions.  But now the courses that are going belly up are not so much the rudimentary ones that even the general public can't afford, they are the too high priced generally extravagant ones that are placed in wrong markets for the general public. But, the same sentiment applies.  Let the weak ones die, and advocate for the truly quality designed ones to reorganise and market to the viable/affordable market of players.

[david h. carroll]

bring back the gutta percha.

[Gib_Papazian]

GCA is in some measure a *watchdog* organization as much as a bunch of "getalife's" masturbating over the fine points of pushed up dirt and grass.

If *we* has existed in the 1930's I agree with Dick completely. But I also believe that even in tough economic circumstances there would have been more of a tendency to preserve the greatest courses - or at least make certain original maps and plans were kept in a safe place until better times came and the bunkers could be fixed up and the greens re-expanded.

If we had existed in the 1930's, instead of guys like Rees and Fazio hating this site, I believe they would have been  participants in the Treehouse.

In those days, architects were far more open in exchanging ideas than now and I am certain the best ones (Mackenzie for instance) would come to view this site as a resource instead of a bunch of pedantic assholes who live to critique. That is the rap on us from several big shots in the trade.

Unfortunately, I doubt that the taciturn Raynor would have written a single word given that he gave exactly one interview his entire career and kept his correspondence notoriously short and to the point.

However, think about C.B.'s personality for a moment; and remember the philosophical ping-pong matches he had in Country Life magazine when planning out NGLA.

A C.B. Macdonald post would have been as common at Tom Doak on this board - likely written in the NGLA library with a head full of scotch and Judge O'Brien looking over his shoulder.

Architects who feel threatened by the Treehouse are missing the point. The smart ones take what they garner from the collective thoughts in DG and use them to further their own work.

What a fabulous opportunity! A semi-private electronic enclave to flesh out ideas in a group setting without having to pay a penny for it!

All the working designers who frequent this little corner of cyberspace ought to kiss Ran's ass for the opportunity to use a Treehouse full of consultants working pro bono - lending their thoughts out of a sheer love of the game itself.

Imagine a Mucci/Tom Paul type debate between Mackenzie and Ross in the 1930's. . . . . the mind reels.

[Forrest Richardson]

Gib,

What were the "greatest courses" to a 1930s GCA-er?

[Bill_McBride]

Forrest, to interject in place of Gib, I think the 1930's GCAer's favorites would be the 2000's GCA'ers current favorites - most were built by 1930.  The 2000's favorites not built then are admired for the attributes of those built before 1930.  Minimal earthmoving, natural looking bunkers, fast and firm maintenance........... Now I'm not so sure which courses would NOT have been their favorites, as I don't think anybody knows about courses that didn't measure up and eventually disappeared.  

[Gyrogolf]

Forrest,
I large measure the same ones we revere today, eh? The difference might be that guys like Ron Forse and DeVries would have less restoration work today because memberships might have better understood the genius that lay before them.

Think for a minute how idiotic it was for some of these clubs to play musical bunkers on their Golden Age masterpieces and turn their golf courses into overplanted tree nurseries!

Maybe some of this would not have happened if GCA existed. It all depends on how influencial this board was at the time.


It makes sense that Dan Wexler's book would have been far shorter - with the majority of the courses lost to highway construction rather than Green Committte stupidity.

Just a thought and a slightly half baked one at that.

Think what might have happened if something like the incredible renaissance in design we have enjoyed the last ten years started after WWII and continued until now.

The bar would have been raised up from the very beginning and maybe people would have been less likely to accept some of the hideous remodeling work in the 1960's that defecated on so many once great courses.

[Forrest Richardson]

My take is that the golf architects of the 20s and 30s were greatly interested in pursuits of "the next great site and design". Not too unlike today. Preservation was not be at the forefront of their thoughts, even at acclaimed venues where changes were often undertaken, or suggested.

I believe the architects — not the GCA-ers — were focusing on new trends in building, finding great sites, finding willing clients, etc...not all, but a majority of those we have now come to appreciate.

[Steve Lang]

 

One thing for sure.. there would be less "travelled folks" participating.

The task of organizing something like the Land of Enchantment Tour, with participants from NC to CA would have been extraordinary!  

I suppose getting entre' to the eastern corridor "sites" of the US would be even more difficult for us common types.  

[T_MacWood]

In 1933 the architects who were still alive were focused on survival. There was little or no work. Golf Illustrated and American Golfer were on their last legs.

The revolutionary design of ANGC would have been a topic for debate. Perhaps Bethpage and Capilano would have been discussed. Alison and Morrison might have had one or two in Europe, but not much was going on and all hell was about to break out. A few years later Tillie's work for the PGA would've met some strong criticism on GCA. Most of the prominent architects of that early era were either retired, semi-retired or dead in 1933.

I agree with Gib, take GCA back to the 20's (or even earlier) and the site would have been inundated with the big names exchanging ideas, debating and arguing among themselves.

[redanman]

Well, we certainly would have the skinny about what really happened at Plainfield.

[JohnV]

Yes, Forrest I do.  Steel shafts were first legalized in 1929.  The following quote is from Robert Harris, Chairman of the R&A Golf Ball Committee, a few years later,

"With the legalising of steel shafts there began another flurry and flutter in the game.  It was soon realized by players that the rigid steel shaft could not be made to work to the same extent as hickory with its torsion qualities... The soullessness of metal took the finesse out of the game - a new more stereotyped method to hit had to be found."

Sounds just like some of the luddites on this group doesn't it.

And with that, I'm off to New Mexico, sans laptop.

[Dan Herrmann]

I think the biggest concerns of 1933 would be "will my golf club survive?"*, and "where will my next job come from?".  Just a guess, but architecture probably wasn't on the top of a lot of folks' minds.

Oops - sounds like 2003!


* - I'm NOT talking about my club - but I do know that folks report other clubs' waiting lists have disappeared so much so to the effect that they're short members, resulting in reduced revenues.

[Forrest Richardson]

I was always struck by the fact that this post did not result in more discussion....is it that boring of a topic? Seems to me it might strike a sensitive part of many who usually post here on GCA.

What say some of you?

[Forrest Richardson]

For many reasons I find this one particular thread an appropriate topic. Are these truly the only responses??!

[DMoriarty]

I think Tom MacWood hit the nail on the head here.  1933 wasnt exactly riding the wave of a golf boom.  I am a little dismayed that a working architect wouldnt know this.  

Had there been an internet and a Golf Club Atlas in the 1930s, what would the advice be from those of us stuck here in 2003?

Would we suggest bashing the "name brands" of the 1930s?
Would we suggest seeking out new, unheard-of talent?
Would we talk of the old — those British courses?

What would we be talking about? And, most important, what would we be suggesting to preserve the future of this wonderful game and its playing board(s)?

The premise of your post is mistaken in that you confuse procedure with substance.   For example, you assume that we who bash "name brands" do so to be contrarians or something, and that we would automatically disagree with whatever was mainstream.    You think that the substance-- the underlying quality of the architecture-- is irrelevant.   It isn't.  

If I were interested in the issue in the first third of the century, I hope I'd like like and dislike the same stuff I do now.  What was substantively good then is substantively good now, so why would our viewpoints change?  

As for seeking out young talent, that too would be like now.  It would depend upon whether they were substantively any good.

On the equipment issue if I could advise them I'd tell them that if they insisted on allowing change they should move in a direction of making equipment more affordable without letting the performance run amuck.  

Come to think of it, there really wasnt much of a radical change in the equipment between 1933 and our present metal-wood, graphite shaft, distance ball predicament, so I might not tell them much at all.  

[Adam Clayman]

Forrest, I don't know why anybody would be insulted.
This thread is a creative exercise but still one of futility. Too many changes in the world and especially in the world of GCA.

Sometimes the lack of response is because someone makes excellent points.

I too believe this website in the 30's would've been a shared sounding board of both the professional archies and the amateurs. There just so happened to be alot more ams around then.

[James Bennett]

Well, we certainly would have the skinny about what really happened at Plainfield.

and at Cypress Point (perhaps the 'missing' routing would have been posted for eternity in cyberspace).

James B

[BCrosby]

To echo Tom MacW above, ANGC had just opened for play and was being talked about by everyone. It was going to set the mark for all new designs to follow.

The problem was that the Great Depression hit and nothing followed.

So the other hot topics circa 1933 would have been how to cut maintenance expenses, keep members from resigning and stop great courses from being plowed under. Almost all golf magazines went under as well.

1933 was the beginning of about 15 very ugly years for gca. People in 1933 were just figuring out that they were slidding towards the edge of an abyss and soon to go over. A very bad time. In some respects golf didn't recover for 50 years.

Bob

[Forrest Richardson]

On the contrary DM, the early 1930s  had just seen a tremendous wave of great golf courses — and plenty of not-so-great golf courses. That may similar to the situation we find ourselves in now — at least in the U.S. We are already seeing an emphasis on re-builds, transformations and remodels. The current "boom" is mostly global at present.

I really do not think the date is crucial to good discussion, however. While ideas would have been shared about in-progress work in the 1920s, it would certainly have included those courses in the 1930s. (DM: If you prefer, think of a discussion in the mid- to late 1920s. Your call. I am a little dismayed that a passionate CGA-er would not take any opportunity to move on and share ideas... )  


What are some other things that might be discused?

 

[Adam Clayman]

Likely rankings.

Wasn't the first top 100 list published in '39?

Since this forum is/was cutting edge, it would be logical that comparing courses to eachother, would be a topic du jour.

[Forrest Richardson]

Rankings...now that seems to be a re-occurring theme!

One of the things that I feel would have been discussed was the emerging awareness of golf architrecture. While much had been built, it seems to me that this period of time would have had reflection on the rather recent geometric phase, and would also have had a chance to evaluate how America had taken the game and changed it to an inland proposition.

I wonder, also, what the European GCA-ers of the time would have been saying about our American courses...?

[Lou_Duran]

Forrest,

I would expect the site to have much more civil discussion, with fewer posts ascribing dark motives to people with whom we disagree.  Overall, I would expect a more erudite group, capable of expressing themselves with better precision.  I would also expect fewer food fights and, perhaps, a freer flow of discussion over a wide range of topics.  Of course, we would still have the griping about technology and lament its effect on existing and new courses.  However, this would be done in a tone much less acrimonious.  I doubt that we would see much in the way of demonizing the industry leaders, though I don't doubt that there would be some critique of their work.  Of course, not having been around in the 1930s, I could be all wrong.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()