[JMEvensky]

JB / TD, thanks for the back and forth--the inside baseball discussion is always interesting.

[Jeff_Brauer]

JB / TD, thanks for the back and forth--the inside baseball discussion is always interesting.

I often feel like I may be the only one who likes to engage in purely theoretical discussions, rarely naming a specific course.  Glad to know we have at least one more!

[JMEvensky]

JB / TD, thanks for the back and forth--the inside baseball discussion is always interesting.

I often feel like I may be the only one who likes to engage in purely theoretical discussions, rarely naming a specific course.  Glad to know we have at least one more!

I'm only qualified to read, definitely not engage. A man's gotta know his limitations.

[Kalen Braley]

The only thing I wonder is...

What would Fownes have done differently at Oakmont, Crump at PV, or even Dr. MacK at Cypress with modern earth moving equipment?

Its purely hypothetical of course, but looking at what we think they were trying to accomplish at those sites vs the restraints they had vs what ended up in the ground, its an interesting thought exercise.  Would Fownes have built ditches far wider and deeper?  Would Alister have done something different with 18? Would Crump have finished far sooner?

[Ronald Montesano]

Way to break up the no-hitter, Evensky!

[Jeff_Brauer]

The only thing I wonder is...

What would Fownes have done differently at Oakmont, Crump at PV, or even Dr. MacK at Cypress with modern earth moving equipment?

Its purely hypothetical of course, but looking at what we think they were trying to accomplish at those sites vs the restraints they had vs what ended up in the ground, its an interesting thought exercise.  Would Fownes have built ditches far wider and deeper?  Would Alister have done something different with 18? Would Crump have finished far sooner?

The only one we can know for sure was Ross, who extolled the virtues of those newfangled bulldozers.  (Golf Has Never Failed Me)


I think Mac might have used the dozers more than some think, but am not really sure.

[Jeff_Brauer]

JB / TD, thanks for the back and forth--the inside baseball discussion is always interesting.

I often feel like I may be the only one who likes to engage in purely theoretical discussions, rarely naming a specific course.  Glad to know we have at least one more!

I'm only qualified to read, definitely not engage. A man's gotta know his limitations.

I'm not sure about that, for you or many of the posters.  I mean, maybe yes for some technical theoretical things like, "Is it okayh to move more than 100K CY of earth.  But questions like, "Are original ideas inherently good?" can be answered by anyone on this site.  It's opinion.  And, IMHO, while originality is always valued, it seems to be a fact that not all original ideas are good, just because they are original.  But, what TD and I are discussing is how to get to original ideas that are good, or good ideas that are at least somewhat original and different than elsewhere, and fitting the site, course, etc., in the process.Of course, that begs the old question of how much different does something have to be to be considered "different?"  Touring Camargo the other day, I was struck by how Raynor, a non golfer, seemed to make each of his templates just a little different, as he tried fitting them to the land. So, IMHO, even his templates look a little different.  I doubt I would ever build many greens that close to a template, but have used concepts again and again, sometimes going left instead of right, grass bunker instead of sand bunker, smaller, larger, etc.  Is that original enough?  I don't know, but have joked when I get a green built that I like, that it ma show up in China where no one is likely to play both and know I copied myself.  Hey, those greens are different...the plan is drawn in meters rather than feet!  (Actually, that can cause differences, because we tend to think in 3 foot contours, and a meter is rally 3.3, so the mounds and contours tend to become bolder, at least in my case....and I liked it, LOL)And, as you can read, there are probably infinite shades of grey on how to get there in design, and all that really matters to golfers is the end result.

[Tom_Doak]

The only thing I wonder is...

What would Fownes have done differently at Oakmont, Crump at PV, or even Dr. MacK at Cypress with modern earth moving equipment?

Its purely hypothetical of course, but looking at what we think they were trying to accomplish at those sites vs the restraints they had vs what ended up in the ground, its an interesting thought exercise.  Would Fownes have built ditches far wider and deeper?  Would Alister have done something different with 18? Would Crump have finished far sooner?

Are you old enough to remember the SNL skit, "What if Spartacus had had a B-52?"


It would have been like that!

[Tom_Doak]

The only one we can know for sure was Ross, who extolled the virtues of those newfangled bulldozers.  (Golf Has Never Failed Me)

Which of Ross's great courses were built with bulldozers, exactly?


[I know you enjoy threads about "theory", but I generally like to keep discussions reality-based.]

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,


I would have to pull the book out to give an exact quote, but he said something to the effect of saying dozers have possibilities to expand golf design thinking in new way.  There are a few dozers in pictures in the book, and at one point, he writes that he has seen all sorts of construction methods, from horse and scoop, to draglines, to dozers, to dynamite.  Of course, that could have been editor Ron Whitten speaking in his voice, I am not sure.


I also recall a pic in there of Beverly, which struck me as more modern, sweeping slopes, etc. than most of what Ross did on the east coast, and thought those pics looked like dozer work, so maybe there was a difference between him and his western associates working under his name?

[Peter Pallotta]

"Even in literature and art [as in theology and gca], no man who bothers about originality will ever be original. It's the man who simply tries to do the work and to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) who will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it".
CS Lewis (paraphrased from memory)

[Tom_Doak]

I would have to pull the book out to give an exact quote, but he said something to the effect of saying dozers have possibilities to expand golf design thinking in new way.  There are a few dozers in pictures in the book, and at one point, he writes that he has seen all sorts of construction methods, from horse and scoop, to draglines, to dozers, to dynamite.  Of course, that could have been editor Ron Whitten speaking in his voice, I am not sure.


I also recall a pic in there of Beverly, which struck me as more modern, sweeping slopes, etc. than most of what Ross did on the east coast, and thought those pics looked like dozer work, so maybe there was a difference between him and his western associates working under his name?

Yeah, the fact Golf Has Never Failed Me is not, actually, a book written by Ross, but a compilation of his quotes made decades later, probably undermines its accuracy a bit.


To be sure, many of the shapes built in the old days could be built by bulldozer, since they are all being rebuilt by bulldozer and excavator now.  But, again, if Ross ever built things with bulldozers -- and I don't recall seeing any photos of him waving his hands at a guy on a machine, like we have today -- the bulldozers of those days did not have a six-way blade.  You could move some dirt around with them much more easily than with horses and scoops, but I am still waiting for evidence that courses were shaped with them, as we know shaping today.


MacKenzie's experience with heavy equipment, IIRC, was mostly at Bayside Links and Augusta National, after 1930.

[Tom_Doak]

"Even in literature and art [as in theology and gca], no man who bothers about originality will ever be original. It's the man who simply tries to do the work and to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) who will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it".
CS Lewis (paraphrased from memory)

Yes, but I think it's expected in literature and art that nobody is going to go around stealing others' characters and repeating their ideas.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I would have to pull the book out to give an exact quote, but he said something to the effect of saying dozers have possibilities to expand golf design thinking in new way.  There are a few dozers in pictures in the book, and at one point, he writes that he has seen all sorts of construction methods, from horse and scoop, to draglines, to dozers, to dynamite.  Of course, that could have been editor Ron Whitten speaking in his voice, I am not sure.


I also recall a pic in there of Beverly, which struck me as more modern, sweeping slopes, etc. than most of what Ross did on the east coast, and thought those pics looked like dozer work, so maybe there was a difference between him and his western associates working under his name?

Yeah, the fact Golf Has Never Failed Me is not, actually, a book written by Ross, but a compilation of his quotes made decades later, probably undermines its accuracy a bit.


To be sure, many of the shapes built in the old days could be built by bulldozer, since they are all being rebuilt by bulldozer and excavator now.  But, again, if Ross ever built things with bulldozers -- and I don't recall seeing any photos of him waving his hands at a guy on a machine, like we have today -- the bulldozers of those days did not have a six-way blade.  You could move some dirt around with them much more easily than with horses and scoops, but I am still waiting for evidence that courses were shaped with them, as we know shaping today.


MacKenzie's experience with heavy equipment, IIRC, was mostly at Bayside Links and Augusta National, after 1930.

To be fair, Whitten was working with the text Ross had written for his planned book.  He needed to shorten it for modern reading tastes. (apparently Ross was verbose as most architect....present company excluded of course, you do manage to convey ideas with remarkable brevity in writing)  I am sure he took pride in not changing any words he didn't need to or changing any meaning, although, who knows how looking at old writing through modern eyes might get processed.  He may have inadvertantly changed a few things, but nothing major, at least IMHO.


No doubt dozers kept getting bigger and better over time.  The pics I have seen of old dozers were really small compared to today.


For those interested, I found this link, which says the bulldozer was invented in 1923.  Interesting but the bulldozer blade and the tracks preceded the actual bulldozer, with the tracks first being applied to tractors for the same reason - to keep them from sinking.  It is quite possible that from 1900 to 1923, some sort of hybrid machines were tried, although my assumption has always been the newest stuff was used mostly for bigger projects, i.e. new railroads, roads, etc.
Bulldozer - History of Bulldozer (softschools.com)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()