[Tom MacWood]

Rich
You asked why it was important.

The wing nuts document the history; those designing and making design decisions take the lessons and inspiration.

What evidence do you have, Tom, for this remarkable statement?  Ou sont les wing-nuts d'antan?

Let me rephrase my statement - the historians document the history, and some of the golf architects learn the lessons, hopefully.

[Bob_Huntley]

TE,

Re Morfontaine, I pinched this from Top 100 Courses in the World.

http://www.top100golfcourses.co.uk/htmlsite/productdetails.asp?id=461

For an appetizer or desert their Valliere nine holer is superb treat before or after the main course.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

Rich
You asked why it was important.

The wing nuts document the history; those designing and making design decisions take the lessons and inspiration.

What evidence do you have, Tom, for this remarkable statement?  Ou sont les wing-nuts d'antan?

Let me rephrase my statement - the historians document the history, and some of the golf architects learn the lessons, hopefully.

Tom

Do you really believe that golf architects care more than a tiny rat's arse about what the "historians" think, even assuming that there are such animals as golf architecture historians....?

[Sean_A]

Rich
You asked why it was important.

The wing nuts document the history; those designing and making design decisions take the lessons and inspiration.

What evidence do you have, Tom, for this remarkable statement?  Ou sont les wing-nuts d'antan?

Let me rephrase my statement - the historians document the history, and some of the golf architects learn the lessons, hopefully.

Tom

Do you really believe that golf architects care more than a tiny rat's arse about what the "historians" think, even assuming that there are such animals as golf architecture historians....?

Sad or not, Rich is right.  Far too much history is up for grabs to really be used for any constructive purposes.  More likely is that historians and/or archies grab on to something which fits their idea of what was or "should have logically been" and push it to death.  The meat of any of this matter is what is in the ground now and why it is good or not so good, but then I am no so called gca historian. 

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

"The meat of any of this matter is what is in the ground now and why it is good or not so good, but then I am no so called gca historian."-  SeanArble

A 'so-called' historian of golf course architecture might find out that the not-so-good you have on your ground at present was previously very-good.

[JNC Lyon]

"For example, many people assumed that the 16th Hole on the West Course contained bunkers on the inside of the dogleg left.  The area is currently a series of mounds.  The original Ross plans show bunkering, and the hole layout is in multiple books on Golden Age architecture.  However, a 1930 aerial of the golf course does not show any bunkers where people thought there were bunkers.  This conflict is still unresolved."


JNC:

Well then, you and Oak Hill are going to have to get into a bit of good old fashioned "architectural archaeology". Whereever you think those old bunkers might have been just do some really deep core samples. If there were ever any sand bunkers there the sand will show up in the core sample strata. If there is none at all just stick with the mounds under the educated assumption that Ross changed his plans from bunkers to mounds.

That sounds like a good idea.  Like I said, I'm pretty sure there were never bunkers there.  Photos don't lie, and if there were no bunkers there in 1930, four years after the course opened, I doubt they were ever there.  Of course, the argument that "those mounds look like they were bunkers so they must have been bunkers" might stand up.

[Tom MacWood]

Sad or not, Rich is right.  Far too much history is up for grabs to really be used for any constructive purposes.  More likely is that historians and/or archies grab on to something which fits their idea of what was or "should have logically been" and push it to death.  The meat of any of this matter is what is in the ground now and why it is good or not so good, but then I am no so called gca historian. 

Ciao

The meat of any of this matter is what is in the ground? What does that have to do with documenting history? Is history and appreciating what is on the ground mutually exclusive? I don't think anyone would be interested in the history of golf architecture if wasn't for what they experienced on the ground. Please explain what is more compelling about documenting the history of architecture, landscape architecture, and art as opposed to golf architecture, or are just opposed to history in general.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom

Do you really believe that golf architects care more than a tiny rat's arse about what the "historians" think, even assuming that there are such animals as golf architecture historians....?

Rich
I'm having difficulty figuring out which you hold in lower regard golf architects or golf architecture historians.

[Rich Goodale]

Sorry that I've been troubling you, Tom.

The fact is I hold anybody actively and honestly engaged in any profession in respect, and those who are very good in what they do in very high respect.  I do not think that different professions necessarily have any significant relevance for each other.

[Tom MacWood]

Rich
You don't think history and golf architects who specialize in restoration of historic courses have any relevance?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

I've always liked your concept of restoring to the architectural high water mark.

That process is impossible unless you delve into the architectural history of the golf course, hence history or historical research is critical

The only difficulty I have with your concept of the "architectural high water mark" is defining it, and defining it in such a way that there's little or no dispute about it.  That's the hard part.

But, without historical research, ascertaining where the "architectural high water mark" is, is impossible.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich
You don't think history and golf architects who specialize in restoration of historic courses have any relevance?

I didn't say or even imply that.  Please reread my last post.

Rather than asking silly questions, why don't you spend the time to tell us what you think about this issue and why?

[TEPaul]

"Tom MacWood,

I've always liked your concept of restoring to the architectural high water mark.

That process is impossible unless you delve into the architectural history of the golf course, hence history or historical research is critical

The only difficulty I have with your concept of the "architectural high water mark" is defining it, and defining it in such a way that there's little or no dispute about it.  That's the hard part.

But, without historical research, ascertaining where the "architectural high water mark" is, is impossible."


Pat:

I agree with you about the so-called "architectural high water mark." First of all that concept and goal is most certainly not Tom MacWood's.  A number of clubs have had restoration projects that tried to identify an "architectural high water mark" long before GOLFCLUBATLAS.com or anyone knew of Tom MacWood or any of the rest of us researchers. Probably the most visible example was Merion that decided to go back to 1930 as their "high water mark" (architectural and otherwise) for various reasons.

But given all that, you are right, picking what constitutes a "architectural high water mark" for any club or course is something that is and can be pretty subjective and it is probably something that should be done in conjunction with a really good restoration architect who is willing to do a lot of architectural analysis with the club. To do that the details of the course's architectural evolution is obviously extremely important because it can and often does answer the WHENS, WHYS and WHERES of what was originally done and changed over time.

[TEPaul]

"Please explain what is more compelling about documenting the history of architecture, landscape architecture, and art as opposed to golf architecture, or are just opposed to history in general."


Tom MacWood:

Excellent point!

I see nothing remotely wrong with any club trying to get as detailed as they possibly can about the architectural evolutionary history of their golf course. Of course if and when that is done the next step of figuring out what to do about any of it is pretty much the real hard part.


A very good example of the latter was with my course where we pretty much figured out all the WHENS, WHYS and WHERES and even BY WHOMS of everything that happened with our architecture over our 85 year history. Then we hired Hanse to do our restoration. We had researched what happened to all our Ross top shot bunkers and even the WHEN, WHY and BY WHOM of their removal. Gil wanted to put them back because even if they were not particularly strategic for most anyone he just loved the look of them and their sort of perspective aesthetic. I remember well when his plan to restore them all was discussed during the app. 30 meetings of our 18 month Master Plan committee meetings. One person asked how much it would cost per bunker to put back app. 20-30 top shot bunkers and Gil said about $8,000 per bunker. That person who asked the question who was pretty authoritative on that commitee just responded "NO WAY" and that was the end of the restoration of our top shot bunkers. Gil was truly disappointed and so was I despite the app. $160,000-$240,000 additional construction cost (not to mention the ongoing maintenance cost of them).
 

[Tom MacWood]

One of the challenges of recording golf course architecture which is not common with the others arts is the latching on to big names. As an example Columbus CC has Donald Ross on their scorecard - Ross had nothing to do with the Bendelow design. Old Tom Morris, Donald Ross, AW Tillinghast, and James Braid are some of the names that club's like to latch on to, and this not modern phenomenon, this has been going on for hundred years. There is also the legend phenomenon that you find at Pine Valley, Merion and Myopia.

[TEPaul]

"There is also the legend phenomenon that you find at Pine Valley, Merion and Myopia."


Tom MacWood:

That statement is historical bullshit on your part and if you don't know that at this point I guess you never will.  Once again, I just think it is so much the supreme irony that you try to convince people you know the details of the architectural histories of those three courses but yet you have never set foot on any one of them and consequently never really familiarized yourself with those golf courses or their archives and particularly their pretty comprehensive administrative records even from their beginnings!    
 
 
 

[Tom MacWood]

1. Old Elm

2. Oakmont

3. Shoreacres

Bradley
Could you elaborate on how these clubs have preserved, recorded and explained their architectural history?

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Those clubs may have done a fine job preserving their architectural history, but they've done a poor job recording and explaining it - the legend phenomenon.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Those clubs may have done a fine job preserving their architectural history, but they've done a poor job recording and explaining it - the legend phenomenon."


Apparently only in your opinion, at this point. This so-called "Legend Phenomenon" seems to pretty much be only Tom MacWood's schtick.

I think Oakmont's history has been well explained by the recent history book by Marino Parascenzo, particularly the part about the life and times of the Fownses.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()