Stop Deifying Old Architects - George Peper

[iacas]

A Rant Against Golden Age Golf Architects - LINKS Magazine

---

Curmudgeon alert: I’m about to go on a major rant about Golden Age golf architects, so this might be a good time to click on something else.

Hmmm. I plan to read this soon, but from what I've heard about it… I won't agree.

[Denny Bang Bang]

Well, at least he appropriately described the article… a rant.  For some reason it made Avril Lavine pop into my head, which was also annoying.

[ChetlovesMer]

5 hours ago, iacas said:

A Rant Against Golden Age Golf Architects - LINKS Magazine

---

Curmudgeon alert: I’m about to go on a major rant about Golden Age golf architects, so this might be a good time to click on something else.

Hmmm. I plan to read this soon, but from what I've heard about it… I won't agree.

I tend to agree with this article. Especially the part where he said these guys were not environmentalists. They just didn't have bulldozers. 

[DeadMan]

Eh, I don't agree with his overall point. I think the reason a lot of people like golden-age architects is that they built courses that are still fun to play despite not having modern equipment. The courses he names are still playable today, and are considered classics because they challenge good golfers while still being playable for bad golfers (maybe Bethpage Black is an exception). And they still stand up as classics even though equipment has advanced incredibly since they were built.

I'm not sure it matters if they were minimalists or if a modern architect has a wider knowledge. It's that they built fun courses that people still enjoy today.

[boogielicious]

It kind of ended abruptly too. He really didn’t go into enough specifics to support his contention.

[DaveP043]

I think there's an image of those Golden Age architects, that they could do no wrong, part if the "deification" of them.  That's almost certainly wrong, I'm sure there were clunkers along the way.  I've played a few times at Washington Golf and CC in Arlington, VA, some of which was designed by Donald Ross, later parts by William Flynn.  Its a very nice course, always in great shape because they have lots of members who have lots of money.  But the course is (was) also strange, awkward in spots, with odd lay-ups required.  It simply wasn't a "great" golf course.  In fact, the membership recently decided to completely renovate/redesign the entire course, it was closed for about 18 months.  I'm sure there are many many more examples of these great architects doing merely "average" work, maybe due to budget constraints, maybe do to uninspiring original landforms, maybe do to very limited involvement.  Their best work stands out and has stood the test of time, and their reputations are based on their best work.  Their average work has faded from view, for the most part.

[Vinsk]

I’m actually not getting the point of the article despite the admission of it being a rant. Maybe I’m just not interested in the topic to really take much away from it. I’m not sure why he felt the need for this rant. It’s like ranting about the flower choices at Augusta in that there are many other places with beautiful flower displays. So what?

[Darkfrog]

2 hours ago, boogielicious said:

It kind of ended abruptly too. He really didn’t go into enough specifics to support his contention.

I kept scrolling past the end of the article expecting more explanation.

30 minutes ago, Vinsk said:

I’m not sure why he felt the need for this rant.

I don't understand it either. I guess the piece does start with "Curmudgeon alert" though.

 

[iacas]

2 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

It simply wasn't a "great" golf course.  In fact, the membership recently decided to completely renovate/redesign the entire course, it was closed for about 18 months.

Maybe it was more of a "restoration" because someone else had previously screwed up what the original architects had done a long time ago?

I still haven't read it because I spent the day doing this.

[DaveP043]

3 minutes ago, iacas said:

Maybe it was more of a "restoration" because someone else had previously screwed up what the original architects had done a long time ago?

I still haven't read it because I spent the day doing this.

As I read through its history today, it seems like Ross did essentially a "drive-by", he really just suggested routing, but wasn't on site at all during construction.  Flynn did his work when more property was purchased, and may have had more detailed involvement.  And as you say, well-meaning members almost certainly drove additional "renovations" that they believed would be improvements.  The stuff I read calls the work a "renovation" rather than a restoration.  I haven't had a chance to play it since the work was complete, I'm looking forward to seeing it.

Reading about Ross's very fleeting involvement at Washington Golf provides a reason to be a little skeptical when a course claims to have been designed by one of these illustrious designers.  What really should matter is the course itself, not any particular name attached to it.  

 

[boogielicious]

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I think there's an image of those Golden Age architects, that they could do no wrong, part if the "deification" of them.  That's almost certainly wrong, I'm sure there were clunkers along the way.  I've played a few times at Washington Golf and CC in Arlington, VA, some of which was designed by Donald Ross, later parts by William Flynn.  Its a very nice course, always in great shape because they have lots of members who have lots of money.  But the course is (was) also strange, awkward in spots, with odd lay-ups required.  It simply wasn't a "great" golf course.  In fact, the membership recently decided to completely renovate/redesign the entire course, it was closed for about 18 months.  I'm sure there are many many more examples of these great architects doing merely "average" work, maybe due to budget constraints, maybe do to uninspiring original landforms, maybe do to very limited involvement.  Their best work stands out and has stood the test of time, and their reputations are based on their best work.  Their average work has faded from view, for the most part.

There’s a supposed Donald Ross course in RI, Winnepaug CC. The first time I played it, the Pro shop guy was going on and on about it being a Donald Ross course. My thought was, he must have been hungover when he designed it. 😜

[KMP]

George Pepper seems to be well past his "golden age" in writing. The article was incomplete and one-sided, or did he lapse into nap hour and submit his unfinished rant. No architect is infallible, including designers with the best reputations of the modern era. Name your top modern architect and you can find poor courses and/or ridiculous holes they have designed too; maybe even more in some cases.

[SG11118]

The quality of a piece of property and the construction budget also have large impacts on how good a course can be designed.  Same now as in the golden age of designers.  The golden age designers were generally quite privileged in both these areas.  It wasn't always the case though...

[mdl]

I honestly haven't played enough well regarded courses to have an super informed opinion. I totally agree with the general point that people love to worship the past as a route to self-aggrandizement and the like. And it seems unlikely the hype around golden age architects isn't at least partially that.

[darthweasel]

18 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

  What really should matter is the course itself, not any particular name attached to it.  

 

So much this. I realize I am not the target audience for this article...I seldom know who designed a course unless it is part of the name (Pronghorn-Nicklaus v Pronghorn-Fazio) for example, and I have never really cared enough to figure out "this is characteristic of a Joe the Architect Course"...I just want to play a course that I have a good time gouging holes in the earth and playing an adult Easter Egg hunt as I search for that offline scud missile that just came off my club face. I also realize what is enjoyable for me is not what is enjoyable for others which to me is a good thing. 

But this article did get me to thinking. I just got to play three of the Bandon courses and they really fit what is fun for me...I was able to spray a few shots and still find the ball and have a shot, albeit tougher than if I hit where I should, and had a fantastic time. By contrast, a few years ago some good friends of mine and I played Edgewood in Tahoe. Easily the fanciest course they ever set foot on with incredible views and the most expensive...I was long enough to have fun there, but their enjoyment was seriously curtailed by there not being a tee box short enough for them to play. 

For me, and I realize this is subjective, a great course is one where I can go out with my +1 hc buddy who plays in the national amateur tournaments and also with my buddies who don't have a handicap, hit it 180 off the tee, and me in the middle and all of us have a chance to score, even though only the plus will. Name means little to me, either for the course itself or the designer. But maybe it should. If I knew who designed the courses I play and enjoy, when I travel I could look for their work if they have certain things they do...say wider fairways or fewer OB areas. That is worth consideration I think but had not occurred to me previously.

I do understand the mindset of people who care about branding, whether clothes, gear, or course designer...it is just not me. I really appreciate the statement DaveP made above...I will take the no-name fun course over the named designer course that isn't fun every single time.

[TourSpoon]

17 hours ago, KMP said:

George Pepper seems to be well past his "golden age" in writing. The article was incomplete and one-sided, or did he lapse into nap hour and submit his unfinished rant. No architect is infallible, including designers with the best reputations of the modern era. Name your top modern architect and you can find poor courses and/or ridiculous holes they have designed too; maybe even more in some cases.

I lapsed into a nap while reading it. Seriously a snoozer. All I got out of it was that it's all Hannigan's fault and the word mustachioed which I will begin using immediately (but only in a mercurial way). 

[mcanadiens]

One bit of this that rings true to me is the idea that architects weren't particularly important for quite some time.

I remember being very surprised when I learned my home course (a muni) was originally designed by Donald Ross. Apparently, the powers that were here in Troy, thought so much of it that they had another guy completely re-design the front in the 70s and another re-do the back in the 90s. 

Recently, they've played up the business about Donald Ross have designed the course, but I doubt much of it is the same as it was in the 1940s. 

[pganapathy]

1 hour ago, darthweasel said:

For me, and I realize this is subjective, a great course is one where I can go out with my +1 hc buddy who plays in the national amateur tournaments and also with my buddies who don't have a handicap, hit it 180 off the tee, and me in the middle and all of us have a chance to score, even though only the plus will. Name means little to me, either for the course itself or the designer. But maybe it should. If I knew who designed the courses I play and enjoy, when I travel I could look for their work if they have certain things they do...say wider fairways or fewer OB areas. That is worth consideration I think but had not occurred to me previously.

Part of this is ego based because all three of you will play off the same tee box, which favours the +1 handicap far more than the 36 handicap who hits it 180.  Play off the tee boxes that suit you and courses become a lot easier and enjoyable.

23 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

But the course is (was) also strange, awkward in spots, with odd lay-ups required.  It simply wasn't a "great" golf course.  In fact, the membership recently decided to completely renovate/redesign the entire course, it was closed for about 18 months.  I'm sure there are 

I wonder if this is because the holes were designed when equipment was a lot harder than modern day clubs/balls.  People hit it shorter and getting a ball airborne was harder.  May well work better from that perspective