Does anyone like the mounds?

[Mike_Cirba]

I tend to differentiate between mounds and their usage.  

The ones that I think are a relatively new occurrence particular to the worst excesses of modern design in the past 20 or so years are the wall to wall, symmetrical mounding paralleling fairways I've seen on quite a few modern designs, including the architects mentioned.

My first experience with this type of mounding was Nicklaus at Grand Cypress, who planted them in some kind of inpenatrable jungle grass (Bahai (sp?), I believe) and then claimed it was inspired by Scotland.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

I like your "borrowed form run amok" and "gratuitious mounding" and with your permission may use that phrase somewhere down the line.

As TEPaul was saying, there are uses for them, like screening, sometimes containment, especially when going over the edge would really be more punitive than desired, etc.  And they can be artistic in spots, but when done everywhere, they lose any impact they may have, as they all blend together.  I for one don't think design unity means design uniformity, and that if you use them on one hole, you need to use them on all!

I also like the phrase "the only difference is how high" In how many photos do we see our mounds as perfectly uniform in height, slope and even in perfect alignment down the side of the fairway?  Thats what most object to, IMHO.

And you hit the nail on the head, in far fewer words I might add, about why they look so bad in so many cases.

Jeff

[Tim_Weiman]

Jeff & Paul:

Thanks for staying on topic.  When you start a thread, it's awfully nice when people do.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Not sure this goes here, or the cost of architecture thread, but another real practical problem with fairway mounds is that they block access to the fairway from the cart path, and funnel traffic to the valleys, meaning poor turf in those areas.

I have even seen fairway framing mounds that completely block access to the fairway.  You just can't get out there, if restricted to the 90 degree rule.

I hate to say this, but Fazio handles this pretty good, too.  He puts a long low ridge, just high enough to hide the path, and with no humps or hollows that dictate where traffic doesn't or does go!

Jeff

[RJ_Daley]

Once again, thank you gentlemen for good explanations about the possible origin of modern mounding.  Particularly Kye's thoughts about the first nearest place to distribute spoils from green coring and bunker excavations.

But Jeff, regarding you PS above at 2:57Pm, I get the sense that it is hostile.  If not so, forget this.  But, I can't understand if you do feel I have slammed you for being lazy, using mounding to cover up routing deficiencies or not spending enough time on site.  I assume you get that from the "cost of architecture thread" where all I asked is if there may be a cost ratio to the idea of an architect (any archie) of time spent on site evaluating natural features such as drainage patterns to cost of the project, which relates only to the topic of that tread.  Sometimes I think either I don't know how to ask a question, or I may not use the correct syntax or even you may be overly sensitive to how I say things...

[Gib_Papazian]

I guess this topic is not really about interior mounding that is used to create movement and texture in the playing area, but more about piling dirt on the perimeter of holes and the reasons for doing so both good and bad.

There is not point in trying to justify or explain the chocolate drops at Grand Cypress - they are simply a strange fad that reflects a time of architectural experimentation for its own sake by a man who had not fully come to grips with what he was trying to do.

In 100 years, we'll look back at those candy kisses with the same bemusment reserved for disco music and polyester bell bottoms.    

The starkest contrast in different mounding styles I have ever seen - and the best example of the difference between a technician and an artist - came last summer during my adventure on Long Island with Neil Meagher.

We've all weighed in on our thoughts about Atlantic, but what was interesting to me was that the next day we went over to look at Westhampton.

Raynor did some mounding originally, but for a variety of reasons Mike Rewinski has added in a tremendous amount of earthwork. I'm here to tell you that it was some of the sexiest, quaintly beautiful work I have ever seen and most of it is on the fringes of the playing areas.

The property is fairly flat, so there is little opportunity to tie the movement in with existing natural topography. That said, even when the mounding was obviously completely artificial and little more than an arbitrary pile of dirt on a flat fairway, Mike managed to arrange the mounds to be visually attractive and jazz them up with little splash bunkers and sprinkles of love grass.

That is art. That is the kind of tasteful artistic blending so horribly lacking in those idiotic and repetitive waves of containment mounds at Atlantic.

I feel confident that if Raynor were alive today he would be thrilled with the mounding at Westhampton because it enhances what is already there.

Why are so few architects able to create mounds with enough complexity in shape and texture to not be jarring to the eye???

[John_Conley]

I like them for two reasons:
1- Dark chocolate
2- Better without the almonds

You must admit a bite into that sticky and oh so sweet coconut concoction is bliss.

[Doug Wright]

The day after I played the sublime Wilmington Municipal Golf Course (Ross 1926) last week,  I went to Castle Bay CC in Hampstead, NC (Randy Blanton 1999). Driving up the county road to the course, the view of the course was obscured by mounds. I thought, "This is gonna be awful!!" Checking in, I asked the assistant who designed the course. He replied, "Randy Blanton, the owner--but he had some really good shapers!" So I found that interesting, wondered exactly what he meant, and played the course with that in mind . [The course is self styled in literature I read afterward as "the only true Scottish links course in the region...There are no trees directly on the course, but there are Scottish course style mounds throughout."] So off we went. This is indeed a "links-style" course, though I guess here that means "treeless" as the course runs through and around wetlands, not commonly seen in Scotland. My review of the "Scottish style" mounds is this--where the shapers truly created "Scottish style mounds" as I define it below," the mounds worked much better than when they merely created "containment" mounds to keep balls out of the wetlands or other junk, or for "safety" reasons, as in separating the first, eighth, ninth and 10th fairways.  Where they served as "containment mounds"  or "framing" mounds behind greens, the mounds looked out of place and unnecessary. Some of the "Scottish" style mounds, which I define as mounds that impact the routing or the line of play, were quite good. Example: On #4, a par 5, there is a huge chocolate drop mound in the left rough (reminiscent of what--is it Hoylake with the big mounds?) that the shapers must have had a ball with. It seems to work as it just sits there and the fairway turns around it. Without it the hole would be quite bland indeed. The next hole, a nearly driveable par 4, also used mounds to frame the angle of the green and presented a strategic option (favoring a tee shot to the right side) that again would have been nonexistent without their presence. [Off the subject, I would also say that the assistant was indeed right about the shapers as it related to the greens--they did a very good job shaping the green contours, some of which were downright nasty and therefore fun. And they oughta think twice about that "only true Scottish links promo--Wilmington Muny is the real links deal...]

In thinking about this, there is a similar course here in the Denver area called Riverdale Dunes, by Pete/Perry Dye with I understand a big assist on the bulldozer from a young Tom Doak. It's built on originally flat ground. If you play there, you will see some mounding that works. Example: the medium length par 4 6th, which has two huge mounds on either side of the fairway, the right side mound a little closer to the green than the left. There is a slot you need to hit in order to have a clear shot to the green; miss either way, and you're blind behind the mounds.

On the aforementioned Wilmington Municipal, Ross (I assume) placed large mounds in the right side of the fairway about 30-40 yards short of the green on the par 4 13th, thus requiring a drive to the left side for an unobstructed view of the green. Although artificial and the only place on the course they appeared, these mounds seemed to make sense to me.

In sum, then, I think mounds that influence the hole routing, strategy and line or style of play work if used in moderation; "containment mounds" and "framing" mounds don't.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

How about the mounds at Tipsinah Mounds CC in Elbow Lake, MN.? This course is built around Indian mounds. Some of them are shaped like snakes and are used to separate and/or border fairways. Others are animal shaped and are used to protect some greens.
I've been looking for photos with no luck.
The mounds were originally used for burial purposes by ancestors of the Sioux tribe (most likely Dakotas) and are 1,200 yrs. old. They were in use until about 300 yrs. ago.  
Probably one of the few cases where the man made mounds preceded the golf course.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Doug wright:

Interesting post.  Thanks for your input.

Regarding your point about framing mounds behind greens, one of the very worst examples I've seen recently is on #5 at Boulder Creek, a course due to open near Cleveland next spring.

The mounding is there for one reason only: to hide the cart path.  But, it looks incredibly artificial and totally unnecessary in my opinion.

I'm trying to help Joe Salemi, the developer, get some local publicity, but I really wish I could convince him to tone done this mounding.  His shaper was an ex Wadsworth guy who clearly needed someone to slap him for this one.....I hope I'm not too late.

[paul albanese]

Here are some more random pontifications/observations regarding mounding:

Willie Park:  we are doing a renovation/remodeling/restoration of a Willie Park course, and through that process, we have been trying to study some Willie Park forms.  We are trying to better understand his use of bunkering, mounds, fairway contouring etc.  One thing we have found on more than a few of his courses is that he had a predeliction for creating these mounds that, to put it bluntly, appear very artificial.  But, now that he is considered a "classic" architect, we/I look at these mounds with some sort of reverence.  Why?  I look at them, and I think to myself, "these are the type of forms I detest on contemporary golf courses" -- yet, when I am on this course -- something about the "ugly" mounds seems OK -- even nice.  I have thought about this and have tried to figure out if I am simply bowing to "classicism" or do I really like the forms.  I have come to the following conclusion, at least for myself.  It is like looking at old Victorian home or classic piece of furniture in a museum.  I may not like the style, but I appreciate its context.  Would I want to demolish these forms, and replace them with "better" mounding?  No.  It would be like replacing the windows of a Frank Lloyd Wright house with Anderson windows.  

Shapers:  many of the previous posts talk a lot about the "shapers", and I fully concur that the guy on the dozer can be critical to creating good form -- greens, fairways, and, yes, the inevitable moundwork.  The shaper is equivalent to a painters paintbrush.  It is hard to paint a truly beautiful painting with a 4inch wide brush used to paint the side of a barn.  The same can be said for trying to create harmonious, integrated, seamless mounding with a shaper that simply does not know how to do it.  An architect can draw contour lines, sketch, show pictures, even take him to an example -- but, sometimes they just cannot get it.  I cannot tell you how many times I have come back to the same set of mounds, hoping they will finally look like I had hoped, to find forms that do no work.  Now, and this goes toward many of the threads regarding affordability and golf course construction costs -- how many times do you make the shaper work on it until it looks correct?  At some point, you simply say -- OK -- and vow to make sure that you will get a better shaper the next time.  So, yes, getting talented and visionary shapers is key to creating quality forms -- including mounds.  

Fescue:  one thing I found is that fescue can often help makes "ugly" mounds look better --not great, but better.  (Fescue on well shaped, integerated moundwork looks awesome.)  But, I have noticed that if there are set of mounds that look borderline bad, that once the fescue grows, they often do not look "as bad".  (Fescue is not magic -- it cannot make them look great).  

Pacific Dunes:  There were one set of mounds in between two holes that were created and are a great example of creating mounds that integrate well -- the moundwork and shaping of these forms blends almost perfectly with the existing forms on the site.  At the time I played it, the mounds did not have the fesuce grown out yet -- so, I could tell that they were truly created -- but, as Steve Smyers reminded me as we played, they would blend seamlessly once the fescue matured.  

Final thought -- Dana Fry gave me this piece of advice a long time ago -- forms cut from the earth always look better than forms built up.  I have found that to be excellent advice.  When trying to "contain" a golf ball on the edge of a hole, depressions can often serve the same purpose as mounds -- and they often look better.  

Great topic -- and yes, Jeff, use whatever you want, as long I can steal some of your history knowledge.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

RJ,

Sorry for the offense. I wasn't talking specifically to you, but as I reread my post, I could imagine someone slamming me or other modern architects for being "lazy" as has happened before on this site.  As I reread the PS, I considered striking it, but figured since I already told all I was down with the flu, that I could get a "free pass" on civility!  My other mean spirited posts have come after midnight, when I can claim sleep deprivation.....Will jump over and make a similar aplogy to Tom Paul in a minute.

The point I was trying to make about drainage is that I/we have just found that coralling the drainage works better.  I know that some have talked about the old guys using the long, natural drainage swales to carry off water versus basins.  While that is true, I will also say that that most of these has also had a french drain added in the bottom at some point!  As one super says, "I know I will be adding drain tile to my golf course as long as I work here!"

With bigger budgets available today, we as architects simply figure we should get as much as that up front as possible.  As my Dad always said, "If its worth doing, its worth doing right the first time!"  Also, its cheaper in the long run (especially in a low interest rate environment) to put it in right the first time.  In earlier times, they either didn't have the money, or had more patience than is typically exhibited today to maturing a golf course.....

It's a variation on my long standing theme that architects of all eras have played the hand that was dealt them by economics, style, and other factors to come up with the best possible product under the circumstances.....

Kye is right about the mounding during a remodel process, and we do that often in remodels.  But the greens core is only 300 or so yards, not really a lot of material to get rid of on anything but a postage stamp green site, and it could be blended in to the existing slopes sensitivly.  So, if arcitects and/or shapers change the character of the mounds, a good portion of that is wanting to change the style of the golf course a bit.

Paul,

You got a deal!  If I may ask, what Park course are you remodeling?  I played Toledo this summer and came away with about the same feeling as you, looking at some of the grassed over bunkers at about 100 yards off the tee.  Art Hills did some work, and while he didn't really try to blend it in, his steep bank bunkers really fit in pretty well, IHMO.

I like the Dana Fry theory, too.  I once convinced some inexperienced scraper operators to cut a fairway cut on gentle curves, rather than straight.  The results were great.  I have similarly tried to convince some big time contractors to do the same, but they often prefer to shape it back later with dozers.  I have almost never seen this result in similar quality.  Of course, its hard to build a course out of all cuts - the dirt has to go somewhere!

Jeff

[paul albanese]

Jeff:  the course is Red Run, near our office in Royal Oak.  Interesting history too -- the original course was a Tom Bendelow design, but the club hated the routing so they hired Willie to redo it in 1917 (it happened back then too!).

We are relatively confident that most of the forms were created NOT by Willie, but rather by their long time super Bill Smith -- but the club absolutely revers Willie.  They have a plaque on the first tee and his name on the scorecard.  So, it did not go over very well when I suggested we "call a spade a shovel" -- and simply put Bill Smith's name on the card and admit to the world that this is truly a "Bill Smith" design.  Obviously, the club wants to retain the Willie Park name.  So, what we have done is try to understand Willies style (i.e the mounding I talked about), and incorporate that into the design.  Fortunately we are also working with Flint G.C, which is also a Willie Park classic, with more original features (there are some great examples of this original "ugly" mounding there) -- so, we are using that as a precendent.  We also went to Olympia Fields (the only Willie Park course on one of the infamous "lists") to see the work there.  They just remodeled their bunkers for the U.S Open -- whether they are in keeping with the Willie Park style is debatable -- I am not sure myself.  I have been meaning to call Mark Mungeam to ask him some questions regarding the forms he chose.  The superintendent was very helpful with the history, and it was interesting to hear how the USGA gets involved too.  I am sure there will be many interesting threads regarding this course once the Open gets closer in 2003.  

Oh yeah -- on our project in New Jersey -- we actually sold the dirt (not all of it, though)

[archie s]

Mounds can mean a lot of things to different people, sometimes a subtle cut might hide those abominable cart paths most of us would rather not see. I agree that if you cut rather than push up you can keep a natural look, we found that out rather early at our project!

[Dan Kelly]

Paul Albanese --

** I've really enjoyed your contributions to this thread -- particularly your comments about your surprised affection for the Willie Park mounds, and about the aesthetic importance of context. (Fine analogies to Victorian and Frank Lloyd Wright homes.)

**  You wrote, about shapers: "[T]he guy on the dozer can be critical to creating good form -- greens, fairways, and, yes, the inevitable moundwork. The shaper is equivalent to a painter's paintbrush.... An architect can draw contour lines, sketch, show pictures, even take him to an example -- but, sometimes they just cannot get it. I cannot tell you how many times I have come back to the same set of mounds, hoping they will finally look like I had hoped, to find forms that do not work. Now, and this goes toward many of the threads regarding affordability and golf course construction costs -- how many times do you make the shaper work on it until it looks correct? At some point, you simply say -- OK -- and vow to make sure that you will get a better shaper the next time. So, yes, getting talented and visionary shapers is key to creating quality forms -- including mounds."

Man, oh man, that all sounded SO familiar to me -- and I haven't designed a single golf hole (except in what's left of my mind).

I spent quite a few years as a magazine editor -- and could have written, about magazine writers, exactly what you wrote about golf-course shapers. Some writers understand what the editor wants, and what the subject demands, apparently instinctively, and can deliver it with ease (sometimes even on time!); a few can be taught to see the story, and their work can be gently edited to make them seem better at their craft than they are; many, perhaps most, will never, ever "get it," no matter how much instruction the editor offers and no matter how many rewrites the editor allows. And so the editor, if he's committed to the story, must reshape that story as much as his time and budget will allow, then grin and bear its publication, no matter its inadequacies.

The point being: If you want art, you have to hire artists. In my business, they're not easy to find -- and I'm guessing that that's just as true in your business.

** You wrote: "I was playing golf with two of my friends -- good golfers, but know little about architecture. We were playing a course designed by a guy notorious for mounding -- you know, the gum drop mounding that makes it look as if the landscape broke out in a rash. I was offended by the lack of artistic quality and I let it be known to these guys how ugly I thought it was. One guy's response was 'I like it' -- I said, in utter disbelief, 'you like the mounds?!?!' -- he said 'yeah' -- I said, 'please tell me why?' -- he really could not explain, except to say he liked the 'rolling, polly moundedness' -- somehow, it simply excited him to see these mounds."

I think you've hit on it (so to speak) here, whether you meant to or not.

Hmmmm, let's see now. Rolling poly-moundedness. Where else does one see such a thing? Where else do men (some men, at any rate) get, to use your words, "simply excited" to see such a thing?

Hmmmm.

Well, let's look at it this way:

On another thread -- that permanently (not to say: interminably) entertaining one inspired by the Ugly, Temporary Ugly-Temporary-Maintenance-Shed-Hiding Mounds at The Bridge, the estimable Mike Cirba wrote, in the late going:

"Temporary?!?

"THOSE mounds are TEMPORARY?!?

"My lord...there's no way that they can remove them now! Why...if I were Rees Jones, I'd lay claim to having built the most passionately discussed mounds in the history of architecture. At this point, they almost cry out for a plaque to be mounted in their midst.

"I can almost read the wording now: 'In the year of our Lord, 2001, these mounds were the impetus for more heated discussion than any of their similar brethren the architect had previously created. Their shaping, style, congruity, purpose, nay; even their "texture" were discussed by otherwise seemingly rational men in an attempt to discover their true meaning. Perhaps not since Stonehenge have such unnatural, symmetrically shaped human creations been the cause of so much speculation, wonder, emotion, and lamentation....' "

So help me God, but as I read that last sentence there, I thought Mr. Cirba was going WAY off-topic -- to discuss the revelation by another frequent contributor who had confided (in that same thread, I believe) that, in his fantasy life, Pamela Anderson has a higher standing than Coore & Crenshaw.

And you wonder about the appeal of rolling poly-moundedness?

Hmmmmm.

Dr. Freud?

[Mike_Cirba]

Well Dan,

Like I said, I much prefer natural-looking mounds in ALL cases.  

Funny stuff!

[T_MacWood]

I agree with what Jeff Brauer said about the regularity being the main objection. Mounds of the general same size and shape provide a very unnatrural feel. The other objection is there consistent use on nearly all holes -- they become monontonous. Even the artifical mounding you see on some old courses is less objectionable because it is normally haphazard and random. A random odd feature in a largely natural course can actually be interesting.

I would be careful trying to credit some of the features found on Park's courses to Park. Although he designed and redesigned a ton of courses, very few were actually contructed by him -- especially in the Midwest. He'd sell the club his design services and the club would then be responsible for the construction, resulting in wildly different interpretations. His drawings were very detailed however, and I would think that they would be safest tool to use in recreating his design.

[T_MacWood]

I agree with what Jeff Brauer said about the regularity being the main objection. Mounds of the general same size and shape provide a very unnatrural feel. The other objection is there consistent use on nearly all holes -- they become monontonous. Even the artifical mounding you see on some old courses is less objectionable because it is normally haphazard and random. A random odd feature in a largely natural course can actually be interesting.

I would be careful trying to credit some of the features found on Park's courses to Park. Although he designed and redesigned a ton of courses, very few were actually contructed by him -- especially in the Midwest. He'd sell the club his design services and the club would then be responsible for the construction, resulting in wildly different interpretations. His drawings were very detailed however, and I would think that they would be safest tool to use in restoring his design.