PART II - Yesterday I looked up the Qualities of the Past. Today, I take a different viewpoint.
___________
So the Old Farts came up with the following points as proof of their greatness:
- Rich history
- Uniqueness derived from using the raw landscape.
- Better sites and freer use of those sites.
- More matury
- Design for play rather than looks
- Not giving-in to formulaic criteria of what is “proper”.
“Not so fast”, cry out the Young Guns of today, “we’d like a chance to be heard as well.”
Fair enough, Junior. But first you need to turn down that damn stereo!
Perhaps the main reason why today’s courses are equal - if not better - than the older guys, can be summed up in two words.
Earthmoving Potential.
Of course, there are many things that have changed in the last 75 years. Some, such as irrigation, drainage, maintenance and technology, are for the better. In fact, the older courses are now benefiting from these advances. Others, such as residential developments, less than ideal sites, environmental restrictions, are for the worse. These can severely limit design potential. But by and large, the main difference between yesterday and today is earthmoving. And the biggest weapon of the Young Guns is to put this earthmoving potential to good use.
Aye, but this time restlessness is now felt from the older ranks – some clamouring with their dentures – claiming that this newfangled weapon is in fact a double-edged sword and you’ll destroy more than you create and Mother Nature is the best shaper and its damn expensive creating cookie-cutter containment mounds and Geez Louise we forgot about punctuation as well
Arrogant as the always are, the young ones look at each other for the split second that is the probable extent of their Nintendo-induced attention span, and fill the air with a few well-placed generationally-appropriate cuss-words:
Sure, but &@#, how else would you create Whistling Strait, Royal New Kent, Shadow Creek, Tobacco Road, and, for that matter, all the !@$*ing TPC courses?
Of course, at that point, the Elders started snickering at the thought that Gen-X would actually use Shadow Creek and TPC courses to make a point, but that’s another story.
The thing is, earthmoving is no longer a restriction, by which today’s architects are no longer bound. If a hill is in the way, the architect now has a choice. And, more importantly, adequate earthmoving gives us the opportunity to do a much better finishing job. Whereas on older courses the man-made features often stood-out abruptly from their surrounding, today green complexes or bunkers can much more softly blend in to their surroundings. And, these surroundings may very well have been shaped into a playable surface as well. It is, in fact, a great myth to believe that moving less earth makes for a more natural golf course. Golf courses will always require the construction of artificial features, and these features often require substantial amount of earthmoving to make them seem natural. Specifically, it is the toe of the slope that is the key for natural appearance, and it is those areas where much earthworks gets used up to imperceptibly extend the artificial into the natural.
Of course, the well-known criticism derived from this is that any earthmoving is quickly labeled as excessive by the self-proclaimed traditionalists. And certainly, they would like us to believe, when it’s done solely for show – for the infamous “wow!” effect – it becomes a detriment to the values of the game.
What those values are exactly has rarely been clearly defined and even more rarely properly defended.
At any rate, one must wonder whether or not “wow!” earthmoving is appropriate or, as Martha Stewart would say, is “a good thing”. Certainly it is hard to argue against earthmoving in the name of beauty. However, as was stated earlier, is it appropriate for beauty to take precedence over play? The “dumb blonde” golf course, as it were.
As long as their are people who’s main objective is to go out on the links on a sunny Saturday, go "wow" when they see a waterfall, share a beer with their best friend and have a little fun chasing the ball in their cart around a beautiful setting, “dumb blonde” will remain an entirely appropriate design option. Sure, it's not for everyone, but who ever said it was supposed to be?
Modern courses and today's architecture can do a better job, by having better tools, of giving each golfer what he or she wants.
Anyway, once again, I could go on.... Great Subject! (and great post Jeff B.)