"Natural" Courses and Features: What do we mean?

[AndyI]

I am undoubtedly a novice golfer in comparison to most of the people who post on this site, and I am certainly a neophyte when it comes to evaluating and appreciating golf course architecture.  Nevertheless, the subject fascinates me and, for good or bad, raises all kinds of interesting questions that probably consume far too many of daily thoughts!

One issue that struck me recently has prompted me to finally post on this terrific website.  Perhaps some of the more experienced participants here can help me to sort it out.

Very often, people here refer to (and rightfully tend to favor, in my opinion) golf courses or golf course features that are "natural" or have a "natural look."  For example, there has been much discussion here recently about the appearance of bunkers and efforts to make them look "natural," often by treating (or not treating) their edges in certain ways.  Similarly, fairways and greens that are shaped with gently curved, "natural-looking" perimeters are generally preferred to those defined by straighter lines or severe angles.  Indeed, William Flynn explicitly made this latter point in one of his essays reprinted in Geoff Shackleford's "Masters of the Links."

My question is this.  For most courses, isn't it a misnomer to refer to such courses or features as "natural?"  Setting aside the classic seaside links courses which are certainly more natural in a strict sense, in most areas, nature does not provide sand bunkers, or even sand for that matter, on the topography.  Greens, fairways and even rough are typically not native grasses, are planted with crisp borders not found in nature, and are clearly maintained with a uniformity not found in nature.  A great deal of earth is also typically moved to define hills and swales and the like in ways that defy the natural lay of the land.

I am not at all criticizing courses that we refer to as having a "natural look."  I, too, greatly prefer them.  But what do we mean when we say a golf course looks "natural," when in fact its existence is anything but?  Instinctively, I have a sense of what that means, as I think we all do, but perhaps it would be useful to express our thoughts more explicitly so that we might all have a better understanding of exactly what we would like to see in future "natural" courses and so that we can appreciate why existing "natural" courses appeal to us.

When I say that a course has a natural look, I mean that it blends in a harmonious way with its natural surroundings.  There is little doubt in my mind about what is truly natural and what has been created by man, but the shapes, colors, contours and plantings of the course are influenced by and complement the course's surroundings and do not detract from them.  I guess that to me, the theme is "harmony."

This might raise another question, which goes beyond merely semantics of definition.  Harmony, as a design philosophy applied to landscaping, reminds me of Feng Shui, about which I know very little other than that harmony with the environment is a central design theme and that it is popular in Asia.  Has anyone here played any courses in the Far East (particularly China or Japan) that were designed not by Westerners but by Japanese or Chinese architects?  If so, I would be interested to hear your opinions as to whether they have a "natural look" and whether Asian design philosophies might have something important to contribute to golf course architecture.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Andy:

By "natural" I think most people here mean that as little dirt as possible was moved.

When it is moved, the whole idea is to make it impossible for the untrained eye to distiniquish between what existed before construction and what was artificially added by the hand of man.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Andyl,
What a great post!

Let me take a try at answering your question. I can only hope that is right!

The use of the term "natural feature" can be a very misunderstood one. So many people interpret things differently then others, and such is the case with golf archtecture. Most especially in its most classic form. But this is also good thing because, to some degree it is where a personal style delivers its effectiveness and how it is percieved--The beauty of creativity!

When comparing the styles of Seth Raynor to Dr. Alister MacKenzie, you have two very distinct classic designers with completely differing styles, although they utilize the natural land on which they built their golf courses to their fullest. They simply saw oddities and quirks of nature to support certain features of a golf course that would make it both interesting and challenging. (This would pertain to small hills for locations of greens, small draingage areas, certain contours in the land itself, etc. all attributing to the actual design itself.) Oddly, I think something that be mentioned here is the importance of utilizing existing features as well. This is where the game recieves its due of quirkiness that embodies its treust essence. This could mean an old stone wall blocking play; an old rail line jutting across the property; etc.

This most importantly is where you can say that the ultimate golf is where one can find the land at its best "Evolved" state.

As you may already know, Dr. MacKenzie was given the project of the Famed Cypress Point Club shortly after the original designer, Seth Raynor had passed away.

One could only imagine what CPC would have looked like today if it took on the classic Raynor style that has stood the test of time at so many differt courses in the East. Raynor's style was more plateaued-like and sharp edges with bunkering less then natural looking to some extent, however, he utilzed the features of the existing land to make them work with minimal un-natural movement. Hence the term "Natural."

Dr. MacKenzie's style was more "in-your-face" naturalness that he really developed over period of time. It was a more natural looking water and wind carved bunkering style that while maybe not natural, certainly looked it. such is the effect of the land known as Cypress Point Club. However, early works of Dr. MacKenzie's in England and Scotland would show that his theories of placement of these hazards were entirely in tune with his belief that camoflauge was the mastery of deception and that the best way to acheive that deception was to rely on the best of what nature had given the area in which he was working.

I would like to add that one of my entire complaints about most modern architecture today (Speaking of King Fazio here) is that the effort to eliminate deception just so a player can see the entire hole in front of him is not in the best ideals of the game and the principles on which it was founded.

To further my opinion on this matter, I don't think eliminating an enviroment to create a new one is entirely correct either. One of King Fazio's greatest talents is what he type of scenes he can recreate. There is little doubt in my mind that strategically placing rocks in a creek bed to make it look entirely natural are one of his strong points, as well as recreating certain elements in places which they don't belong, but look like they belong. Ultimately, it is a fairness that seems to reside in all of this that makes his courses so unappealing to me. Golf wasn't meant to be a fair game, in fact I think that it naturally became such a test of mental will and strength, as well as challenge.

For me, this is the same fine line that seperates nature and the touch of the human hand.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tommy:

I share your enthusiam for deception.

A great example is Mackenzie's #5 at Crystal Downs.  Even if you've played the hole before, when you stand on the tee, you never feel entirely confident where to hit the ball.

Speaking of Crystal Downs and deception, #15 offers another but different example.  When you stand on this tee, you think you know where to hit your tee shot but trouble really lies ahead.

Both holes deploy the "natural" thing brilliantly.

[BarnyF]

Do you play golf as beautifully as you write...reading your post is like playing a Fazio course so don't let Tommy cloud your obvious clear line of thought.  To say that dirt cannot be moved in great quantities and remain natural does great disservice to the glaciers.  The worst courses I have ever played are also the most minimal in design...The worst superintendants all do an excellent job in providing firm and fast conditions...I have never visited a goat ranch that was too green.  

Good minimalism is not with an emphasis on minimal imagination or minimal budget.  Great design does not begin in the obituary pages or behind the gates of private clubs. How can you ask what is natural when once defined to a given set of parameters the idea is no longer natural by definition.  Drive the backroads of this great country and look at the Virgin landscapes our beloved bovines graze with the contentness of a single on a sunday morning...stay quiet and watch the swagger of the herd as they survey the lay of the land and you will hear the nature of the land speak to you.  This is what the great architects capture...its a feeling you can smell with your feet...its rare and you won't find it here..you will only find it alone when you're not looking.

[Jeff_McDowell]

BarneyF hit on something that I've always used to judge natural.

Look at the untouched landscapes and study how the hill tops transition into sideslopes, and how sideslopes transition into depressions. Look carefully and then look again.

Now drive onto a golf course and look at the earthworks. Do the hills transition similarly? If they don't, then I think it looks artificial.

To put it another way. If the untouched hillsides have slopes of 6:1, 7:1, or 8:1, and a nearby golf course has 2:1 and 3:1 slopes, the earthworks don't look natural.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Barn,
There you go again, making this all about me. Last time I checked, Glaciers don't have the name Catepillar on the side of them and driven by an employee of Wadsworth Golf Course Construction.

Or is this how they did it at Victoria National?

Further, I hope that "Andyl" is in in fact a new enthusiast that will continue to post in the future and not just you, posting to yourself again. One of the hilights in a week sorely lacking in them.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Jeff,

The "Tie-in" is an important part for any golf design. I agree emphatically.

[RJ_Daley]

Many good points made above. Tommy, I would say in Wadsworth's defense that when it comes to "creating" natural appearing features, they have led in the area of those ancient looking babbling brooks.  They really began to use great imagination and refine their techniques at Shadow Creek.  The example of their work in the area of creekway creation to appear natural and ancient that we saw at Barona was quite good, I thought.

[BarnyF]

Tommy get ahold of yourself...nothing is ever all about you...make an appointment with Dr. Harris and get a band-aid for your ego.

[T_MacWood]

Andyl
You are correct, technically every golf course to some extent is unnatural. But the greatest designs maximize the natural attributes of the site while at the same time creating man-made features that relplicate nature and integrate with their surrounds. The first 'designed' course were in the heathlands which were also sandy, and allowed the designers to create bunkers that replicated the natural broken and eroded ground found on sandy terrain. Those courses were the model for many of the great designers of the early part of the last century, 1900-1936.

They also recognized the advantage of using the outstanding natural features and landforms, and maximized their use. And when they needed to create, they were more attune with nature and able to produce sympathetic features. The result were courses where Nature dominated, that reflected the haphazardness of Nature, resulting in more interesting designs that harmonized with their surroundings.

Modern designers many times over design creating a sylized view of nature -- lacking irregularity. The results are predictable and could be dropped into the desert, to a water-park in Florida, or a hillside in California -- and ultimately the repetitive results lack imagination.

The greatest influence on Japanese golf design was the Englishman CH Alison. To this day his short visit continues to dominate their golf-design tastes. Ironically that visit had profound effect on Alison, and he was greatly influenced by Japanese aesthetics -- but due to the Depression and War he had very few opportunites to execute that influence.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Dick, The company that created the creeks at Barona is in fact the one that does do work for Fazio, but they are not affiliated with Wadsworth that I know of, other then being a specialist/sub contractor.

Barney or whatever your name is, unlike you, I have no problems with my ego, I post under my own real name.

[Mark_Huxford]

Andy you should look for a book on Amazon.com called the spirit of St Andrews by Dr Alister MacKenzie.

On page 41 he lays out his 13 codified principles for ideal golf courses - the 7th of which really relates to this topic.

7. The course should have beautiful surroundings, and all the artificial
features should have so natural an appearance that a stranger is unable to
distinguish them from nature itself.

Before Dr MacKenzie was an Architect he was a surgeon and then a military camouflage expert in the British Army. He developed techniques in South Africa between 1899 and 1901 by studying Boer defences that would imitate nature so well British soldiers were easily ambushed.

He thought that inland courses in the north of England where he lived which where typically flat and boring could be greatly improved through earthworks that imitated the features of seaside courses that were so desirable then as they are today.

I don't think it was a question of minimalism per se. Tom Doak is probably the best practitioner of this style today. Utilizing good terrain where it exists on the property but unafraid to move some dirt where necessary in a way that imitates nature.

---

Your question about the application of Feng Shui is very interesting. It is very spiritual and I must confess I don't understand all of the principals behind it. What effect water, fountains, bells and crystals have for example. How much of it is just common sense and ergonomics though?

Don't put your coffee table in a place which distrupts energy flow around the room could be the same as don't build a bunker so close to a green that my bag trolley falls into it in an effort to keep it off the putting surface!

Feng Shui experts that say to reduce clutter in your house to clear your thinking might become Architects inclined to fill in some Whistling Straits bunkers. In fact I can see the practice reducing maintenance costs the world over :-)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Would you classify NGLA, one of the great golf courses in the world, as a NATURAL golf course ?

Would you classify NGLA as a minimalist design ?

[TEPaul]

Andy:

Great topic. Some of the good old architect/writers had some interesting and specific things to say on this subject, Hunter and Thomas particularly. I'll find them and reprint them when I have more time.

I get the feeling, though, that neither of them (or any of the good "Golden Age" designers and so forth) meant that trying to be "natural" HAD to mean that an architect must make a course that looked as if he hadn't touched it at all. Their reasoning, in what they said, was that that almost had to be impossible due to the basic requirements of golf itself and its elements like greens and bunkering (and maybe fairways). They simply stated that those things, particularly, just aren't offered by nature (on almost all sites). So those things, at least, must be made by them but to blend them harmoniously with what they'd  found on the site that is its "nature" is the real deal!

That, I think is where the best architects are clever and good. NGLA is probably the best example. It is clearly touched by its designers and obviously dramatically so because they needed to do some things (or felt that they did) that worked really well for golf and how the ball played on all of it. But as dramatic and radical (engineered) as they got, somehow they harmoniously blended  their "architecture" to the "nature" of the site. Even the best of architects today seem a bit unsure exactly how they did it and even Bill Coore (who probably can pick up exactly how they did it) says he still can't believe HOW they dreamed up or saw the possibilities that they came to "create".

Being natural is great but at the end of the day the golf course has to play fun and exciting in numerous and sometimes very diverse ways and if an architect can't find those things on the site then he has to make them and/or enhance them somehow and hopefully make them look like a really good "blend" into the site's "nature".

That being said, I admire the most the architects who take the time to really study a site to find "all the golf that is there before they got there" and then if they need to create more or enhance it somehow they do that harmoniously. Most modern architects don't seem to take the time to do that and they may not because it may not even occur to them and that of course is where things start to look "unnatural" and they fail to "blend" at all.

All of this is very fascinating and one could even take the subject all the way back to some of the basic instincts of Americans. The original settlers of this continent were sometimes of two very diverse minds about the "nature" of where they came to live. The "west pushing" settlers of this continent tended to feel that they had to "conquer" nature just to survive in it!! But eventually along the way in doing that, I think, they also came to notice its extraordinary beauty and majesty and to respect it in a bit of a schizophrenic sense.

Some of these early settlers came to view themselves as "nation builders" and as such the idea of how they came to view nature (or anything else that stood in their way) even got a name--called "Manifest Destiny"!!

"Manifest Destiny" sort of became imbued in the national pyshe of America (and in many Americans) and has resulted in our national ethos (and reputation) as "can do" people.

Clearly that ethos has it good and bad sides in many many ways but a part of it is still their view of "nature", I'm sure. There are still many vestiges and ramifications in all of this, I'm sure, and one might be how modern golf architects view how they do what they do!

As a bit of a humorous example one might say that an architect like Tom Fazio is a true "Manifest Destiny" American, since he seems challenged and even proud of his ability to "conquer" and make better what he finds with sites that he seems to believe constrain him and his creative instincts. While those like Coore, maybe Doak and some of the others might be viewed a bit more like American Indians who seemed more willing to do things in concert with "nature" rather than change and "conquer" it. American Indians seemed content to migtrate about the land without changing it or even bothering to "permanently settle" as did the "Nation Builders" (and dedicatedly so)!

These attitudes can even be reflected in the comments and thoughts of some of our present architects. Fazio seems to say, and proudly so; "Look what I did and brilliantly so." While a guy like Ben Crenshaw has said the basic idea is to; "Get out of town like you never did much at all."

Very interesting stuff and good topic on your part!  

[Mike O'Neill]

Everyone should remember that golf courses have to be mowed and fairways ought to be to some degree receptive to a ball hit from 270 yards (soon to be 430 yards) away. Those sorts of requirements prohibit a lot of sites from being played on the natural lay of the land. And then we have to ask ourselves, do we want to play the game (which means moving dirt) or do we want to sit around until the cows come home. All of this of course points us to Dick Daley's home away from home, the Sand Hills of Nebraska. There we can find an abundance of both, natural golf holes and cows. If only those cows could caddy...

[Mike O'Neill]

Everyone should remember that golf courses have to be mowed and fairways ought to be to some degree receptive to a ball hit from 270 yards (soon to be 430 yards) away. Those sorts of requirements prohibit a lot of sites from being played on the natural lay of the land. And then we have to ask ourselves, do we want to play the game (which means moving dirt) or do we want to sit around until the cows come home. All of this of course points us to Dick Daley's home away from home, the Sand Hills of Nebraska. There we can find an abundance of both, natural golf holes and cows. If only those cows could caddy...

[Mike O'Neill]

By the way Patrick, I look forward to someday getting back to NGLA. I have only played it once. I am reserving judgement for now on your question, because my reaction is to say that I did not find it especially "natural". And yet, as I say, I have only been there once and was subject to the look provided at that time by the superintendent. I thought at the time that there were "gimicky" things about the course coupled with very subtle examples of dirtwork. Both were a lot of fun. The course got it's difficulty that day from lightening fast greens. What is your answer to your question?

[Mike O'Neill]

By the way Patrick, I look forward to someday getting back to NGLA. I have only played it once. I am reserving judgement for now on your question, because my reaction is to say that I did not find it especially "natural". And yet, as I say, I have only been there once and was subject to the look provided at that time by the superintendent. I thought at the time that there were "gimicky" things about the course coupled with very subtle examples of dirtwork. Both were a lot of fun. The course got it's difficulty that day from lightening fast greens. What is your answer to your question?

[RJ_Daley]

Mike, nice try...  Even though you had two posts that printed out double, you fell short of column inches or Tom P'S post by about one more double of your own!  

However Tom, it took you a journey through the American west and settler's history and a discussion of Manifest Destiny, you did get us to an interesting point that makes sense to me.  Are you any relation to Stephen Ambrose?  You missed your calling as a professor Tom.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike O'Neill,

I think some of what Tom Paul said is true.

There is a nice blend of the manufactured product into the surrounding natural features.

Like you, the first time I played NGLA I had mixed feelings.  However, with each succeeding visit, the course, and the genius of its architecture grew on me exponentially.

All the photos of holes # 1,6,8, and 18 have been developed.  Unfortunately, due to the late hour I arrived on the 18th tee, the sun was low in the western sky and those pictures aren't great.  I will be back there in mid October and will retake # 18 and some other holes.

The pictures of # 1,6, and 8 are pretty neat.

They should be up by next week.

[AndyI]

Thanks for all of the great responses!  As usual, the comments of the participants here are very enlightening.

Tommy Naccarato, Mark Huford: Your thoughts on minimalism and comparison of Raynor, MacKenzie and Doak are interesting.  I am reading Doak's "Anatomy of a Golf Course" now, and I was struck by a point made by Ben Crenshaw in the Introduction.  Crenshaw said (and emphasized), "Nature appears at random."  This, to me, is a useful notion that expresses both the visual appearance of "natural-looking" courses and the minimalist designs that often characterize them.  Obviously, golf courses are not random creations, but by judicious and limited use of the architect's hand to preserve what is already on the land, they can be made to appear somewhat random and natural while still providing fun and challenge to the golfer.  Dr. MacKenzie's experience as a camouflage expert is also very telling and potentially opens a line of study into an entirely separate discipline as it relates to golf course architecture (any camo theory experts here?)!  Mark, thanks for the recommendation of "The Spirit of St. Andrews" by MacKenzie.  I will put that on my (rapidly) growing list of books to read!

Tom MacWood:  You used the term "haphazard" in reference to course features that look natural, and I think you're right.  This jibes with Crenshaw's observation noted above that "nature appears at random."  The best architects seem to be able to intentionally position strategic course features in a way that appears random and haphazard.  As a result, your initial, "wide-angle" view of the area does not draw your attention to much in particular, and it is only upon a closer, critical analysis of how those features will affect your play that you really notice and appreciate them.  Thank you very much, too, for your tip on CH Alison.  I did not know about him or his visit to Japan, but I intend to learn what I can about him and his experience there.

TEPaul: Having read your posts here for some time before posting my own, I know that you are adept at expanding the ideas brought to bear on many topics posted here.  You have not let us down with your discussion of Manifest Destiny!  I think that your categorization of architects into the Manifest Destiny / westward expansion camp (the earth-conquering types) and the American Indian camp (the earth-embracing types) is clever and probably quite accurate.  Also, your advice for architects to "find all the golf that was there before they got there" resonates with me.  This would require the architect to use a great deal of imagination, creativity, patience and humility--qualities which are found in abundance in those people who successfully live in harmony with nature.  You mentioned Bill Coore as one of today's architects who is able to blend a course into the land.  Just this past summer, I heard a course developer presently working with Coore agree with you, saying that in his experience (with several previous courses and architects) he had never seen anyone who could walk a piece of property and "find" all of the holes on it as well as Mr. Coore.

BarnyF: Thanks for your response.  However, now that I have a flavor for the general attitude on this website toward Fazio, I am not sure if you were offering compliments or criticism!  Your comments about where to find nature are well-taken, though, and I think that my interest in this topic of "naturalism" originated with another of my outdoor interests: freshwater fishing (an interest which has recently given way substantially to golf).  Truly natural river settings have always captivated me, and when I began to play golf, I found much of the same "natural" beauty in some golf courses despite their artificial creation.  That's what puzzled me; how is it that some golf courses, which must be built according to arbitrary standards and be functional as playing fields, are able to give me much of that same connection to nature that I feel when I go fishing?   The architects who are able to do so are talented, indeed.

[Tom_Doak]

Andyl:

I've seen about a dozen courses in Japan, including all of Alison's, and they did not strike me as looking especially "natural" at all -- they were much too manicured on the maintenance side, and too uniform in color.  I don't know how that relates to Feng Shui, but I think they're talking out of both sides of their mouths ... as do many designers!

Very few of the bunkers or greens we build are random ... they are done with great care and considerable thought, with the goal of blending into their surroundings.  But, when we are able to lay out a hole so that the fairway requires no earthmoving, then a considerable amount of the interest of the hole comes from random elements and contours, which we try to take advantage of by our placement of tees and mowing lines.

It is very very very hard to build something from scratch which has even one-tenth as much character as God's better work.  We'll find out this winter in Lubbock if we are up to the challenge.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak:

When you mentioned finding fairways where no earthmoving is required, #16 Pacific Dunes springs to mind! I'm sure there were others that were left just "as is" by you all but that one I'll never forget. The humps and bumps on the fairway are big and very close together and I would love to see that fairway perform with the ball on very firm conditions. I would love to sit on the hill and watch groups come through #16!

Good luck in enhancing some flatness in Lubbock! On the other side of the spectrum I can't wait to get back to see some of the dunes holes at Friar's Head. From what that ground looked like originally I can't wait to see how much "toning down" C&C had to do to make the play remotely reasonable.

One of my favorite "natural ground" fairways anywhere would have to be #16 NGLA. Since a good drive is semi-blind it's wonderful to have to wait to get up to the fairway to see how you did!! Running the mid-ridge is complex and exciting as hell to try to do and with fast ground conditions it's a dicey affair to see if you'll be facing "sky only" visibility from one of the fairway bowls or lucky enough to have more visibility to go with! And the way they combined those large fairway bowls with a blind approach but a huge collecting bowl green is as unique and brilliant as I've seen anywhere!

Sometimes it seems with all the good stuff going on at NGLA that #16 gets a bit overlooked--it shouldn't. There was about a 35 year hiatus between seeing NGLA for me and when I used to play it back then I didn't know or care a thing about golf architecture. But interestingly that is the hole I remembered best--it never even remotely left my mind!!

There is one other thing I would like to revisit with you concerning fairways or tee shot concepts, and that's the general subject of "visual reference" or "visual frame" or maybe another way to explain it is the necessity almost all architects seem to feel to give the golfer something that their eye can take it at a glance or at once.

I always refer on this subject to that natural landform hole at Ardrossan Farm that is immensely wide in its natural (and functional for golf) form. The landing area that's visible (before going over the hill) is about 130yds wide! I hestitate to even talk about what's over the hill because that could be as much as 200+yds wide!

Both you and Bill Coore and some others said conceptually that may be too wide because it's just too much for the golfer's eye to take in at once but I say so what? Let the golfer look around a bit for where to hit the tee shot and the many and varied ways to go. The good news on this natural hole is  way out there in the distance in the center of all this width sits the natural landform green on its own narrow ridge--and very visible. But going right at it might not be the best or ideal way to go for most golfers!

If you're in Philly anytime soon I'd like to show you this thing to see what you think conceptually! So far noone seems to agree with me that it's OK to make the golfer look around and not to give him something on the tee shot he can relate to at a glance or a single visual reference, but I'm holding firm. And of course he can always see the green and go at that, but it might be a mistake for his game! So what? Next time he can just look around or focus on something else!

Another interesting thing about this natural landform (with its broad and complicated "turbo boost" areas over the hill) is where you do aim and hit the ball may not be even remotely where the ball will end up. If you can visualize #4 Pine Valley and how where you aim and hit the ball can change dramatically to where the ball may end up, just magnify that about 5-10 times for this natural landform hole!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

This may be small consolation, but having seen Ardrossan and the mythical hole in question, I agree with you.  

It's possible to build a hole there that one could play in a staggering variety of ways and with as many different results.  The key would be the exact placement of the tee to take full advantage of the various crests, turbo boosts, and flatter, but longer options.

If a golfer couldn't take it all in by looking straight down the fairway, is it too much to ask that they just turn their head a little???