Is this lazy architecture?

[TEPaul]

JeffB;

#47 is a very well thought out post!

Interesting what you said about the repetitiveness of how openings to greens at NGLA is arranged. I'm not so sure I'd agree with that as that arrangement at NGLA is not necessarily the expected best way for the low handicap man to play those holes---often it's the conservative way for the higher handicap man to play them.

In the beginning NLGA was considered to be a tough course for the low handicapper but you should remember that on that course Macdonald never forgot the concept of MOSTLY providing a more conservative route for the high handicapper. However, he did not intend to take that concept to the extreme some seem to think it should be taken to---eg that an ideal course should be able to be putted around on. Macdonald's specific reasoning for putting a pond between the tee and green on #13 (unlike the original Eden) is perfect evidence of that, as is the next hole!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom MacWood,

I refer to the sketches in every book of that era showing a carry bunker off the tee that, if successful,  opens up the front of the green for a roll up shot, or provides a margin of error short at least.  While I obviuosly never saw many of those courses in original form, I know that not every hole these guys designed has that, but it seemed to be the prevalent concept, with, as TEPaul mentions, conservative routes for lesser players.

While that works, I wonder if it is the be all, end all in design.  And, from the responses here, I think at least some agree.  I also wonder if in that more "macho" male dominated era, just how different lesser players were than today - did any self respecting male actually decline the carry and accept not reaching the green in regulation while standing on the tee?  I bet about 1%, same as today, but thats a different topic altogether!

[T_MacWood]

What sketches in what books?

I think one can be misled by the bunkering of a golf course like NGLA. IMO the brillance of that design is not the bunkering but the use of contours and ground movement in the design. If all the bunkers were removed from the NGLA it would remain a brilliant design and wonerful golf course. If there is a lesson that could be absorbed by 'modern' golf architects it the importance of ground movement and orientation of fairway and greens.

[TEPaul]

JeffB;

It seems that an architect such as Macdonald at NGLA certainly did understand that various males (macho or otherwise) were not capable of hitting a golf ball the same  distances. His rather elaborate strategic explanation of the strategies of #2 (and where the concept came from broadly) is more than enough evidence of that.

It also appears that Macdonald probably well understood that all males did not understand very well their limitations regarding distance but that he felt that was their problem to find out in play and not his problem to solve in his design. In most cases he did provide them with adequate and reasonable ways to go if only they understood and accepted them instead of trying to do too much.

[TEPaul]

"If all the bunkers were removed from the NGLA it would remain a brilliant design and wonerful golf course."

Tom:

I wish I didn't have to point this out but all in all that's a pretty thoughtless statement. I've no doubt if Macdonald heard someone say that he'd more than agree that's a pretty thoughtless statement. Otherwise I doubt he would've bothered to work so hard perfecting his bunkers and their schemes for almost thirty years!!

[A_Clay_Man]

With differing perspectives on what constitutes the proper approach shot, I'd conclude that since the bunker plays as a real hazard, as described (the 4 foot lip), the laziness of the gca, is diminished.

Ran,
 Does this bunker resemble the first's at Jasper Pk? I know the green does not. I'm just trying to get a clearer picture.

[T_MacWood]

TE
It is my opinion, and there was some thought put into it. What is thoughtless about the statement...and when did you become Macdonald's spokesperson?

The observation says nothing about Macdoanld's effectiveness or ineffectiveness in bunkering the NGLA (or how hard he worked at it)...it says everything about his ability to use contour and ground movement brilliantly in a design.

[Jeff_Brauer]

What sketches in what books?

I think one can be misled by the bunkering of a golf course like NGLA. IMO the brillance of that design is not the bunkering but the use of contours and ground movement in the design. If all the bunkers were removed from the NGLA it would remain a brilliant design and wonerful golf course. If there is a lesson that could be absorbed by 'modern' golf architects it the importance of ground movement and orientation of fairway and greens.

Tom,

IHMO, you need to start the new year off with better ? than that.  The books I refer to are the well known Hunter, Simpson, Thomas, MacKenzies, Ross, etc. books we all probably have on our shelves.  It even includes the Flynn articles.  Each contains a "prototypical sketch of a heroic/strategic hole requiring a carry of some hazard, most often bunkers, off the tee in order to secure an open front green approach.  As I said, I know there is a lot of variety in the real world.

And, like Tom Paul, and knowing that CBM moved a lot of earth on some holes to achieve his aim at NGLA, I don't think the greatness of that course (or most CBM or Raynor courses) is in the ground contour as much as it is in his clear strategies and dramatic features.  Now, I have only toured, but not played NGLA, so I reserve the right to change my opinion, should that happy turn of events occur.

[TEPaul]

Tom:

You certainly do offer some oddball responses to things said to you on here. Almost as oddball as some of the things you just gratuitously offer on here. I didn't say nor did I imply I was Macdonald's spokesperson so I wonder why you say things like that. I simply said I have no doubt Macdonald would feel that was a pretty thoughtless statement you offered about his course minus all its bunkering. That's just my opinion, and I put quite a lot of thought into it!

By the way, do you have some feeling as to what 'ground movement' Macdonald made on that course and what he found there in that vein?

[T_MacWood]

"I think Golden Age thinking was somewhat flawed in that courses, like NGLA, where virtually every tee shot offers the same option of a heroic carry to get an open look at the green may have been a bit repititous.  Modern design breaks away from some of those ideas, even allowing that until recently, there may have been repitition of flanking fairway bunkers at prescribed distances - a result of not thinking about design too hard......"

Jeff
Do you lump all the sketeches in all those books into 'golden age thinking'. That is a pretty diverse group, those books (Thomas and Simpson's in particular) contain about every bunkering strategy under the sun...from the heroic to no bunkers (and everything in between). Is it wise to strereotype golden age strategic thinking...I don't believe they always agreed with one another, nor followed the same pattern...and as far as breaking away, is there anything new in the way of fairway bunkering?

TE
It is always humorous when someone pretends to know what a long gone, historic figure would say or think if he were alive today. Last week you were telling us FL Olmsted was the first great golf architect (based upon a book you read or half read), this week you are channeling the thoughts of CB Macdonald...what will it be next week?

You disagree that a bunkerless NGLA would still be a fabulous golf course based upon Macdonald's ingenious use of contours, in addition to his use of green and fairway orientation?

[TEPaul]

"Last week you were telling us FL Olmsted was the first great golf architect (based upon a book you read or half read), this week you are channeling the thoughts of CB Macdonald...what will it be next week?"

Tom MacWood:

I never made a statement remotely like that. Not even close. I simply ASKED the question if Olmsted might have been one of the great NATURALIST golf architects if he'd ever practiced the art form of golf architecture given what he was so talented in---eg naturalist landscape architecture.

Somehow you apparently missed the fact and the point I made that Frederick Law Olmsted's career was basically over (1895) before the art form of naturalistic golf architecture even came into being. That's a rather significant point don't you think? Don't even bother to answer that because some of the oddball things you do seem to think are almost beyond comprehension. It appears you're almost totally incapable of reading a few salient points of a rather simple paragraph which is making me think you're basically a charlatan and a joke!

Again, you're telling me I said Olmsted was the first great golf architect when it's obvious to all that his career ended practically before golf architecture really began and certainly before the art and applied principles of naturalist golf architecture began?

One should logicially ask what the point is to even attempt to have an intelligent discussion about anything with you if you're that oblivious to what people say. Apparently you don't even know how to distinquish between the difference of a question and a statement either.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I think they all had a sketch of the optional forced carry, with a safe way around in their books.  My impression is that this was the defacto strategy, although there are certainly exceptions. I also think NGLA relies on the carry strategy to the highest degree out there.

Generally, they all did about the same kind of strategy (on "average sites - forget Pine Valley) and I think they were a herd of cows as much as today's gca types are.

I think they did most of the possible fw bunkering schemes well before I came along somewhere, even if I haven't seen them all.  I am in agreement (100 years late) with Mac - Nothing really new in gca.

[TEPaul]

"TE
It is always humorous when someone pretends to know what a long gone, historic figure would say or think if he were alive today."

Well, once again why don't we see what I was pretending to know that the long gone historic figure, C.B. Macdonald, would say or think if he were alive today. I said I thought he'd agree that your statement that NGLA would be a wonderful golf course if all the bunkering was removed from the course was a pretty thoughtless statement. I don't think it takes any pretending at all to realize he would say that was a pretty thoughtless remark. How about if all the greens, fairways and tees were removed too? Would it still be a wonderful golf course. How about if he just did nothing there? Would it still be a wonderful golf course?

So why don't you hazard a guess if you think he'd agree the course was so wonderful without bunkering why he didn't just design and build it that way?

[T_MacWood]

"Generally, they all did about the same kind of strategy (on "average sites - forget Pine Valley) and I think they were a herd of cows as much as today's gca types are."

Jeff
I don't see it that way...then or now. There are a lot of different ways to skin a cat. That is what makes the subject so interesting IMO.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I agree, and the cow comment was mostly for reaction.

Would you agree that carry bunkers were used more in the Golden Age than now?

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
I would agree...I suspect the demise of the carry bunker can  be traced to the Depression and Tilly's bunker removing tour.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I have not read all the responses so I apologize if this has already been brought up.  It seems to me that the hole might be better served if the bunker protruded only half the way across the fairway, leaving a small avenue on the left side of the fairway for a player who can't carry the bunker to challenge it off the tee to get both the best angle as well as the most distance.  It still allows the bomber to carry the bunker and the higher handicap to lay up and play for bogey.

[TEPaul]

Regarding the "carry bunker" if that's somewhat the same thing as Ross's "fore" or "top shot bunkers" (btw, I finally found a letter from Ross himself to my club where he actually called them that) although their specific function or design function seems to be somewhat hazy, it seems to me that back in the old days (even when I was a kid actually), an awful lot more golfers tended to top tee shots than they do today. Why that may've been I'm not sure but it may have something to do with the fact that driver heads and faces were a whole lot smaller than they are today. I guess it's no secret at all that Ross was known to not like drives that were topped or basically skulled and ran out on hard ground somewhere near the distance of a good drive. Obviously the type and extent of the "top shot" bunkers (on my course anyway) prevented that from happening.

And I do have a rather lengthy report from New England architect Wayne Stiles to my club in the late 1940s recommending the removal of all Ross's "Top shot" bunkers on my course. His reasoning was they only penalized to poor players and were consequently not worth what it took to maintain them. The club approved that recommendation and they were removed and filled in until the fill ran out which resulted in the depressions of a number of those old Ross "top shot" bunkers still being visible on the course although they're nothing more than grass depressions now.

In a "form follows function" sort of way, though, I do subscribe to what GeoffShac once said about bunkering like that very likely being a nearby source for fill to construct tees. Most of those Ross "top shot" bunkers were about 100 yard off the tee so that certainly sounds reasonable to assume.

[TEPaul]

"You disagree that a bunkerless NGLA would still be a fabulous golf course based upon Macdonald's ingenious use of contours, in addition to his use of green and fairway orientation?"

Tom MacWood:

To me that's a pretty pointless question but one that's pretty typical of you. To what degree removing all the bunkering from NGLA would allow the golf course to maintain its quality is nearly impossible to say and pointless, in my opinion, for that reason. Would someone really want to intelligently discuss what the quality of a classic Rolls Royce would be if someone removed the steering wheel, the brakes and half the engine?

Maybe you would but not me. Instead of asking questions like that in response to me mentioning to you that your remark that NGLA minus the bunkering would be a fabulous golf course, probably a better idea would be for you to simply admit that remark of yours really is pretty thoughtless.

How about if they just removed the contouring in the greens and left everything else as is? Would the course still be fabulous or would it be just good or something else in your expert opinion?

I like Bill Coores's analogy that great architecture is like a great symphony with the notes being akin to all the various features on a golf course. Only problem, so he said, is if you get something out of place or missing it can create dissonance. Next time I'll ask him if he can think of any notes that can be removed from a great symphony and still have it be fabulous. I may also ask him if he thinks Hidden Creek would be as good as it is if all the bunkering was removed there too!  

[T_MacWood]

TE
Interesting analogies you've sprung on me of late, first the horse-automobile comparison, now the steering-wheel-less Rolls Royce, you appear to be in transportation mode...excellent thoughts however, very effective. Well done.

There is a school of thought that says when judging a great layout (and the routing of layout), you could take away all the hazards and the golf course would remain both challenging and interesting. I kind of like that idea.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

I like that idea, too.

[TEPaul]

"TE
Interesting analogies you've sprung on me of late, first the horse-automobile comparison, now the steering-wheel-less Rolls Royce, you appear to be in transportation mode...excellent thoughts however, very effective. Well done."

Tom:

Thank you---I do my very best to come up with simple and understandable analogies to get you to see some glimmer of light!

"There is a school of thought that says when judging a great layout (and the routing of layout), you could take away all the hazards and the golf course would remain both challenging and interesting. I kind of like that idea."

I kind of like that idea too, but in my opinion, I'd tend to look at it from the opposite point of view. Look at a site very carefully, and particularly from a routing standpoint, and try to determine the extent of what it can give you in a great golf course BEFORE getting into the "designing" of created features!

That sounds a bit more sensible, both economically and actually, don't  you think?  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said;

"TE
...... Last week you were telling us FL Olmsted was the first great golf architect (based upon a book you read or half read), this week you are channeling the thoughts of CB Macdonald...what will it be next week?

Tom MacWood:

Just a little necessary housekeeping here since your modus operandi on these discussions seems to be to just state something and when someone calls you on it and asks you to defend or amend something you've said that is wholly inaccurate in their opinion, you just tend to avoid it altogether!

So show me where I ever said that Frederick Law Olmsted was the first great golf architect. And if you can't do that then try to admit it or perhaps try to tell me what it really was I said. Because frankly it was one helluva whole lot different than FL Olmsted was the first great architect which makes that whole point of that entire subject and discussion a whole lot different.