Natural: What a difference 80 years makes

[Adam_F_Collins]

There is a lot of discussion revolving around Golden Age architects and their focus on "the natural" or their ability to create grounds for golf which appear to have "always been there".

But when I see images of many courses in their early years, they really don't appear so natural at all.

How much of our admiration is based on what is seen through the lens of many years of history and "grow in" time?

What are architects able to do today to manufacture maturity?

[JESII]

How much of our admiration is based on what is seen through the lens of many years of history and "grow in" time?

I'll be anxious to hear other replies, and I'm curious of more educated opinions than mine, but --- 99.99% IMO.

[Kyle Harris]

Adam, I'll respond eventually, but I need to know what you mean by, "Don't appear natural?"

Do you have any particular picture in mind?

[Jonathan McCord]

   Adam, I LOVE IT!!!  I've had the same feelings for quite a while as well.  Once our modern courses mature and EVERYTHING settles, of course the land they're built on will appear more natural.

I mean its been there for 80 years.  Thats a generation of maturing and settling that has taken place.  

Grow-in is usually complete after 80 years.

Glad I'm not the only person who thinks time strengthens a courses "natural" appeal.

[TEPaul]

Adam:

One of the best set of questions ever on here---and questions that I feel a good number on here are probably unrealistical or sentimental about for no particularly good reason other than if something appears "old" and "different" (in old photos) the assumption on here seems to be it must've been better.

Some interesting examples that cut both ways;

Early Merion East that took over a decade or even two to grow in properly---particularly bunker surrounds. That was Wilson and particularly Flynn's way back then not the least reason probably being that golf's agronomies back then were so unknown and experimental and "hit and miss" (and we have those app 2000 so-called "agronomy letters" to prove that).

Ironically, Merion East's recent bunker project was totally panned on here as intially the look of those bunkers were of the pre-mature grassing look that showed the manufacturing of the architecture of those redone bunkering---eg so much so it inspired probably most on here to label them "Merion's puffy and upholstered bunker look" (I fear that early label was mine). I should've just waited a few years to allow those bunker surrounds to grow in as they have now before saying something that degoratory about them! Today the mature and rough and long grassing of those Merion bunkers frankly look decades old---they've actually taken on the look of the type of bunkering that has that decades old built-up look of constant sand-kick topdressing which serves to increase the height and size of bunkering surrounds.

Shinnecock's massive constructed "sand waste areas" that actually show up on Flynn's plans as his own design and construction were apparently misunderstood or forgotten about by the club and allowed to naturally grass over by rough grasses. He apparently never meant them to be that way or look that way and today I'm told by some at the club that it would be too much maintenance work to return them to that "sandy waste" look that Flynn clearly wanted the course to maintain.

Cypress Point----had an amazingly beautiful and seemingly mature sand-waste look (even if in an interestingly "stylized" way) that the American Construction Co created right out of the box. They did that by tying in beautifully what they made in bunkering with the sand waste area that was naturally there. The imperceptable "tie in" between the two was truly amazing and natural looking and beautiful, in my opinion. The question is did they understand how difficult it might be to actually maintain that sand-waste "tie in" look? They probably didn't in the beginning but it became obvious how hard it would be to do----and obvsiously that great look was let go and the course eventually became more grassed, much greener looking with much more distinct divisions between formal bunkering and grass lines.

The really good Photo-Shop juxtaposition between the old sandy waste look vs today's far cleaner grassed look done recently on here by David Moriarty is great evidence of the differences in that old look vs today.

A far as what some of today's architects are doing this way----it's simply amazing in what they can do to create an instantly mature look in bunkering surrounds with their long and rough and rugged grass look almost immediately---eg creating bunkering that within the year looks like it's been there and been matured for decades.

Hanse with his "chunking" method and the likes of C&C and Doak and DeVries et al are just amazing in how and how well they can do this today and do it so quickly.

What would some of the old guys think of some of the looks that are produced this way today? That's a really good question and the opinions of the old guys regarding what's been done today would probably cut both ways too.

[Adam_F_Collins]

Adam, I'll respond eventually, but I need to know what you mean by, "Don't appear natural?"

Do you have any particular picture in mind?

Well, like MacKenzie's sand hills which were constructed at Grange-over-Sands ("Golf Architecture" page 70-71) and even some of the early photos of Pine Valley.

The fact is that even the great masters were developing "stylized" versions of natural features. There are varying levels of "rough" or "irregular" shapes, but they still are not really natural in appearance. They are essentially still abstract interpretations of naturally occurring  features of the landscape.

As far as my eye is concerned, some of the work of modern architects such as C&C at Sand Hills and Friar's Head as well as Doak at Pacific Dunes are much more natural in appearance - even without the decades of age to help them.

It seems to me that our modern architects are held to standards which the Golden Age never had - which makes plenty of sense, seeing as they were setting those standards back then.

But I think that our modern architects deserve some credit for looking beyond just their predecessors for inspiration and to nature herself - for in some cases...

...they've done a much better job of capturing her essence.

[ForkaB]

Adam

This is a great thread which is so threatening to the cult of antiquity that it should be cryit doon!  How dare you say that the oldies but goodies might not have been so good when they were not so old!?

Shame on you......

[Dan Herrmann]

I certainly don't think AGNC is a minimalist course, but if you look at early photos, you'll see lots of clover in the fairways, ragged countouring, and other "grow-in" features.

Hey - this may be an example of a course that has become less natural over time.  But I'm not complaining - AGNC is certainly one of the, if not the most beautiful course, I've ever seen in person.

I'd love to see some early pics of Pine Valley and contrast them with today.

[Adam_F_Collins]

I often wonder what MacKenzie would think of the course as it is now - I'm quite sure he'd like to redo the bunkers...

[Kyle Harris]

Adam,

Now that I've had time to sit down and read over the past few days' discussion I'll respond:

I think describing any golf couse as "natural" is a bit counterintuitive. First off, golf courses notoriously promote growth of only a few species of plants (read: grass), which for most areas of the US is not natural.

Secondly, how many of the golden age golf courses in existance today still capture the true essence of what they were 80 years ago? Years of renovation, improvement, simplification and just growth have rendered most courses from that era to be the result of man's communion with nature and not nature itself.

Thirdly, pictures from that era can be misleading. They give no sense of depth or perspective really. In the images I've seen of Pine Valley, it would appear that the corridors used for golf were as natural as could possibly given the use for golf. I think the better question would be: If golf grass was natural here, what would this look like?

I do, however, agree that many modern architects get unfairly or blindly criticized for making things look too "man-made." This is golf, an invention of man: anything type of change to the ground for the purpose of playing the game will look man-made, because... it is.