Real or fake? A related question to "fake" minimalism

[Kalen Braley]

Reading the thread about fake minimalism was very interesting and got me to wondering.

Does knowing what a plot of land used to look like have any bearing on how we percieve it once a course is placed there?  For example Whistling Straight and Chambers Bay.  We know they have built pretty darn good courses there, but does knowing what existed there previously change our opinion?  And if it does should it change our opinion?

As a counter example, I will reference Pacific Dunes at Bandon.  While we know there was some tweaking to fit the golf holes in, we have a basic idea of what existed there before and we know that is was a site that came about by the hand of nature.

So by default, does this make CB and WS fake purely based on the fact that we know they weren't made by nature?

[Ken Moum]

IMHO, this is the best, most relevant statement on the subject:

"In discussing the need for simplicity of design, the chief object of every golf course architect worth his salt is to imitate the beauties of nature so closely as to make his work indistinguishable from nature itself."  -- Alister Mackenzie, Golf Architecture

You'll note that the good doctor only asks that the imitations be indistinguishable from nature.

And, since true undulating linksland is often bordered--sometimes abruptly it seems--by flattish farmland, being able to look to the side and see flat land shouldn't be a detriment.

Is it horrible that Kingsbarns and the Castle course are surrounded by land that looks different? I don't know why, because so are places like North Berwick, Gullane, Dornoch and St Andrews Links.

Does it matter that DMK created this?



Or that Nature created this?



I'm inclined to think it doesn't matter. Although I have little interest in playing a course built in 1991 or 2006, when there's one close by that was opened in the 1400s.

But history is a whole 'nother matter.

Ken

[cary lichtenstein]

It only matters if you care to investigate how creative the architect is/was.

[Don_Mahaffey]

How it's done does matter to me...and here is what I mean.
If the design and construction is done in such a way that the course fits within it's environment. It looks natural...the drainage looks natural...the grasses fit within the native plant look...then I can handle or even like a "fake" minimalist look.

But, when the look is thrust upon the ground via 36 inch drain pipes and all they've really done is make the containment pretty and natural looking then no I don't like it and IMO all they are trying to do is cash in on the minimalist bandwagon.
I'm seeing this look out of quite a few of the bigger names and even though they may get the big money clients and hire the best engineers, it's not "minimalism" or anything else other than chasing a trend beyond their reach.

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps I didn't convey this well enough in my original post.   Does how well the golf course "fits in" extend beyond the boundaries of the course?

At Bandon, on the drive there you see dunes along Hwy 1, you see the wilderness all around you and when you arrive, its like you are stepping out into it.

While I haven't been to CB, is this same type of effect there as well?  Does the surronding area have dunes like properties to it?  And if not does this add or take-away from the experience?

[Tommy Williamsen]

It only matters if you care to investigate how creative the architect is/was.

I love to know what the land was like before the architect got to it.  It doesn't really change my mind about the merits of the course, but I am curious to see what went into a hole and try to get inside the architects head and come up with a few thoughts about why he did this or that.

[Ken Moum]

Perhaps I didn't convey this well enough in my original post.   Does how well the golf course "fits in" extend beyond the boundaries of the course?

At Bandon, on the drive there you see dunes along Hwy 1, you see the wilderness all around you and when you arrive, its like you are stepping out into it.

While I haven't been to CB, is this same type of effect there as well?  Does the surronding area have dunes like properties to it?  And if not does this add or take-away from the experience?

I don't believe that many of the courses I played in Scotland last year are surrounded by dunes--even those that are completely built on dunes.

The linksland is pretty narrow in most places, and doesn't extend for miles and miles.

At Lundin, for instance, it's barely wide enough for two holes parallel to one another.

At St. Andrews, TOC the new are built inland of the main line of dunes, which are mostly on the Jubilee, and if you look inland from TOC you'll see some pretty ordinary landforms.

When you're among those huge dunes at Cruden Bay, a lot of the vistas are totally different from what the golf course is built on.

My point is that that the real, natural dune land can look EXACTLY like manufactured landscape. So I don't think your criteria is relevant. The "wildness" you describe on the drive to Bandon is totally unlike anything I saw in Scotland.

Heck, the drive to Cruden Bay is through the narrow house-lined streets of the town, then, almost as if it were airlifted into place, you see the basin full of dunes that makes up most of the course. To my eye, it looks even more out of place than the Castle Course.

Ken

[Ken Moum]

It only matters if you care to investigate how creative the architect is/was.

I love to know what the land was like before the architect got to it.  It doesn't really change my mind about the merits of the course, but I am curious to see what went into a hole and try to get inside the architects head and come up with a few thoughts about why he did this or that.

The primary difference, IMHO is that golfers are less likely to get upset when they face "unfairness" that's natural. I recall reading a statement to the effect that on courses like TOC, people accepted the crazy bounces because the couldn't blame an architect for it.

It might have been Mackenzie who said it.

Ken