Supernaturalisticnondeciduous

[John Kavanaugh]

When attempting a near pure naturalistic design when do you know you have finished?  Is thinking you are done and then going back to move more dirt any different than the architect who leaves a few trees that are removed very early in the project.  Is it dangerous yet courageous to err on the natural side?

[RJ_Daley]

Well, that scenario may be played out at Erin Hills, IMO.  I think they didn't "melt down" enough of the natural features there.  I'm guessing that they will in the coming years have to soften a few things, and take some stuff down a notch.  That said, if they do, I wouldn't hold it against them and say they went past the point of having a naturally laid upon the land golf course.  Any archie that has to go back and trim a little more off the top, isn't somehow discredited, in my opinion.  Particularly if the tweaking is done in the right spirit of continued minimal approach, and retains the same theme.

Oh, I know what your thinking... that I was somewhat critical of JN and Co., now having to go back to DR and change (possibly 'melt down' some harsh and extreme features).  You are probably thinking I"m being duplicitous.  Well, my beef there is the process, and the marketing and perhaps outlandish expensive approach to get to say (probably incorrectly) that it was a minimalist approach.  That sort of disrespects the accomplishments of the real minimalist efforts in that area that produced great results.  I'm not big on the pretense of that situation.

[Doug Ralston]

Besides, there is almost NO PLACE where a sand bunker is naturally occuring. Minimalism notwithstanding, digging crap like that makes for a really unnatural course. Stick to trees!  

Doug

[Tim Bert]

Doug - Have you been to the Sand Hills region?  I saw an awful lot of blown out sand bunkers in the terrain for the last 40 miles on the way to the course and I'm pretty sure that C&C didn't craft the land that far out for aesthetic purposes.

[Peter Pallotta]

John,
I'm not sure if this is relevant to what you're asking about, but a while after I came on-board here, I realized that I'd been confusing naturalism with minimalism. They're far from mutually exclusive, and in fact I think they usually go hand in hand; but they're not necessarily identical. So I tend to think that an architect trying for naturalism has more to do with his philosophy of the game and the experience he hopes the golfer will have than it does with moving too little/too much dirt or trees. But I do think naturalism a difficult approach, if perhaps not dangerous, i.e. when everything about a course suggests to the eye that it has been manufactured, I think the fair-minded golfer or gca critic can appreciate it on its merits, and accept that some bits of that which is manufactured will look more pleasing and work more effectively than other bits; whereas if you're trying for naturalism, it'll either look natural or it won't. I think there's less middle ground there, or room for error.

Peter  

[Doug Ralston]

Doug - Have you been to the Sand Hills region?  I saw an awful lot of blown out sand bunkers in the terrain for the last 40 miles on the way to the course and I'm pretty sure that C&C didn't craft the land that far out for aesthetic purposes.

Tim;

I did not say NO course is built where sand pits are natural ..... just that very few are. Trees, on the other hand, are 'natural' on vastly more golf properties.

Truth be told, we do not build courses to be 'natural'. We use what we have traditionally used, with a few revisions as over time ideas become accepted.  

I just like to point out that the hated tree is far more natural on most golf properties than sand pits, and you almost never see short puttable grass [except on sheep grazing lands, which is where it all started, huh?].

Who cares about natural?

Doug

[Michael_Stachowicz]

I just like to point out that the hated tree is far more natural on most golf properties than sand pits, and you almost never see short puttable grass [except on sheep grazing lands, which is where it all started, huh?].

Who cares about natural?

Doug

I am not as obsessed about the word natural as I am about the word character.  My preference for a golf course would be one that reflects the character of the land (part of which is natural) and location...is this what is considered minimalism?
As an example of the complete opposite approach, I took an Audubon seminar and they showed pictures from different courses and we had to guess what part of the country they were located.  As a class we guessed locations from all over the country.  The guesses were all wrong as all golf courses were in Arizona.  That is how much the character and vegetation was manipulated and I would consider that the height of artificiality.

[Doug Ralston]

Michael;

When I played Eagle Eye in Lansing, Michigan; I saw the height of artificiality. I think the course had almost nothing to do with the land around it. It was a construct.

But it was a magnificent challenge, and fun as hell to play. Some of the best par-5's you will see. How can that be bad? Play it before being certain that 'artificial' means less.

Doug

[Kalen Braley]

I've probably read at least a dozen times on this site that Naturalism isn't really dependent on minimalism.  Naturalism only looks as if no dirt is moved when in reality a lot of dirt could have been moved, but done in such a way that it looks naturalisitic.

I don't know if Kingsbarn is the poster child for this or not as I haven't been there, but from what I've read, its likely the most extreme example where the most dirt was moved and it came off looking the most natural.

[Michael_Stachowicz]

Michael;

When I played Eagle Eye in Lansing, Michigan; I saw the height of artificiality. I think the course had almost nothing to do with the land around it. It was a construct.

But it was a magnificent challenge, and fun as hell to play. Some of the best par-5's you will see. How can that be bad? Play it before being certain that 'artificial' means less.

Doug

Could it have been just as fun if it showed some respect for its setting?  Or was the artificiality the reason it was fun?