News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« on: January 18, 2008, 09:32:00 PM »
If "golf" is a game, conducted upon a field of play, with the object being, to get the ball from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible, with the architects mission being the alteration of the field of play with the intent of creating a challenge that's interesting and fun, shouldn't the features structured by the architect to thwart the golfers pursuit be primarily functional, without undo regard for form ?

If so, doesn't this make a strong case for the return of geometric architecture ?

In viewing old photos, bunkers were truely "hazards".
Many were deep.  Many were steep.  Many were narrow.

They performed their intended function ..... efficiently.

And, that was before 1931-2 when the sand wedge first came into being.

Shouldn't bunkers be functional, first and foremost ?

Did Seth Raynor and the concept of penal architecture, imported from the UK have it right, only to be ameliorated by the American quest for aesthetics at the expense of function ?

What modern day architect would dare to insert geometric features in his designs ?

Pete Dye ?

C. Squier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2008, 09:35:53 PM »
« Last Edit: January 18, 2008, 09:38:10 PM by Clint Squier »

C. Squier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2008, 09:37:42 PM »
My post would be more helpful if I knew how to post pics.....sorry :(

wsmorrison

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2008, 09:54:07 PM »
If "golf" is a game, conducted upon a field of play, with the object being, to get the ball from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible, with the architects mission being the alteration of the field of play with the intent of creating a challenge that's interesting and fun, shouldn't the features structured by the architect to thwart the golfers pursuit be primarily functional, without undo regard for form ?

Of course not


If so, doesn't this make a strong case for the return of geometric architecture ?

Why more so than any other architectural style?

In viewing old photos, bunkers were truely "hazards".
Many were deep.  Many were steep.  Many were narrow.


And, that was before 1931-2 when the sand wedge first came into being.

Shouldn't bunkers be functional, first and foremost ?

Why can't they be both?  If not, of course function should come first.  Why should they be and why do you prefer perfectly flat bottomed bunkers?  What is wrong with a variety of lies in a bunker?  Isn't that more of a hazard and a challenge?

Did Seth Raynor and the concept of penal architecture, imported from the UK have it right, only to be ameliorated by the American quest for aesthetics at the expense of function ?

I have no idea.  You must think so.  Did Seth Raynor travel to Europe to study golf architecture?  What did he originate on his own that he didn't learn from Macdonald?

What modern day architect would dare to insert geometric features in his designs ?

What is so daring about replication?

Matt Kardash

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2008, 09:54:35 PM »
I was just looking at pictures of Pga West on this website ( http://www.caddybytes.com/virtualtours/PGA%20West%20Stadium/ ) and thought a lot fo the features looked really cool. Someone just pics of Dye's course at the PGA village and i thought those lokoed really cool as well. Even though a more "natural" look is in style right now, i must admit to having a larger place in my heart for more engineered and geometric looking courses.
the interviewer asked beck how he felt "being the bob dylan of the 90's" and beck quitely responded "i actually feel more like the bon jovi of the 60's"

wsmorrison

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2008, 09:57:55 PM »
Clint,

just put "img" surrounded by brackets without the quotation marks at the front of the url and "/img"  in brackets without the quotation marks  at the end of the url.  If you right click the image and select properties, you can copy the url location.

« Last Edit: January 18, 2008, 09:59:12 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Michael Moore

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #6 on: January 18, 2008, 10:06:12 PM »
Did Seth Raynor and the concept of penal architecture, imported from the UK have it right, only to be ameliorated by the American quest for aesthetics at the expense of function ?

Pat -

"Ameliorate" means "make better", so as someone who appreciates fine aesthetics, yes, I would say that Ross and Stiles "ameliorated" some of the shortcomings of the style in question.
Metaphor is social and shares the table with the objects it intertwines and the attitudes it reconciles. Opinion, like the Michelin inspector, dines alone. - Adam Gopnik, The Table Comes First

C. Squier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #7 on: January 18, 2008, 10:17:30 PM »
Clint,

just put "img" surrounded by brackets without the quotation marks at the front of the url and "/img"  in brackets without the quotation marks  at the end of the url.  If you right click the image and select properties, you can copy the url location.



Wayne, thanks....I tried to use the regular HTML code, tried to outthink it.  

CPS

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #8 on: January 18, 2008, 10:43:57 PM »
Wayne,

I don't find that picture to be a representation of geometric architecture.

You seem focused on the features that are out of play as opposed to the ones that are in play.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #9 on: January 18, 2008, 10:49:23 PM »

Did Seth Raynor and the concept of penal architecture, imported from the UK have it right, only to be ameliorated by the American quest for aesthetics at the expense of function ?

Pat -

"Ameliorate" means "make better",

It also means to "make more TOLERABLE".
[/color]

so as someone who appreciates fine aesthetics, yes, I would say that Ross and Stiles "ameliorated" some of the shortcomings of the style in question.

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #10 on: January 18, 2008, 10:55:29 PM »
In what way have bunkers become non- or less-functional?  Can anyone offer evidence of this notion?

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #11 on: January 18, 2008, 11:00:35 PM »
Pat,

I have long believed in fairly simple fw edges and simple front edges (i.e. the fw side) to my bunkers. I have often noodled on simple tops for my greenside bunkers for reasons you describe.

With really dipsy doodle fw mow lines, the argument goes that similar misses might be punished differently, etc. I buy that, and also feel the simpler edge lines look better when properly fitted to the contours.

That said, "simple" doesn't equal "geometric" in my mind.  For one thing, IF we presume players to be working the ball left to right, or vice versa, at about a 5 degree curve, then in reality, a fw edge curved 5 degrees might offer the same challenge to different length players, no?

As to "efficiency" you can argue that mowers work as well on curves as straights these days and ovals contain less space per area enclosed by bunker as rectangles, etc.

Lastly, the rules and challenges of the game allow each field of play to be different - unique in sports to a certain degree (yes baseball parks may have different outfield configurations) so why be, excuse the pun, so rigid?

Lastly, would such strict construction of bunkers on the same angle really convince any player that has just found one that the architecture would be any more fair?  Given human nature, I doubt it!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #12 on: January 18, 2008, 11:05:59 PM »
If "golf" is a game, conducted upon a field of play, with the object being, to get the ball from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible, with the architects mission being the alteration of the field of play with the intent of creating a challenge that's interesting and fun, shouldn't the features structured by the architect to thwart the golfers pursuit be primarily functional, without undo regard for form ?

Of course not

Why shouldn't function be the primary focus ?

In a remark below you state that it is.
Why are you contradicting yourself ?
[/color]

If so, doesn't this make a strong case for the return of geometric architecture ?

Why more so than any other architectural style?

Because geometric architecture would seem to be more penal.
[/color]

In viewing old photos, bunkers were truely "hazards".
Many were deep.  Many were steep.  Many were narrow.

And, that was before 1931-2 when the sand wedge first came into being.

Shouldn't bunkers be functional, first and foremost ?

Why can't they be both?  If not, [size=4x]of course function should come first.[/size]  

Why should they be and why do you prefer perfectly flat bottomed bunkers?
 

Bunkers that rise from the low point in the bunker, toward the green, provide an intended assist in enabling the golfer to extricate himself from the bunker.   I think that configuration inherently defeats the penal purpose of the bunker by providing a "cheat", an easier way out.

In addition, from a maintainance point of view, they're far easier to maintain.  Keeping sand depth consistent, in bunkers that have sloped faces is very difficult, especially when wind and rain are prevalent.
[/color]

What is wrong with a variety of lies in a bunker?  


Balls tend to roll toward the green front of a bunker, and with bunkers that slope from the floor toward the green, the extrication shot is far easier.  Golfers end up hitting off of an upslope, which is much easier than a flat bottomed bunker.

With bunkers with sloping faces, there's little if any impediment to advancing the ball.  Flat bottomed bunkers provide more challenge, especially with steep faces.

I prefer bunkers to be more difficult, especially with the advent of the LOB Wedge.
[/color]

Isn't that more of a hazard and a challenge?



I don't believe it is.
[/color]

Did Seth Raynor and the concept of penal architecture, imported from the UK have it right, only to be ameliorated by the American quest for aesthetics at the expense of function ?

I have no idea.  You must think so.  

Did Seth Raynor travel to Europe to study golf architecture?


He didn't have to, he studied under the greatest architect of his time, one who had traveled to Europe to study.
[/color]

What did he originate on his own that he didn't learn from Macdonald?


Probably the same as Flynn with Hugh Wilson.
[/color]

What modern day architect would dare to insert geometric features in his designs ?

What is so daring about replication?

Do you see any meaningful replication today, or over the last few decades ?
If not, that should answer your question
[/color]


Patrick_Mucci

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #13 on: January 18, 2008, 11:11:36 PM »

In what way have bunkers become non- or less-functional?  Can anyone offer evidence of this notion?

David,

Do you really believe that bunkers offer the same challenge today that they did 30, 50 and 70 years ago ?

Do you think that LOB Wedges, Square grooves and the ball haven't made bunkers less effective ?

Do you think grooming bunkers to perfect specs hasn't made them easier ?

Do you think that bunkers that require ladders to enter and exit are easier than bunkers that SandPros routinely ride in and out of ?

Patrick_Mucci

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #14 on: January 18, 2008, 11:17:02 PM »
Pat,

I have long believed in fairly simple fw edges and simple front edges (i.e. the fw side) to my bunkers. I have often noodled on simple tops for my greenside bunkers for reasons you describe.

With really dipsy doodle fw mow lines, the argument goes that similar misses might be punished differently, etc. I buy that, and also feel the simpler edge lines look better when properly fitted to the contours.

That said, "simple" doesn't equal "geometric" in my mind.  For one thing, IF we presume players to be working the ball left to right, or vice versa, at about a 5 degree curve, then in reality, a fw edge curved 5 degrees might offer the same challenge to different length players, no?

As to "efficiency" you can argue that mowers work as well on curves as straights these days and ovals contain less space per area enclosed by bunker as rectangles, etc.

Lastly, the rules and challenges of the game allow each field of play to be different - unique in sports to a certain degree (yes baseball parks may have different outfield configurations) so why be, excuse the pun, so rigid?

I don't see it as rigid.
Geometric doesn't mean identical.
Geometric forms take many shapes and geometric bunkers don't have to conform to predetermined specs.
[/color]

Lastly, would such strict construction of bunkers on the same angle really convince any player that has just found one that the architecture would be any more fair?  

Why do they have to be on the same angle ?

And, "fair" is the last consideration.
[/color]

Given human nature, I doubt it!

Jeff, I'm not sure that I'm grasping what you're trying to convey.[/b][/color]

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #15 on: January 18, 2008, 11:36:28 PM »
If "golf" is a game, conducted upon a field of play, with the object being, to get the ball from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible, with the architects mission being the alteration of the field of play with the intent of creating a challenge that's interesting and fun, shouldn't the features structured by the architect to thwart the golfers pursuit be primarily functional, without undo regard for form ?

If so, doesn't this make a strong case for the return of geometric architecture ?

What is it about geometric architecture that makes it more functional than any other variety? Did the use of geometric forms arise specifically out of functional need, or was it also an aesthetic choice? Sure, the early "steeplechase" forms were likely a result of a desire for functional hazards combined perhaps with a lack of ability or knowledge to build them differently. But was that the case with Raynor, et. al?

It would be interesting to see an architect attempt to create a course using geometric forms without channeling Raynor, and without feeling the need to create shapes intended to be seen from an airplane. I'm reminded of the 11th green at Forrest Richardson's Las Palomas. Really threw me off the first time I saw it, because it confounded expectations, but it shows that there are some architects out there examining the sort of thing that Mr. Mucci is talking about, or at least examining that type of aesthetic.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2008, 11:43:29 PM by Kirk Gill »
"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2008, 11:37:13 PM »
Patrick -

All aspects of the golf course (tees, fairways, greens & bunkers) are better groomed (and in some sense easier) than they were 30-50-70 years ago. I am not sure that is a architecture issue.

This past year on the PGA Tour, only three (3!) of the top-100 players on the money list converted sand saves more than 60% of the time. That is likely the lowest that figure has been in the past 10 or more years.

More than 40 % of the top-100 converted their sand saves fewer than 50% of the time.

If bunker play is not getting easier for the best players in the world, I doubt it is getting easier for the rest of us.

DT

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2008, 12:23:44 AM »
Patrick,

Perhaps it was your reference to Pete Dye, and my conversations with him about straight lines vs curves that led me to where I went.

When you speak of function, I was thinking of placement.  After all, depth can be achieved in any shape bunkers.  

And, was imagining all those cross bunkers of early American architecture, but perhaps placing them on rigid angles to challenge all the same way, even if not at 90 degrees to play, maybe 30 or 45.  I think of angles when someone says geometric!

Generally, hazards that are placed at a similar angle, like Petes long fw strip bunkers can be said to provide the same challenge to all.

If you were merely trying to say that design should go out of its way to be ugly, I am not sure I see your point!

Its late, and I guess I am not even really sure what I'm trying to say.....I will try again tomorrow if this thread is still going and going in the same directions!

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

wsmorrison

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2008, 06:08:45 AM »
Pat,

If you consider the facts, I simply showed Clint how to post a photograph of his selection.  Nowhere did I suggest that the photo was representative of any of my own beliefs on the subject of this thread.

 

wsmorrison

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2008, 07:02:07 AM »
In a remark below you state that it is.
Why are you contradicting yourself?

I am not contradicting myself.  Your selective attention and liberal capitalization of part of my quote is the root cause of your misunderstanding.  To your question,

Shouldn't bunkers be functional, first and foremost ?

I said "Why can't they be both?  If not, of course function should come first."  You merely capitalized the last part of my quote and not the important distinction made by the "If not" part.


Your reply was, "Because geometric architecture would seem to be more penal."

Why?  Surface area?  Because Raynor liked deep bunkers with steep grass faces?  That might be true if other components of his bunkers did not subordinate the depth and the effect of modern equipment.  Perfectly flat bunker floors offer a predictable challenge that was and remains a poor design feature due to the lack of variability as well as aesthetic and playability consequences.  I asked you about this and you replied,


Bunkers that rise from the low point in the bunker, toward the green, provide an intended assist in enabling the golfer to extricate himself from the bunker.   I think that configuration inherently defeats the penal purpose of the bunker by providing a "cheat", an easier way out.

In addition, from a maintainance point of view, they're far easier to maintain.  Keeping sand depth consistent, in bunkers that have sloped faces is very difficult, especially when wind and rain are prevalent.

There are hundreds of times more irregular bunkers than there are geometric bunkers.  I think the maintenance issues have been addressed and managed quite well for the last 90 years.

Balls tend to roll toward the green front of a bunker, and with bunkers that slope from the floor toward the green, the extrication shot is far easier.  Golfers end up hitting off of an upslope, which is much easier than a flat bottomed bunker.

Steep vertical grass faces, depending upon the grassing, often hold balls and make recovery shots impossible, especially for seniors.  Balls that hit into the steep slopes tend to come to rest near the base of the slope.  Not only are the results predictable, but they are difficult to recover from.  Shorter, or wider dispersion shots are not penalized nearly so much as the closer misses.  Is that a good design philosophy in your mind?

With bunkers with sloping faces, there's little if any impediment to advancing the ball.  Flat bottomed bunkers provide more challenge, especially with steep faces.

You make one valid point about the upslope for many golfers, but that ignores the downslope and uneven lies in contoured bunker bottoms, which are far more difficult and overcome the easier upslope shot.  Almost all golfers would rather have a flat stance despite the depth of the bunkers.  You yourself mentioned the lob wedges, square grooves and balls that together compromise the depth factor.  While it is intimidating, the easy stance and equipment overcome the apparent difficulty.
 

I asked, Did Seth Raynor travel to Europe to study golf architecture? You replied,

"He didn't have to, he studied under the greatest architect of his time, one who had traveled to Europe to study."

It is arguable that Macdonald was the greatest architect of his time.  I think the work in the Heathlands prior to and contemporary with Macdonald was more original.  While many of these courses would be improved over time, Macdonald improved his course over time as well.  What about Leed's earlier work at Myopia?  Would you say this on par with Macdonald's at NGLA?  Macdonald's idea to replicate hole concepts in America was fine in the early days of American golf architecture, but holding fast to that concept is sort of anti-American if you know what I mean.  America likes to develop its own ways of doing things.  The modern golf architecture that followed allowed the sport to move into an Americanization phase that proved a boon to golf.  This is not to say that NGLA does not remain one of the world's great golf courses.  It is far less geometric than the work of Raynor and Banks.  They took Macdonald's approach to an extreme.

I asked, What did he originate on his own that he didn't learn from Macdonald?

You replied, "Probably the same as Flynn with Hugh Wilson."

That is complete speculation on your part.  What you fail to grasp is the design evolution and dedication to improved designs they made over time with foreseen improvements in golfers, balls and implements.  Wilson and Flynn practiced an American form of golf architecture with shot testing, aerial demands on some holes and aerial and ground options on others.  Flynn improved his designs over time.  His accounting for wind improved over time.  He learned to develop courses within a course with smaller subsets of holes that could be played if time was a factor to a golfer.  He learned to make reversible courses.  He learned economies in production, time management and cost accounting.  He created a new model of design iterations done on paper and not on the ground.  If not the first, he was one of the first to design accurately on paper and have the design translated exactly onto the ground.  If you overlaid his drawings on old aerials and even many modern ones, you'll see they match up perfectly.    He was an innovator constantly seeking to improve designs and techniques.  He learned various perception techniques that got players thinking more, used far more offsets and angles to demand distance and line of play options and strategic demands.  Wilson and Flynn devoted a lot of time to agronomic issues, working together to use new grass strains and planting techniques.  Their contributions to golf extended well beyond design including fostering public golf in Philadelphia and the suburbs.  Flynn also patented the basket golf standard, surely a better design than any golf standard Macdonald or Raynor designed ;D

I asked, "What is so daring about replication?"

You replied, "Do you see any meaningful replication today, or over the last few decades ?  If not, that should answer your question"

Is that the only conclusion you can draw from the evidence?
« Last Edit: January 19, 2008, 07:03:42 AM by Wayne Morrison »

TEPaul

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2008, 08:30:45 AM »
Patrick:

It is certainly possible to have deep and functional bunkers and other hazard features and at the same time make them look very natural looking.

If you don't believe me come to North Florida with me and I will show you a stretch of natural dunes and blowouts along old AiA that can do exactly that if they were well imitated on a golf course.

wsmorrison

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2008, 09:09:47 AM »
Shall we have more of this, Pat?  Let's see, we have pyramids (and triangles), rectangles and a square.  Let's put in a Banks donut mound in the center of the green, or a circular depression if you like, and then we'll have a circle as well.  We might as well have all the geometric shapes represented on one hole.  Last but not least, we'll have to dig the bunkers much deeper---but keeping sure that the margins are perfectly straight (line) and the floors laser leveled, and we simply must have grass faces on the steep banks.  Wouldn't that be great?


--An early Bendelow design, Highland CC in Indianapolis
« Last Edit: January 19, 2008, 09:10:38 AM by Wayne Morrison »

Kyle Harris

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2008, 09:31:22 AM »
I have no idea.  You must think so.  Did Seth Raynor travel to Europe to study golf architecture?  What did he originate on his own that he didn't learn from Macdonald?

The Raynor Prize Dogleg, for starters.

Wayne, I think your Bendelow example is just a strawman...

It would be quite nice to have a few more Mountain Lakes about.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2008, 09:32:08 AM by Kyle Harris »

wsmorrison

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2008, 10:21:51 AM »
Kyle,

Do you think Raynor invented the design concept?  Or did he combine features from other designers' concepts from the entries of the Country Life magazine contest?  Likewise, he would go on to combine features of templates in his designs.

My Bendelow example is one of humor to make a point and not a strawman example based on a fallacy.  Pat is calling for a return to geometric architecture.  How far back should he return?

What is wrong with one Mountain Lake?  You want to see more of them about?  Do you think Mountain Lake members want to see  a few more of their courses replicated?   There already are concept copies of many of their holes about.  
« Last Edit: January 19, 2008, 10:23:23 AM by Wayne Morrison »

Kyle Harris

Re:The case for the return of Geometric Architecture
« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2008, 10:29:19 AM »
Kyle,

Do you think Raynor invented the design concept?  Or did he combine features from other designers' concepts from the entries of the Country Life magazine contest?  Likewise, he would go on to combine features of templates in his designs.

My Bendelow example is one of humor to make a point and not a strawman example based on a fallacy.  Pat is calling for a return to geometric architecture.  How far back should he return?

What is wrong with one Mountain Lake?  You want to see more of them about?  Do you think Mountain Lake members want to see  a few more of their courses replicated?   There already are concept copies of many of their holes about.  

Design style Wayne, not the golf course. Please. The implementation of a lot of the geometric features at Mountain Lake and the spirit of their use is what is to be replicated - not the holes themselves.

Strawman? Absurdist argument? Not advancing the discussion much regardless of what it is - there's something to be said for the use of geometric features and there is a beauty in the straight line on a golf course, especially as it pertains to tying two features together.

2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 13, and 14 are all original holes at Mountain Lake not based on any templates.

As for the Raynor Prize Dogleg, what design concepts did he combine, and which architects were the first to use them?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back