The case for the return of Geometric Architecture

[Steve Lang]

  Pat,

What is your definition of "geometric" architecture?

I note a definition of geometric distribution which may be instructive to some:

Describes the number of trials up to and including the first success, in independent trials with the same probability of success
arkedu.state.ar.us/curriculum/word_files/statistics.doc

Your implied historical perspective or "opinion" is that really, one should be brought back to all styles... why have you singled out "geometric" architecture?

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

I don't buy that.
Could you cite some courses in the Northeast where DEEP bunkers look very natural ?

"Bunkers" on inland courses are inherently unnatural, unless you're in the Sand Hills.[/color]

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.

In most cases, once you take those bunkers deep, they lose the "natural" look.

Having one or two unique locations where bunkers might occur naturally, like Sand Hills or the Coast, doesn't address the vast majority of golf courses and the installation of bunkers on those sites.

Winged Foot, Merion, Baltusrol, Plainfield, Oak Hill, Somerset Hills and many, many more courses don't have naturally occuring or very natural looking bunkers.

And for those that posture that the bunkers fit the land, that's a lot of nonsense as well.  As if the land, 250 yards removed from the tee, is suddenly receptive and conducive to the installation of bunkers flanking the fairway.

I suspect that most are deceived by the insertion of the unnatural bunkers.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Shall we have more of this, Pat?  

I happen to like geometric architecture.

I think it's grounded in history, a combination of military and
equestrian culture.  DEFENSES, if you will, to thwart the golfer.[/color]

Let's see, we have pyramids (and triangles), rectangles and a square.  

I don't have a problem with that.

I like moatlike bunkers and trenches that have to be carried.
I like elevated, fortress like greens that have to be stormed.
I like the severe nature of the hazards, their vertical demands.[/color]

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.  

I like the donut or horseshoe shaped contour within the putting surface, I think it places great strategic emphasis on the approach, recovery and putt.  It gives a green character.[/color]

We might as well have all the geometric shapes represented on one hole.  

You're resorting to extremes .... this is the sign of a desperate man. [/color]

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?

It's worked EXCEPTIONALLY well at Garden City for the past 100 + years, I don't see why it wouldn't work well elsewhere.[/color]

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

Is this a Northeast issue now?

Please.....variety......

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle Harris,

You have to remember that Wayno has a "thing" against Raynor.  He just can't give him his due.

He bristles at the thought of Raynor courses being ranked in the top 100.

The fact that Raynor's designs have survived and have remained so popular, so well regarded over all of these years is disturbing to the Flynnophile.

[Lloyd_Cole]

I've never been here, but it was mentioned in another thread recently. I wonder what you all think of this look?
I think it has a certain maybe cubist charm. I love that the cart path isn't curved.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Is this a Northeast issue now?

Please.....variety......


Joe,

TEPaul's familiarity with golf courses is confined, like he is, to the area immediately surrounding HappyDale Farms.  Normally, that means within the fence line.  

He's also familiar with Fernandina Beach municipal course in Florida, where he's been captured after several brief escape attempts.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lloyd Cole,

That's not my definition, nor is it an example of the geometric architecture I'm referencing.

[TEPaul]

"I don't buy that.
Could you cite some courses in the Northeast where DEEP bunkers look very natural?"

Patrick:

Are you kidding?

Of course I can cite you some courses in the Northeast where deep bunkers look natural or certainly more natural looking than Raynor bunkers and certainly more natural than that truly geometric stuff. That's basically the point here or Wayne's point. If you're trying to say that those bunkers on other courses look so natural that a good architectural eye wouldn't know they were made, that's another matter.

Again, Wayne's question is why Raynor never tried to make his bunkers looks as natural as others of his contemporaries did.

Most of the courses in this area for starters have them, not everywhere for obvious reasons but certainly on some holes on courses that have good topography.

Those deep bunkers are generally found on the low sides of holes, particularly greens, on those courses where greens and such are on natural grade slopes and many of the old courses around here have them. In some cases I'm talking 10-12 plus feet deep to clear that tops of them. For example, the height to clear the top of the bunker to the right of Park's #9 green at Maidstone just may be as high and steep as I've ever seen. I was always a good bunker player who had a 60 degree wedge way back and even I sometimes struggled to get the ball over that one.

Obviously anyone with an architectural eye could tell that the greens on some of those natural slopes are generally leveled into the natural fall and this essentially creates that bunker depth but the point is due to a number of aesthetic factors those bunkers were intentionally made to look more natural than Raynor bunkers of the same ilk.

And don't try to give me some BS excuse that this isn't true because it just is true and anyone with have an architectural eye can recognize it.

Again, it's not a question of how natural some of these bunkers look, it's a question of how much more natural they look compared to comparable Raynor bunkers or bunkers that were apparently built to look engineered or even geometric!

But, hey, just remember, I'm not Wayne and I'm not saying I hate the engineered look but I'm not saying I really love it either like I generally do a far more naturalized look in architecture. As for the true geometric look of some of those late 19th and early 20th century courses that stuff is more of a curiosity in the evolution of golf course architecture to me.

If you love or even like that truly geometric look, you can have it pal----it's a "Big World" out there in golf and architecture and there really is room in it for everyone!  

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

Is this a Northeast issue now?

Please.....variety......


Joe,

TEPaul's familiarity with golf courses is confined, like he is, to the area immediately surrounding HappyDale Farms.  Normally, that means within the fence line.  

He's also familiar with Fernandina Beach municipal course in Florida, where he's been captured after several brief escape attempts.[/color]

Pat,

Isn't it true that TEPaul has had plenty of variety in other facets of his life? I would guess some of that variety in his life even occured at FB Muni GC.....

Joe

[TEPaul]

I've got to say that I'm sure not a guy who has just sought out a lot of courses in my career in golf as so many on here have and for which I admire them all, and their reasons and interest in doing it.

Nevertheless, because of some of the things I've been involved in with golf for the last 25 plus years seeing a lot of golf courses was basically unavoidable.

I'm pretty sure I've probably seen more golf courses than most on this website and it isn't even because I'm old. Any of those who know me can confirm this.

But from here on out if I never leave Happydale Farm (Featherfield Farm) again I don't believe I will die a completely unhappy man.

I've had a very good life and a very good and fortunate life in golf and I will be the very first to recognize that, admit it and give plenty of thanks for it.

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd Cole,

That's not my definition, nor is it an example of the geometric architecture I'm referencing.

Patrick,

If you don't want slight tangents then there is no need to respond. However this is a geometrical design, obviously not from the MacRaySteamshovel school, and this discussion has been dealing with the look of the features, as well as the look of versus their function.

Here we have a modern geometrical design which is not penal. I often find the purely fuctional geomtric designs ugly to my eye. This, on the other hand, has an aesthetic applied to the design which is not purely functional. I quite enjoy looking at it. It is geometric for the sake of it, as far as I can see. Art for art's sake.

[Kyle Harris]

Lloyd Cole,

That's not my definition, nor is it an example of the geometric architecture I'm referencing.

Patrick,

If you don't want slight tangents then there is no need to respond. However this is a geometrical design, obviously not from the MacRaySteamshovel school, and this discussion has been dealing with the look of the features, as well as the look of versus their function.

Here we have a modern geometrical design which is not penal. I often find the purely fuctional geomtric designs ugly to my eye. This, on the other hand, has an aesthetic applied to the design which is not purely functional. I quite enjoy looking at it. It is geometric for the sake of it, as far as I can see. Art for art's sake.

Lloyd,

Which course is that? Are there any ground level shots? I've always been curious by it.

[wsmorrison]

You have to remember that Wayno has a "thing" against Raynor.  He just can't give him his due.

I am simply stating that Raynor and Banks present an interesting period of architecture in America.  It is unique and very well liked by many.  OK, I am not a big fan of it.  But I don't have a thing against Raynor.  I have a different opinion about his work as far as redundancy, the way it looks and, in the case of the perfectly flat bunkers and steep slopes, their relative penalties and playability as well.

He bristles at the thought of Raynor courses being ranked in the top 100.

I could care less about rankings.  That should be very clear by now.  I haven't played Fisher's Island as yet.  That course has a real chance to impress me.

The fact that Raynor's designs have survived and have remained so popular, so well regarded over all of these years is disturbing to the Flynnophile.

No, not at all.  I don't care what other people think about different architects.  A lot of it comes down to subjective decisions and it doesn't matter to me if Flynn is considered one of the greatest architects or not.  I do think historical perspective and an objective analysis is merited.  When it comes to Raynor, it seems that the wagons get circled when any criticism is presented.  It becomes a Philadelphia thing.  Or a Flynnophile thing.  Why can't it be my personal opinion in contrast to your own and leave it at that?  However, there are some real points of discussion here.  Some of your arguments are quite weak.

Winged Foot, Merion, Baltusrol, Plainfield, Oak Hill, Somerset Hills and many, many more courses don't have naturally occuring or very natural looking bunkers.

I have got to take you by the hand and learn you some new lessons.  We'll see if we can teach an old dog some new tricks  

[Lloyd_Cole]

Lloyd Cole,

That's not my definition, nor is it an example of the geometric architecture I'm referencing.

Patrick,

If you don't want slight tangents then there is no need to respond. However this is a geometrical design, obviously not from the MacRaySteamshovel school, and this discussion has been dealing with the look of the features, as well as the look of versus their function.

Here we have a modern geometrical design which is not penal. I often find the purely fuctional geomtric designs ugly to my eye. This, on the other hand, has an aesthetic applied to the design which is not purely functional. I quite enjoy looking at it. It is geometric for the sake of it, as far as I can see. Art for art's sake.

Lloyd,

Which course is that? Are there any ground level shots? I've always been curious by it.

Kyle

I've only seen that photo!
Someone referenced it in another thread.
It is Palmetto Hall Plantation's 18-hole Robert Cupp Course in Hilton Head.
I'd go see it if I was ever in Hilton Head again, however, that is unlikely.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lloyd Cole,

You can have your own definition/understanding of what comprises geometric architecture, and start your own thread on the subject, but the picture you posted doesn't fit the geometric architecture I was referencing.  And, since I started this thread, I'm the one best qualified to context what I was referencing.

I'm also not so sure that a direct overhead aerial or views from the golfers eye would confirm your categorization of the hole pictured as being "geometric" under even your definition.

Wayno,

I'm always willing to learn.
Are you ?

[Greg Murphy]

If golf courses are nothing more than a field of play to move a ball from A to B in as few strokes as possible, the Grand Canyon is nothing more than a big hole in the ground.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Greg,

Try reading the rest of the quote.

Your analogy is fatally flawed.
It's a trench, not a hole.

How would you describe the game of "golf" ?

[John Moore II]

I agree with the notion of geometric architecture, at least to the extent that I understand what is meant by it. If we are talking about more bunkers of the type seen on Scottish links courses, I would enjoy seeing that on a course built today. Just not to the extent that Fazio used them at Pinehurst #4. I would also like to see the rectangular cross bunkers that I have seen in many images posted here.
Pat-I like the quote about elevated greens being like fortreses to storm. But in many ways, don't elevated greens eliminate the ability to have cross bunkers short of the green and the ability of the player to play a run up shot? Not that I don't like elevated greens, just asking the question.
--I think that often times today, architects, lesser known ones anyway, use generic bunkering simply in order to have a bunker on a hole. When in doubt, a kidney shaped bunker next to the green is always OK, I guess. It certainly would be far better to see a few deep pot bunkers here and there though.

[Lloyd_Cole]

LAnd, since I started this thread, I'm the one best qualified to context what I was referencing.

Pat

You do this type of thing again and again and this certainly isn't your worst offense. You start a thread to talk about an idea you have, the idea is so well formed in your head that you forget to explain the whole thing to the rest of us. You start with a fairly open sounding intial post, and then when the conversation goes in directions or tangents that you don't expect, or don't care for (like today) you cry foul, and you gradually narrow the context until it matches your mindset.

The logic of my tangent was that is would be possible for someone who found the MacRaynor functional design distasteful to the eye to find other geometrical designs pleasing to the eye, so that it is not necessarily the geometrical aspect of the design that is offensive.

Sorry to have to explain this to you. I thought it was obvious. Tangents are natural and often rewarding in open conversation. Get your own thread is not an acceptable, or workable respsonse.

Let me make this clear, in these threads I refer to I'm sure you feel that certain folk aren't getting in and that you're wasting your time having to narrow the focus. You could look at it that way. You could also consider that it might in fact be you who is wasting the time of those of us who cannot consistently read your mind.

You are dearly loved here but you are not the sheriff.

I almost forgot this

[Patrick_Mucci]

LAnd, since I started this thread, I'm the one best qualified to context what I was referencing.

You do this type of thing again and again and this certainly isn't your worst offense.

Lloyd, you do this type of thing again and again, you divert and/or attempt to dilute my threads.

In your own words, you admited that you were taking the thread on a tangent.[/color]

You start a thread to talk about an idea you have, the idea is so well formed in your head that you forget to explain the whole thing to the rest of us.

I don't have the time to type a treatise for the obtuse.

Wayne and others new exactly what I meant.
I suspect you did to, especiallyAFTER Wayne posted the picture of Bendelow's work.[/color]

You start with a fairly open sounding intial post, and then when the conversation goes in directions or tangents that you don't expect, or don't care for (like today) you cry foul, and you gradually narrow the context until it matches your mindset.

It's not crying foul, it's trying to keep the thread on topic and not have it go off on tangents, which is what you continually try to do.[/color]

The logic of my tangent was that is would be possible for someone who found the MacRaynor functional design distasteful to the eye to find other geometrical designs pleasing to the eye, so that it is not necessarily the geometrical aspect of the design that is offensive.

From the perspective of an angular aerial, of a golf hole you've never seen [size=4x] ?[/size]  A view that NO golfer will ever see while playing the hole.  If someone finds MacRaynor's functional designs distasteful, they usually do so based on walking or playing the course, not from a balloon ride.

Who are you trying to kid ?


Sorry to have to explain this to you. I thought it was obvious. Tangents are natural and often rewarding in open conversation.

Let's see, you've never walked the hole pictured, let alone played it, yet, your insisting that an aerial view is so representative of what the "golfer" sees, that he'd label those fairway/rough shapes as geometric architecture.  That's some leap of faith/ignorance.[/color]

Get your own thread is not an acceptable, or workable respsonse.

Your response is neither fact based nor founded on a personal observation of the actual hole.  I'd call that an unfounded/unworkable response.[/color]

Let me make this clear, in these threads I refer to I'm sure you feel that certain folk aren't getting in and that you're wasting your time having to narrow the focus. You could look at it that way. You could also consider that it might in fact be you who is wasting the time of those of us who cannot consistently read your mind.

You can categorize your being obtuse any way you want.[/color]

You are dearly loved here but you are not the sheriff.

Lloyd, what is the "title" of this thread ?

A "return" to .....

Would you say that the features represented in the angular aerial you posted, are something commonly found in the style of architecture deemed, "geometric" ?

No, they're not.
You were going off on a tangent that I felt would divert and dilute the thread, hence, my response.  I was trying to get to a specific point in terms of the challenge offered today, by today's features, versus the challenge offered decades ago, when equipment was less adept at extricating balls from hazards, and your example doesn't address the theme.
It detracts from and diverts it.
[/color]

I almost forgot this


Ditto  

Now let's get back to geometric architecture as Wayno understands it.[/color]

Wayno,

Why are you so opposed to flat bottomed bunkers when they present more of a challenge than bunkers sloped up toward the green ?

[John Moore II]

I would have to say that from the air, the picture with the angluar fairway mounding seems to be geometric architecture. From the ground I would not know, but it would at least look unique. I would enjoy seeing sharpness and smallness on golf courses though. Square greens, angular fairways, cylindric bunkers. I think that things like that could really work to set a course apart in its market.

[Lloyd_Cole]

LAnd, since I started this thread, I'm the one best qualified to context what I was referencing.

You do this type of thing again and again and this certainly isn't your worst offense.

Lloyd, you do this type of thing again and again, you divert and/or attempt to dilute my threads.[/color]


Actually I was trying to make it less one dimensional. If you start a thread with a premise, ask for discussion but all you really want is for your idea to be accepted or refuted it can make for a dull read. What did you expect with your gambit on this one? That Wayne would say - Oh, now I see? [/color]

In your own words, you admited that you were taking the thread on a tangent.[/color]
 

Some of the most interesting reading has been from tangents. The most interesting discussion I've ever been involved in on this site was just on a tangent off of a tangent. You want to discourage this? [/color]

You start a thread to talk about an idea you have, the idea is so well formed in your head that you forget to explain the whole thing to the rest of us.

I don't have the time to type a treatise for the obtuse.

Wayne and others new exactly what I meant.
I suspect you did to, especiallyAFTER Wayne posted the picture of Bendelow's work.[/color]

See above. [/color]

You start with a fairly open sounding intial post, and then when the conversation goes in directions or tangents that you don't expect, or don't care for (like today) you cry foul, and you gradually narrow the context until it matches your mindset.

It's not crying foul, it's trying to keep the thread on topic and not have it go off on tangents, which is what you continually try to do.[/color]

The logic of my tangent was that is would be possible for someone who found the MacRaynor functional design distasteful to the eye to find other geometrical designs pleasing to the eye, so that it is not necessarily the geometrical aspect of the design that is offensive.

From the perspective of an angular aerial, of a golf hole you've never seen [size=4x] ?[/size]  A view that NO golfer will ever see while playing the hole.  If someone finds MacRaynor's functional designs distasteful, they usually do so based on walking or playing the course, not from a balloon ride.

Who are you trying to kid ?


I'm not trying to kid anyone. You don't need to be a genius to see that this architecture I reference is some kind of geometric design. There is  absolutely no need to go to Hilton Head to check this. You've made this argument in the past - that one must have seen a course in person to comment on it. It's not always the case. But you always fall back on the argument. It makes you look lazy.[/color]

Sorry to have to explain this to you. I thought it was obvious. Tangents are natural and often rewarding in open conversation.

Let's see, you've never walked the hole pictured, let alone played it, yet, your insisting that an aerial view is so representative of what the "golfer" sees, that he'd label those fairway/rough shapes as geometric architecture.  That's some leap of faith/ignorance.[/color]

Get your own thread is not an acceptable, or workable respsonse.

Your response is neither fact based nor founded on a personal observation of the actual hole.  I'd call that an unfounded/unworkable response.[/color]

Of course you would.
[/color]

Let me make this clear, in these threads I refer to I'm sure you feel that certain folk aren't getting in and that you're wasting your time having to narrow the focus. You could look at it that way. You could also consider that it might in fact be you who is wasting the time of those of us who cannot consistently read your mind.

You can categorize your being obtuse any way you want.[/color]

You are dearly loved here but you are not the sheriff.

Lloyd, what is the "title" of this thread ?

A "return" to .....

Would you say that the features represented in the angular aerial you posted, are something commonly found in the style of architecture deemed, "geometric" ?

No, they're not.
You were going off on a tangent that I felt would divert and dilute the thread, hence, my response.  [/color]


You were playing sheriff again. If you'd like me to not read any of your threads anymore, I guess I could do that. But if you want me to read them, as I do, you should accept that I might come up with something worth considering now and then. Even if you don't, some do. You bring a unique voice and body of knowledge to the site, so do I (albeit my body of knowledge is smaller). If you don't think my comments are worthy, ignore them. That's what I've started doing in similar circumstances.
[/color]

I was trying to get to a specific point in terms of the challenge offered today, by today's features, versus the challenge offered decades ago, when equipment was less adept at extricating balls from hazards, and your example doesn't address the theme.
It detracts from and diverts it.
[/color]

I almost forgot this


Ditto  
[/color]

How do you do this colour switching thing without it taking all night. Are you an ace typist or do you have scripts for the tags?[/color]

Now let's get back to geometric architecture as Wayno understands it.[/color]

Wayno,

Why are you so opposed to flat bottomed bunkers when they present more of a challenge than bunkers sloped up toward the green ?

[wsmorrison]

In this case, I think Lloyd presents a very slight tangent, yet an interesting one close enough to the original subject that merits inclusion and response.  Of course there are some threads that go off on related tangents can result in off topic areas that should be discouraged on the initial thread or encouraged on another thread.  The ones that go off on unrelated tangents (and I've been guilty of this) should be discouraged.  Who determines what should be discouraged?  The group, by its response.

"Wayno,

Why are you so opposed to flat bottomed bunkers when they present more of a challenge than bunkers sloped up toward the green?"

I thought I explained myself pretty well on this subject.  But here goes:

Because they look unnatural and rather UGLY.  They have predictable and uniform results, and on the whole present much less of a challenge than bunkers with an undulated floor and a variety of slopes, including downslopes and sideslopes which usually result in a poorer shot than a near miss resulting on an upslope.  I like that penalty model better than the flat bunker where all shots have an equal result, except the near miss that hits the steep grassy bank and comes to rest at the base of a steep slope or depending upon the grass and maintenance, staying on the steep grassy slope.  both poor results for a slightly marginal shot.

I wouldn't just consider the upslope towards the green as you seem to do.  Yet, you are an exceptionally good golfer and may not consider that upslopes are not easy for everyone.  The same upslope stance that benefits the better golfer is uneasy for the typical golfer, who often hits it fat or tries to scoop it and hits it short.  They would much rather have a flat lie, even with a deeper bunker.  With today's balls, 60 and 64* wedges and square grooves, that shot isn't nearly as difficult from a perfectly unnatural flat lie.  Put golfers in a awkward stance, even uphill and the majority of golfers have difficulties.  Remember, that upslopes tend to have variations in the amount of sand adding to the difficulty.  When there is too much sand, it is usually too hard for the average player.  

Variability, iffiness and luck--both good and bad, should be introduced and not discouraged in design.  The boring geometric look of straight lines, perfectly flat bunker floors and predictable recovery shots in Raynor and Banks systematic bunker designs are nothing more than satisfactory.

Pat,

I get no kick from Raynor bunkers
Mere laser-flat floor doesn't thrill me at all
So tell me why should it be true
But I still get a kick out of you  

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I get no kick from Raynor bunkers
Mere laser-flat floor doesn't thrill me at all
So tell me why should it be true
But I still get a kick out of you  

Oh, the cacophony!!!!!