[TEPaul]

Wayne Morrison has done the seemingly impossible---eg he's begun to highly naturalize the engineered look of the "National School" of architecture via Photoshop!

Phil Benedict wanted to start a thread called "Why Golfers love the engineered look of Macdonald/Raynor architecture?"

This mechanism just could be one of the most important photographic and visual comparisons we could ever come up with on here that might lead many more people to see why it is specifically that they like the National School and its engineered look, or of course don't like its look.

Just look at that photoshop redesign on post #35. The overall flow of the top-lines and the grades minus those geometric bunker shapes makes that hole look pretty natural to me (and about a 100 times more natural than the actual hole with its bunkers) particularly given the scale of those architectural lines against the rest of the setting.

And consider the cost savings, not to mention I can tell you right now, that playing that Mountain Lake Redan the way Wayne photoshop redesigned it last night would be a very cool "gravity golf" experience, in my opinion. The basic idea of "gravity" golf is one of the most natural things golf can be and the look of "gravity" golf is almost always inherently so much more natural looking too.

Way to go Wayno! You never thought you'd get in golf course architecture this way, did you?  

Let the discussion and debate and controversy begin! I'm betting it may result in one of the most edifying things ever done on this website!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Check out reply # 34 on "topography and templates"

Here's the last sentence in reply # 34.

Evidently, TE's forgotten how the elimination of the bunkers in the photo of # 11 green at ML came into being.


To state that the hole doesn't fit into the natural lay of the land is to deny the very nature of the land.

There's complete harmony, which may be disrupted by the stark appearance of the bunkers.

If the bunkers weren't there, you'd NEVER question the fit.
[size=4x]
If someone skilled in photographic doctoring can remove the bunkers and replace them with grade grass, you'll see what I mean.[/size]

TE, you have so much to learn, and I can only devote so much time to your education, especially at the low custodial fees I'm being paid.

[JESII]

Tom,

Assuming I have the definition of "gravity golf" pretty close it would seem to be at least as much a maintenance issue as an architectural issue.

If HVCC were kept soft and slow with 2 inch grass from wall to wall, gravity wouldn't play much of a role at all...and if we shaved it at a quarter inch from wall to wall and kept the current, very firm, maintenance program the course would be nearly unplayable because of gravity...the architecture (tees, greens and hazard placement) remaining unchanged in either scenario...

Why is it that good "gravity golf" courses would appear more natural than bad ones?

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

That top line of the green is hiding a lot. So much so that I used to sit back there and hide from the tee and view of the rest of the course to send a text with my cell phone.

Here's a view of where the cart path begins to wrap around behind the green. That green is built up significantly on the right side and is only really sitting naturally upon the land toward the back.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

My God are you dense.

There are many factors about golf holes and their features that can make them artifical and engineered looking and that can make them look like they don't harmonize well with the natural lay of the land.

In the case of the 11th at Mountain Lake Wayne has shown with Photoshop that a whole lot of that is the style and shape of the surrounding bunkers. For some reason you still seem to think the hole looks like it harmonizes beautifully with what's around it even WITH those geometric bunkers. Who the hell knows, you may even be laboring under the impression those bunkers ARE essentially natural landformations!  

Be that as it may, there is no question at all that anyone with a good eye for architecture (something obviously you just don't have) can quite easily see that parts of the green itself were totally created by adding fill on top of what once were natural grades. I believe Kyle Harris did an excellent job last night using lines on the photo where that was done. Furthermore anyone with a good eye can see where that fill came from, even if sans those geometric bunkers the over-all look does harmonize better with all that's around it than it does with those bunkers as part of the setting.

Patrick, you are basically hopeless. If someone gives you a 2 AND another 2 and asks you what that gets the best you can seem to come up with is; "Well, it gets you two 2s". One of these days you just may come to realize it can and does get to 4!  

[TEPaul]

"Why is it that good "gravity golf" courses would appear more natural than bad ones?"

Sully:

Just look at Wayne's Photoshop of ML's #11 compared to the photo of the way the hole is.

As far as maintaining the left side of that hole the way Wayne has it, that would not be hard at all, and it most certainly could be made to be cut at about a half inch. That way the left side would be basically like a false front falloff. If the playability on the green was too serve next to it the left side of the green could be made to be fairly flat or even to roll up a bit before going down over the left side. Drainage could be dealt with on either end.

[TEPaul]

"Here's a view of where the cart path begins to wrap around behind the green. That green is built up significantly on the right side and is only really sitting naturally upon the land toward the back."

Kyle:

Yes sir, I certainly see that and have since it was rebuilt. Patrick, on the other hand, is under the impression the whole thing is nothing more than a natural pre-existing landform. I'm mean, honestly, can you believe anyone is that blind? And not just blind, when the obvious truth is pointed out to him he just automatically denies it and continues to say it's a natural landform.

Hey, Kyle, you see those birds in your photo? The last one is actually Pat Mucci.

[JESII]

Tom,

I am all for creating holes with as few bunkers as possible...we even went through this exercise for HVCC a month or two ago (you and I, not anyone at HVCC)...but Wayne's image does not make the hole look more interesting, challenging, strategic, attractive, difficult or any other positive adjective we might come up with than the undoctored image of the hole.

For starters, the grade across the front of that gree does not seem steep enough to carry a ball very far away from the green if it were half inch bermuda grass...if I am correct, you've got a pretty bland hole with all of the lateral challenge eliminated (ie: no specific penalty for erring on one side or the other).

But...I've never been to Mountain Lake so I cannot say for sure...

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I am all for creating holes with as few bunkers as possible...we even went through this exercise for HVCC a month or two ago (you and I, not anyone at HVCC)...but Wayne's image does not make the hole look more interesting, challenging, strategic, attractive, difficult or any other positive adjective we might come up with than the undoctored image of the hole.

For starters, the grade across the front of that gree does not seem steep enough to carry a ball very far away from the green if it were half inch bermuda grass...if I am correct, you've got a pretty bland hole with all of the lateral challenge eliminated (ie: no specific penalty for erring on one side or the other).

But...I've never been to Mountain Lake so I cannot say for sure...

Jim,

The grade of the green is hardly enough to make the hole play like a Redan. The putt from the front of the green to the back of the green is much slower than anyone thinks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

My God are you dense.

There are many factors about golf holes and their features that can make them artifical and engineered looking and that can make them look like they don't harmonize well with the natural lay of the land.

In the case of the 11th at Mountain Lake Wayne has shown with Photoshop that a whole lot of that is the style and shape of the surrounding bunkers. For some reason you still seem to think the hole looks like it harmonizes beautifully with what's around it even WITH those geometric bunkers. Who the hell knows, you may even be laboring under the impression those bunkers ARE essentially natural landformations!  

TE, you're missing the point again.
I was the one who stated that it WAS the bunkers that were causing you, Wayno and others to state that the green wasn't shelfed into that hollow "naturally"

Kyle's photo of you chasing another bird shows the natural terrain surrounding the green.

I stated that the the green is constructed on that shelf.

How can you not see that the hole fits into that natural niche ?

It's a perfect blend of a Raynor downhill Redan green in a natural environment for that hole, not unlike the Redan at Sleepy Hollow.[/color]

Be that as it may, there is no question at all that anyone with a good eye for architecture (something obviously you just don't have) can quite easily see that parts of the green itself were totally created by adding fill on top of what once were natural grades.


You must have a reading disorder.

I stated from the begining that the green was constructed, but, that it fit perfectly in that little hollow.

Where are you getting the idea that I said that the green wasn't constructed ?

You've made a wild assertion absent a shred of fact or evidence.

Please show me where I stated that the green wasn't constructed.[/color]

I believe Kyle Harris did an excellent job last night using lines on the photo where that was done. Furthermore anyone with a good eye can see where that fill came from,

Baloney, the fill could have come from a variety of sources, near, intermediate and far, the most likely is that the fill came from the bunker area, creating the sharp elevation change between bunker floor and putting surface.[/color]

even if sans those geometric bunkers the over-all look does harmonize better with all that's around it than it does with those bunkers as part of the setting.

I stated that in an earlier reply.
Evidently, you missed it.

What you and Wayno fail to understand is that it's the sharp bunker lines that define the hole in terms of risk/reward, difficulty, challenge and fun.

Absent those bunkers, the hole is far, far more benign.

It becomes neutered, lacking tactical alternatives.

Raynor got it right, you and Wayno are all wet[/color]

Patrick, you are basically hopeless. If someone gives you a 2 AND another 2 and asks you what that gets the best you can seem to come up with is; "Well, it gets you two 2s". One of these days you just may come to realize it can and does get to 4!  

This is too advanced for you, but, the answer to your question depends upon what set theory you're using.

If you're using a set theory with base of 10, then, 4 would be your answer, but, what if you were using a set theory with a base of 6 or 8 ? ?  ?  Then what would the answer be ?  ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Here's a view of where the cart path begins to wrap around behind the green. That green is built up significantly on the right side and is only really sitting naturally upon the land toward the back."

Kyle:

Yes sir, I certainly see that and have since it was rebuilt. Patrick, on the other hand, is under the impression the whole thing is nothing more than a natural pre-existing landform.


TE, that's totally untrue.
That's your dillusional interpretation.
Why don't you reread what I wrote, then have someone read it to you and explain what I said, since your reading comprehension skills have flown the coop with Coorshaw.[/color]

I'm mean, honestly, can you believe anyone is that blind? And not just blind, when the obvious truth is pointed out to him he just automatically denies it and continues to say it's a natural landform.

I never said that the GREEN was a natural land form, only that the surrounding area was a natural hollow with the green shelfed into it.

Please keep to what I post, not to what you imagine.[/color]

Hey, Kyle, you see those birds in your photo? The last one is actually Pat Mucci.

I'm much taller than that, have better looking legs and have better taste in women. [/color]

[Kyle Harris]

Pat,

No shelf I know of is shaped like a volcano. The only shelf like fill on the green is the front left portion that integrates the bunker and the approach.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle Harris,

The raised rear of the green serves as a backstop and can be invaluable in playing a recovery shot.

The orientation of the green doesn't lend itself to the typical Redan "feed", but, the raised rear can function well when hitting recoveries from the deep, blind front bunker, or for bail-outs far right when the hole is cut far left.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle Harris,

The raised rear of the green serves as a backstop and can be invaluable in playing a recovery shot.

The orientation of the green doesn't lend itself to the typical Redan "feed", but, the raised rear can function well when hitting recoveries from the deep, blind front bunker, or for bail-outs far right when the hole is cut far left.

I actually saw the front hole location aced by the assistant pro by hitting that very shot. His ball landed near the peak of the of green and trundled slow down into the hole.

Rarely does Yuengling taste so sweet.

That being said, the green doesn't run too steeply toward the low point and the raised rear becomes non-existent the deeper one gets on the green.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle,

Take another look at both pictures and then tell me that the green isn't shelfed into that hollow.

[Kyle Harris]

That's a lot of modification to the surrounds for a natural green.

[JESII]

Any chance this will turn into a normal conversation today?

Is the bunkerless image in any way better than the real image?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kyle,

You're getting as dense as TEPaul,

I stated, time and time again that the green was CONSTRUCTED in a natural hollow and that it fits perfectly in that hollow, visually and from the perspective of playability.

I NEVER stated that the green was found in its natural state.

I repeated, over and over again that the green was constructed.

Why do and that idiot-savant continue to insist that I said that the green wasn't constructed ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Any chance this will turn into a normal conversation today?

Is the bunkerless image in any way better than the real image?

Not in a million years.

Unless, you want to remove the strategic elements in the hole.

Without the bunkers it's a mundane, plain vanilla top shot.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle,

You're getting as dense as TEPaul,

I stated, time and time again that the green was CONSTRUCTED in a natural hollow and that it fits perfectly in that hollow, visually and from the perspective of playability.

I NEVER stated that the green was found in its natural state.

I repeated, over and over again that the green was constructed.

Why do and that idiot-savant continue to insist that I said that the green wasn't constructed ?

This is why:

One of the things I liked about the hole was how the green fit into the shelf/bowl.

It's a template, but a template in perfect harmony with surrounding terrain.

In other words the template had been modified to fit/blend into the topography.


Kinda sucks when someone assumes what you meant and doesn't ask for clarification doesn't it?

Pity I don't have $10,000 to waste on such piddling affairs like my ego.

 

[JESII]

Pat,

I fearfully ask...was "not in a million years" an answer to my first question? Or my second?  

[TEPaul]

"TE, you're missing the point again.
I was the one who stated that it WAS the bunkers that were causing you, Wayno and others to state that the green wasn't shelfed into that hollow "naturally""

Patrick:

Well, good for you. I didn't even read that post of yours. Go ahead and take credit for Wayne's Photoshop work then.

Removing those bunkers and photoshoping that setting does make the thing look a lot more natural to me but nevertheless I am under no misconception that the green and some of the grades it has ARE natural grades as you apparently are!

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TE, you're missing the point again.
I was the one who stated that it WAS the bunkers that were causing you, Wayno and others to state that the green wasn't shelfed into that hollow "naturally""

Patrick:

Well, good for you. I didn't even read that post of yours. Go ahead and take credit for Wayne's Photoshop work then.

Removing those bunkers and photoshoping that setting does make the thing look a lot more natural to me

That's what I was trying to convey, that it was the bunkers that created the non-natural appearance, not the green[/color]

but nevertheless I am under no misconception that the green and some of the grades it has ARE natural grades as you apparently are!

I NEVER said that the green was at "natural grades" .

WHERE did you come up with that insane idea ?
It wasn't from me.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Any chance this will turn into a normal conversation today?

Is the bunkerless image in any way better than the real image?"


Sully:

The bunkerless version looks much more natural to me and I like that and I believe that grass grade falloff instead of the bunker there probably would make the green and its approach and recovery playability even better than the present hole.

I've been there, and I've played that hole enough. I remember the way the green played before Silva's project and I know how it plays now.

I'm not suggesting they actually redesign the hole to look like Wayne Photoshop image. Raynor architecture is what it is and I like it. But I think the hole that Wayne did would be really good and again, the whole thing looks more natural to me too.

One of the things I really like about Wayne's image is it just doesn't have the blatant and obvious visual features that a golfer can easily visually key into and I really like holes that don't. I think they make golfers concentrate a whole lot more on what's really going on in front of them and on what they have to do.

[JESII]

Tom,

For the most part I agree...for this specific hole I would just hope that the grade of the approach was enough to actually draw the ball away from the green a decent amount...I don't know the hole so I can't say for sure.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()