Is natural the ultimate goal?

[RJ_Daley]

Jim, I hope that you feel you have had a better chance to more fully develope your thoughts beyond the quote of yours that some of us questioned.  That was my intention. 

You asked me a direct question above...

Let me ask you, on the links courses of Ireland, did they choose land and locate holes in places that happen to fit into a specific or predetermined playing strategy? I would contend that they placed holes (for the most part) through terrain that allowed for the hole to be possible on the rugged ground. It was then up to the players to find thier own best way to play through the setting. That's fun!

I agree with your thoughs to the extent I can.  But, I have never had the pleasure of seeing in person some of those Irish courses you speak of.  Going strictly be impression I have from photos, I think those natrual land forms were the location where the course designers were asked, or some process led them to be challenged to site a golf course.  The fact that those that wanted a golf course there had prior understanding that such a site is conducive for golf (since similar landforms is where golf originated), it was only natural to decide that such location was the best place.  So it isn't a 'what came first, chicken or egg'.  We know the land came first, the dsire to creat golf came next, and the architect's notions of what a golf course should be, came after that.

However, the task of a routing upon, over and through that natural land had to have a predetermined goal by definition, to create a place for golf.  At every twist and turn of the routing, a predetermined goal of providing an interesting space for golf was the challenge, that presented options to the designer at ever step of the route.  Whoever routed whichever course you speak of within those natural landforms, had a predetermined notion of what a game of golf required - to some degree of their own previous experience or understanding of the game.  Those predetermined notions may have been refined into a basic philosophy that favored penal or heroic styles.  They may have predetermined that it had to be 18 holes adding up to a par of something between 68 and 73.  They may have predetermined that there should be no more than 4-6 par 3s, etc.

Take any one of those tracts of natural land forms, and put any competent and experienced GCA upon that land, and it is almost certain that different routes through that land will be selected based on each individual designer's predetermined concept or understanding of goals and strategy of the game.

They had to have a predetermined notion and set of values, no matter how natural or conducive the land was for interesting routing and for likelihood of turf growth, etc. 

But, If you have land where you as a landscape architecture artist intend to create interesting spaces artificially, I ask if the artistic landform you are about to create considers the aesthetic artfulness of the effort first, or the utility and usefullness of the space for golf first?  You speak of creating a space that evokes emotion leading to not just a space but a place where memory of that emotion is retained.  Is the memory of the space just a visual emotion, or an interactive emotion of visual and functional experience of how the golfer challenged or conquered the place you created?  Did you think of giving him that challenge of a field of play first, or create the place, and let all the golfers figure it out,  with no predetermined notion on your part as to what they were intended to do there? 

This stuff gets awfully esoteric, and maybe it is beyond my ken.  But, I'm trying here on good old GCA.com, which is about the only place I can go for trying to learn or understand this stuff, from some horses (for courses) or architects mouths... 

[Joe Hancock]

RJ,

Heady stuff! Keep that up and you'll Have Peter Pallotta all over this thread!

 

Joe

[RJ_Daley]

Joe, a good writer and clear thinker like Peter must feel like fingernails on the blackboard when reading my stuff.  Not to mention Kelly going to his special medicine cabinet for a chill pill.   

I will say however, in keeping with the theme of the day, watching the TV hearings, on the subject of my writing here,  "it is what it is"...

[TEPaul]

RJ:

Congratulations on post #75. You did good, pal!

I have to think on some of those old linksland courses that were so early in golf course architecture (some such as TOC I believe pretty much preceded GCA as we know it) were so different than anything we relate to today. I call them "paths of least resistance" courses or architecture. In other words, the latitude for differing alternatives were probably really limited compared to what we know and do today.

Many of those really old linksland sites were so narrow and limited by the locations of their natural "swards" (original natural bent and fescue areas utilized as the fairways without doing anything to them) and dunes limitations on the sea side and farmland limitations on the other side they probably basically were an obvious "golf walk" in a routing sense. In  other words, they basically routed themselves naturally or because of their natural characteristics.

And then when I see holes like Old Head's #6, I think it is, it's just so naturally occuring and so obviously a complete golf hole tee to fairway to green, I don't think any architect could help but see it in its natural state and the wonderful golf possibilities of its natural state and just try to fit the sequencing both to it and away from it because it is so wonderful in its natural state and potential for golf just as it is.

In my opinion, such things can be some of the obstacles to golf architecture and particularly routing. What I mean is on really great land sometimes you find holes that seem so perfect in their natural state you have to figure out the balance and variety and creation of things getting to them and then away from them. And if for whatever reason the getting to them and away from them is creating real problems with balance and variety and sequencing then you realize you have a real problem and the question becomes do you hold on to those wonderful natural landforms just as they are at the expense of the whole.

Bill Coore sort of taught me that. He said that it's not unusual to have really great land become more problematic in the overall than land that's sort of bland and easy to make things on.

I think the analogy of golf architecture to a jigsaw puzzle, particularly routing, really is such a good analogy. But then one needs to add that GCA, particularly on great and potential land, is like finding great jigsaw puzzle PIECES and then realizing you have to make some other pieces to fit well to them with balance and variety just to maintain their wonderful natural integrity!

[Peter Nomm]

Bill Coore sort of taught me that. He said that it's not unusual to have really great land become more problematic in the overall than land that's sort of bland and easy to make things on.

TEP - do you think that a place like Sand Hills would fit that description?  The picture in the clubhouse with the 120 or so "found" holes - did that create a problem trying to find the perfect fit?

[Sean_A]

Sean - I agree that a gca has a goal to provide a product that is functional. To me that function is to provide an emotional human experience. Whether that is derived from the spaces and the visual landforms or from the playing of the game or most likey from a combination of both, the goal is to invoke emotion. It is my belief that most artforms have a similar goal.

Jim

It isn't often that I am given over to strong emotion on a golf course - well, due to the course anyway.  Oddly, Carne is one of the places that blew me away.  I couldn't believe that the fundamental characteristics of the land could be left intact and still provide such a thrilling canvas that was just about playable (unlike Ballybunion Cashen).  In this case I definitely think what the archie didn't do was as important as what he did do.  In other words, for an archie to impart a strong emotional experience to me he will will have to rely very heavily on what mother nature gives him.  Do you think such a heavy reliance on what many don't call architecture (using natural landforms) - though I strongly disagree with this assessment - is generally positive or negative?

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"TEP - do you think that a place like Sand Hills would fit that description?  The picture in the clubhouse with the 120 or so "found" holes - did that create a problem trying to find the perfect fit?"

Peter:

Absolutely. Sand Hills, according to Coore was such a wealth of potentially natural holes and routings and such it was nigh on impossible for them at first to decide what to pick and what to do. In that way SH just may be wholly unique in GCA.

When something that unique happens I guess I can see the dilemma for an architect. That would be, even if you think you have found the best 18 holes out of perhaps 130 holes and the best routing out of all those possibilities still the feeling is you have left so many potential natural holes out there unused! 

[TEPaul]

PeterN:

I hate to say this but if Coore and Crenshaw and Mr Youngscap were to develop all those natural landforms into golf holes that seem naturally perfect for golf holes how exactly to use them all for golf in a limited play atmosphere like that really would be one of the most mindbendingly interesting questions that golf and golf course architecture was ever confronted with. That, of course, is just the first strata of amazing possibilities for the use for golf of the "natural". The next order of difficulty would be how to maintain them and pay for it. 

But seriously, if they actually did develop all those potential natural landforms for golf holes into golf holes that apparently numbered around 130 the possiblitiy for the ultimate expression of all in golf and golf architecture---eg "COURSES WITHIN COURSES", would be almost too much to imagine!   

To me, Peter Nomm, THAT would be the absolute ULTIMATE expression and example of the blow-away ideal in this entire art form and subject of golf and GCA and it occurs to me that it probably never will or never can happen.

But, I'll tell you one thing, if I were Youngscap and I had unlimited dough-rey-me, I'd do it just to do it!! 

[Peter Nomm]

And then we could all get into a great discussion of choosing the selected holes for each round (just like our switching tees debate!).

But I have long wondered about architects looking back on courses like that wondering "what if?"  No doubt they should be proud of SH but I do you think that each time C or C visits he doesn't look around and think of how one of those other holes might have played out.

[Adam Russell]

My quick take on things:
 1)The ultimate goal of an artist/art is expression. Not creating specific works for people, not masterpieces. Those ends enter into subjective realm.
 2) Golf courses/golf course architecture are in that subjective realm because of the people who pay to play and build them, so golf design is not art. It is a service. But that doesn't mean that this service isn't dynamic enough to create great beauty and emotion like art. Also, one's ideal course design-wise or playability-wise is different from person to person because of unique golf experiences, which lead people to create opinions about ultimate golf design styles. I grew up in the middle of nowhere-likewise, I prefer a natural-looking golf course.But I think natural is not the ultimate goal. Subjective has no ultimate goal other than a unique, personal one (man, that's DEEP!! )
 3)I hope someone has the backing to produce a rectilinear course someday because of the variety and discussion it will inevitably incite.

I think the "ultimate" (again, subjective) goal in course design for a designer is satisfaction. As soon as a course opens and enters into a public realm, the ultimate goal changes and the criteria is completely different. I believe there is a separation of ideals.
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

- Patrick - do you feel that the gca should predetermine how a golf hole should be played?

I think that's an inherent function of the GCA.

GCA's determine angles of attack, alternate routes, prefered routes, risk/reward, etc., etc..[/color]

If "the ultimate goal is in the play of the game", does that mean the environment within which the game is palyed has no effect upon the enjoyment of the playing, either perceived or  not perceived ?"

That would depend upon the context in which you place the word, "environment"

Certainly it means something different at Shadow Creek than it does at Sand Hills.

At Shadow Creek the environment was hostile.
The golf course, in a form, sterile, not related to the environment, was inserted within that environment.

At Sand Hills the environment became part of the golf course.

At both courses, and all courses, the GCA dictates play in a universal sense.
In many cases, it's shot specific, clearly predetermined, in others, the GCA provides more latitude in the play of the holes.[/color]

[Brock Peyer]

Oops! Sorry this was supposed to be a new topic. ROOKIES!!!

Greetings all! Apologies for not posting in a while.

Tom Doak made a post a couple of months ago as follows.....
 
"Heck, when I can have a friendly exchange with Jim Engh and not even mention how artificial his courses are, you know there's something wrong here."

I consider Tom a friend and we have had some fun conversations over the past few years. Yep, his delivery style does make me giggle.  Alas, the point of the issue is that his comment has peaked my curiosity.

Is natural the ultimate goal? 

Jim

I don't want to offend my wife (especially the day before Valentine's Day)but I think that there is a correlation between this topic and the topic of breast augmentation.  If it/they look good and are appreciated, what does it matter if it/they are real or fake?  It's all in the eye of the beholder.  I am sure that there are Desmond Muirhead groupies out there?  People love Nicklaus and Dye courses and people obviously love Baywatch, ..... same thing.  Things are beautiful in their own way.

[Peter Pallotta]

RJ - like TE said, very good post there. But you got the other part wrong - my own writing sounds like nails on a blackboard to me; though sometimes the noise is worth it, at least to me.

JIM ENGH - thanks very much for your posts. I think post #72 is an extremely important one, for many reasons. 

It highlights the vital role that choice and intention plays in the architect's art.  With all the grown-up talk about practical constraints and business demands and consumer expectations, that fundamental aspect/component of golf course design gets missed too often around here, by the professionals and amateurs alike.  I think choice and intention determine all, or very nearly all. 

Secondly, your thoughts on evoking emotions strikes a real chord. I'm not sure, however, that two emotions in particular can be evoked except via a purely naturalistic approach, those emotions being wonder and awe.

Someone asked me a while back to realize that few golfers seek such a refuge (a place of awe and wonder) on a golf course. Maybe he was right; but I think we'll never know for sure until a few examples of such refuges actually exist.  I think they can and would exist, except for the predominant weight that most architects (despite the occasional denials) place of having their golf courses manifest the traditional shot-testing concepts.

Pat Mucci always articulates those concepts very well. I think I understand their value. I too like to compete on a golf course, and to be tested. I just think the concepts regarding what tests a golf shot have become very narrow and fixed -- in fact, probably became very narrow and fixed quite early on in American golf, say around 1930. 

It'll take a very bold step to swing that pendulum back into balance; maybe it's the boldness of seeking wonder and awe on a golf course, through nature and through a profound humility in the face of nature's shapes and forms on a site-specific basis, that'll do the trick.

Thanks again, Jim. 

Peter

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter,

Not too long ago, when I lost 70 pounds and had no strength, I couldn't hit the ball very far and I had a great deal of difficulty getting any, let alone adequate, trajectory.

Yet, I loved to play even more.

I had to think and tack my way around the features that I otherwise would have discarded.

While my scores soared, so did the joy of playing the golf course along with the challenge of interfacing with almost every feature on it.

To hit a big low draw/hook around a fronting bunker instead of merely flying it was fun, and when I succeeded, I was ecstatic.

And when I failed, I paid the price I was meant to pay.

I've always loved the process of observing, analyzing, planning, creating and executing.  It probably provides the greatest thrills for me.

Not long ago, on the 2nd hole at Seminole, into a good wind, I hit my drive into the front right fairway bunker.  I was about 180 yards from the green.
I took a 3-wood, choked it up, punch-cut it up the left side, into the left side opening where it ran up onto the green, not far from the hole.

I did the same thing with a 3-iron on # 11, a 3-wood on # 15 and # 18.

I got far more joy out of those crazy shots than I did when I hit a normal 3-wood 20 feet from the hole on the par 5 3rd hole.  Maybe, if I'd have one putted instead of three putting I would have liked that shot better 

There's more, far more, to golf than scoring, and, I like to score well, but I really love to think up and execute crazy shots to counter or defeat the architectural features.  That remains one of my greatest joys on the golf course.

[TEPaul]

"Pat Mucci always articulates those concepts very well."

Peter:

You've been on quite a roll on here for quite a time but please don't stretch your run with thoughtless  and irresponsible statements like that about Patrick Mucci. A 2% accuracy percentage on Patrick Mucci's part doesn't come close to being remotely synonymous with "always" in anyone's book.

Matter of fact, Patrick Mucci's accuracy percentage doesn't even come close to the "Black Swan" random test percentage of seemingly al dente spaghetti sticking to the wall.

[Jim Nugent]

PeterN:

I hate to say this but if Coore and Crenshaw and Mr Youngscap were to develop all those natural landforms into golf holes that seem naturally perfect for golf holes how exactly to use them all for golf in a limited play atmosphere like that really would be one of the most mindbendingly interesting questions that golf and golf course architecture was ever confronted with. That, of course, is just the first strata of amazing possibilities for the use for golf of the "natural". The next order of difficulty would be how to maintain them and pay for it. 

But seriously, if they actually did develop all those potential natural landforms for golf holes into golf holes that apparently numbered around 130 the possiblitiy for the ultimate expression of all in golf and golf architecture---eg "COURSES WITHIN COURSES", would be almost too much to imagine!   

To me, Peter Nomm, THAT would be the absolute ULTIMATE expression and example of the blow-away ideal in this entire art form and subject of golf and GCA and it occurs to me that it probably never will or never can happen.

But, I'll tell you one thing, if I were Youngscap and I had unlimited dough-rey-me, I'd do it just to do it!! 

How would Sand Hills have worked as a kind of Sheep Ranch layout, either with the existing greens or different/additional ones? 

Jim Engh -- I haven't read all the thread, so if you already answered this, please don't bother to repeat yourself.  Have you ever designed a "natural" or "minimalist" style of course?  If not, can you see yourself doing that, ala Pac Dunes, or Sand Hills, or  Barnbougle Dunes, or whatever fits some particular land?

[Mark Bourgeois]

What does everyone think of this - sorry if these points have been made already, I am unable to read the entire thread:

"Naturalism" is wholly within the conception of the human mind. As such, naturalism is a means to an end for an architect.

The end must be something associated with the play of the sport, such as MacKenzie's "greatest pleasure for the greatest number."

"Naturalism" is more than a tool, it's a strategy architects can use alternately to confirm or confound the expectations of golfers. Whether to  confirm or confound is decided by whichever one provokes the appropriate reaction of pleasure. (or related emotions such as awe.)

It's not the only strategy, and furthermore it can employed to various degrees.

But I say naturalism can provide two useful benefits for the architect: aesthetics and play of the game.

Some may use it simply to hide the hand of man (aesthetic), and therefore to assist in the craft of course construction, whereas others will use it to affect the play of the game by playing on golfers' conceptualization of nature in the form of heuristics, and confirm or confound those heuristical calculations.

For example, they will use humps and hollows not simply to add a physical challenge, but a perceptual and conceptual mental challenge: depth misperception.

So, no, naturalism isn't the goal it is one strategy for accomplishing the goal, which is the play of a sport!

Mark

[JMorgan]

Here's a quote from Colt:

"As regards the construction of artificial hollows, mounds, and bunkers, the model should be the natural sand-dune country which is found near the sea."

Three things I'll note:

1. use of artificial (artifice) to imitate natural
2. model of natural sand-dunes
3. you pick your role models.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Pat Mucci always articulates those concepts very well."

Peter:

You've been on quite a roll on here for quite a time but please don't stretch your run with thoughtless  and irresponsible statements like that about Patrick Mucci. A 2% accuracy percentage on Patrick Mucci's part doesn't come close to being remotely synonymous with "always" in anyone's book.

Matter of fact, Patrick Mucci's accuracy percentage doesn't even come close to the "Black Swan" random test percentage of seemingly al dente spaghetti sticking to the wall.

I see you know as much about pasta as you do about golf course architecture.

Al Dente, the pasta, not the plumber, DOESN'T stick to the wall.

It's cooked "al dente", to prevent it from becoming soft.
It's hard or "to the tooth".

You've got so much to learn and I have so little time, but, I promised your dear mother that I'd look after you and teach you the ways of the world.  Sadly, I'm failing in that endeavor.[/color]

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Although I've been aware of the meaning of Al Dente for over half a century thanks for the lesson anyway!   

By the way, can you identify and explain the epistemological point at which spaghetti passes from the commonly accepted state of Al Dente and has a 50% chance or better of sticking to YOUR kitchen wall?

Pat, PAT, PATRICK, no, NO, NO, STOP! The metal door of you refrigerator or your wife's forehead is not considered to be your kitchen wall!!!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

My wife's spaghetti only travels a limited distance, from the plate, to the fork, to my mouth.

The only things hanging on my kitchen walls are dart boards with your picture on them.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

It is not your wife's spaghetti I'm concerned about. It's yours!

When I come up there to have dinner with the two of you maybe we better not go to an Italian restaurant. I don't want to be embarrassed at dinner when you throw a couple of strands of spagehetti against the back of the dress at the lady at the next table.

By the way, what does one call a single piece of spaghetti? Is it a strand, a rope, a thread or just a piece? If you're going to eat spaghetti one really does need to know these things first.

[Philippe Binette]

There's a question within is natural the ultimate goal? It's: what is natural?

I would say that what we call natural is in fact landscape (I know I'm going into deep theory and probably pointless) but not a lot of land in the world can be called nature (or wilderness).

If you guys believe that the Old Course is natural... It's more the product of 500 years of maintenance, helped with a public agreement of the value of the land as a playing ground over private development.

There's nothing natural at Barnbougle Dunes... the dunes were stabilized by marram grass imported from British settlers in 1920 or so.

The links courses existence were helped by a social consensus to proclaim sand dunes common grounds and let people and animals wandered around.

I could go on and on on every site. The point I want to make is that a golf course is a gesture on the landscape and the architect job is to establish that gesture following a personnal process (or vision)  to organise it.

Whether he choose to try to copy the landscape (Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes etc) or to go totally against it (Shadow Creek etc) is a matter of perception from the architect.

Some architects (I'm partly from this side) believe that a golf course should blend has good has possible into a landscape and ultimately in a 100 years of smart maintenance, it will be part of the landscape.

Some other architects believe that there's no way a golf course can be natural, even Sand Hills relies on mowers and sprinklers and maintenance... a 40 yard wide by 300 yards surface of uniformely mowed surface has nothing natural... So those architects allow themself to shape the land the way they wish and create a golf course that would be in itself a landscape.

In other words, what makes a better golf course is definitely somewhere in between those two extremes. It's just whether the architect wants to make his shaping visible (on the land or in his words) or not...

The last thing I want to hear is that everything was natural...

[TEPaul]

Philippe:

Once again, the point in golf course architecture is not that things should be actually natural but that what is made should look as natural to a golfer as it possible can under the circumstances and the necessary requirements of golf. If the discussants on here or anywhere else can't get past that I don't  think they ever will get anywhere on this subject about the aspect of naturalness in golf and architecture.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Is natural the ultimate goal   - just perhaps if it heads us in the direction to the original ideas and concept of the uncorrupted game of the mid to late 1850’s-1900’s. Played on real courses (as I previously mentioned - view Askernish web site www.askernishgolfclub.com to see what an original course may have looked like).

If we are going to move mountains to create a course, then it will never be natural. Just look at the Castle Course, St Andrews – look at the wider picture incorporating the land around the course – its sloping farm land and does not relate to the Castle Course – no matter how it plays or how brilliant some believe the design, IT IS ARTIFICIAL and looks unnatural  and of out place with its surroundings. Give me Askernish, Cullen, Bridge of Allan, Warkworth, Tarland, Tain etc., etc. Carbuncles like the Castle Course should not, in my view, be allowed. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder – but if you believe that unbalanced massive breast implants are beautiful, then artificial courses will be totally acceptable to you. Sorry they can never be natural, so should not be considered as part of any ultimate goal.
I accept that we all have a right to our opinion, thank God for GCA which lets us air our views in a constructive way.