Is the pursuit of a natural appearance really only about the look?

[George Pazin]

There are many different ideas on here about what constitutes a great golf course (contrary to the rumors of the paranoid ), and one of the many differentiators is those would value a natural appearance in a golf course and those who are only concerned with playing charateristics (the nebulous "shot values").

To be fair, most of those concerned with appearance claim it is an adjunct to the playing characteristics of a course, even though they are frequently dismissed as only caring about the appearance (or as one esteemed poster put it, they're unnaturally fixated on hairy bunkers). Most of these posters are forced to almost reflexively state that yes, of course the playing characteristics of a golf course are paramount.

Well, I think there is a case to be made that the pursuit of a natural appearance is not merely an aesthetic one - and I will make it!

(Let me add, all those who feel all golf courses are artificial, feel free to check out and ignore the rest - we're obviously talking shades of gray here.)

To me, the pursuit of a natural appearance is far more than just the look of the bunkers. It is the preservation of contours throughout the course (or perhaps the introduction of contours, in faux naturalism). It is allowing the grass to go brown if necessary to maintain firm conditions. It's about rough that is not uniformly lush, or regimented in grades. It's about not manicuring the edges of bunkers to look like landscaping projects. It's about not introducing a big water hazard just so you have a signature hole. It's about not making perfectly symmetrical hazards, especially in a repetitive pattern.

It's about all of these things, and probably a bunch more that I've forgotten to include or maybe don't even know about.

Now, if you think about it, all of these things have a dramatic impact on the playing characteristics of a course.

Preserving contours certainly presents multiple challenges to play, as does contours or dramatic pitches in greens.

Not always going for uniform green grass has a dramatic impact on playing characteristics.

And so on, and so on.

So, it is my own personal opinion that whenever golfers claim to only care about how a course plays, they are either intuitively evaluating these elements, or they are seriously shortchanging both themselves and the golf course with respect to the sport of golf. I believe the game and the course is much more interesting when there is a huge pallet of gray (8 bit or 16 bit grayscale for you computer geeks out there), not just black and white, or 5 shades of gray.

Agree? Disagree? Think I've spent too much time indoors this winter? Think I haven't played enough golf lately?

Please share your thoughts, and when I say that, I mean don't simply answer yes or no, tell me why you feel the way you do.

 

[Tom_Doak]

George:

Well said.

[Andy Troeger]

George,
I find no fault with anything you said and would tend to agree with much of it. The only caveat I would have is not to dismiss courses that are not natural. I can certainly agree that moving dirt and creating features when they already exist in nature seems to be an exercise in futility, or at the very least somewhat of a waste of time. However, there are many ways to create or even imitate what can be found in nature and that can and has been done very well in its own right. Natural is great, but I think there's more than one way.

[BCrosby]

Good post George.

The kind of golf you play is determined in important respects by the kind of golf course you play. That - in a nutshell - is why golf architecture matters so much. In no other sport does the nature of the playing venue carry so much significance for the game played on it.

I like playing on "natural" courses not because of their looks or because they satisfy some landscaping theory. I prefer them because of the kind of golf they induce me to play.

Bob



 

[Peter Pallotta]

Nothing to add to this thread, except my compliments. Those four posts are like the 27 Yankees' Murderers Row. 

So, to follow in Gehrig's wake (Lazzeri?) I've preferred the few natural courses I've played because of the spirit of the game they seem to engender in me - a spirit of competition, yes, but also of peace.

Peter

[Michael Moore]

"The fear of death on which Hobbes relied, and which is also decisive for Locke, insists on the negative experience of nature and obliterates the positive experience presupposed by it. This positive experience is somehow still active in us; we are full of vague dissatisfactions in our forgetfulness, but our minds must make an enormous effort to find the natural sweetness of life in its fullness . . . For Hobbes and Locke nature is near and unattractive, and man's movement into society was easy and unambiguously good. For Rousseau nature is distant and attractive, and the movement was hard and divided man. Just when nature seemed to have finally been cast out or overcome in us, Rousseau gave birth to an overwhelming longing for it in us."

Allan Bloom - The Closing of the American Mind

[John Moore II]

I must say that this is not what I was expecting when I opened this thread. I agree that natural appearance is about far more than the look. Its about how you play, how well it matches the surroundings, how well it blends in with the surroundings and many other things. Naturalism is IMHO the best way to design a golf course. It simply makes less of a footprint on the land and is far more in harmony with the surroundings.

[Jeremy Rivando]

IMO a worthy pursuit of a natural appearance involves a few key elements.

First is construction.  There is a lot of talk of minimalism around here, justifiably so, on any new project dirt will have to be moved, just how much is up for debate.  Drainage is a key factor in earthmoving, if you can find playing areas that have surface flow that will reduce the amount of earthmoving, if drainage will be an issue than that is where machinery can have an impact.  Ideally on a property with suitable soil and agreeable contours the golf holes can be found throughout the property.  Finding Mother Nature's routing may be difficult but I'm sure she has one there to be found on any great property.

Maintenance is the next key factor.  Allowing the land the take on it's own character is paramount to the appearance the course will display.  Choosing the right grasses (I've recently read a great article on Ballyneal on which a thread was posted re: turfgrass) is another important part of the finished product.  The future of chemical free maintenace is nearing and golf courses will be brown at times, rough will not be uniform, and a perfect symmetry will be out of place.  As long as the grounds crew understands the basic needs of the course you can still have great playing conditions.  Maintenance budgets have gone through the roof and the business model that supports that has a limited future, limited to only the finest golf courses in the land.

After the construction is done and the maintenance is established I see no reason a course can't have a natural appearance and a natural feel.  This idea has long been limited to those great course across the Atlantic but I see little reason why they can't become the future courses here in the Americas, or at least in Canada where the weather may be a little more similar.

The best feeling for me is being on a course that blends in effortlessly with the surrounds, a course that has its aesthetic flaws, and one that is only about the golf.  I just wish I can say I've played more of them.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the responses thus far.

I'm short on time, so I'll share more thoughts later, but I'm a little disappointed that all those who constantly moan about how biased "we" all are, how "we" only care about the look, how "we" favor architects who give us that look, and how "their" opinions are superior because they only consider how the course plays - and you know who you are - haven't shared any thoughts.

Maybe I made my case too well.

[TEPaul]

"Is the pursuit of a natural appearance really only about the look?"


George:

In some way, perhaps it is, but to me the "look" of a natural appearance seems to translate into other things like a "feeling" or an "aura" or "atmosphere". 

[JESII]

George,

I have made occassional accusations about a "party line" here but I am not sure I'm the guy you're trying to flesh out...maybe I am...

I saw this thread last night and thought hard about a proper response but I am not yet ready to wade in, so I am going to ask a question instead...sorry!

What is the difference (to each individual) between "Natural" and "Weathered"?

[Don_Mahaffey]

George,
Often I think it is way more about the look than actually working with the land. Everyone seems to be doing it now, and with better construction you’re now a minimalist if it just "looks" like you didn't move any dirt. I think in some cases they are moving more than ever because they are taking it out wider in an effort to be sure that every thing does tie in.
But, in most cases, the short grass is still long flowing lines and the chop doesn't start until you get off the playing areas.

Leaving or enhancing fairway contours is still the most under utilized feature in golf architecture, IMO. I don't know if its a functional deal in that all those ripples are hard to drain or maintain, or if it's a playability thing. But it's sure what is happening out there. Try to naturalize the edges and smooth out the middle...that's what I'm seeing in an attempt to "work with the land".

[wsmorrison]

George,

The pursuit of what I call naturalism in golf architecture, using as much of the natural land as possible and when man does intervene, making sure that architecture looks as natural as possible, even achieving hiding the hand of man.  This all goes well beyond the look of bunkers into many of the areas you bring up.  I use naturalism to differentiate the use of natural features and a significant amount of mimicking nature in a design versus a design that is overwhelmingly natural, like the original links courses, Sand Hills, etc.

Where sand wasn't natural to a site, in general, William Flynn did not put a lot of effort into making his bunkers look eroded and natural.  What he did take great care to do on all his courses was to place his bunkers in ideal locations for a range of golfers.  Placement certainly is more important than look.  But naturalism is not just about bunkers, it is about how all architectural features (greens, fairways, rough, hazards and tees) are tied into the natural surrounds, both near and distant.  When things look like they belong or have been there all along, we feel better being in such an environment.  For many golfers, it is more enjoyable whether it is conscious or not.

You can have both natural aesthetics and excellent golf.  To me, that is the epitome of golf design and my strong preference.  I guess if someone like Matt Ward thinks playability is important, he can do so in whatever way he awkwardly tries to apply his risk/reward test or whatever it is he was trying to say.  For those of us that appreciate naturalism, it isn't to the exclusion of interesting playability, it is the balance of the two that we appreciate most.  I am sure nobody here thinks if you can only have one, that looks should subordinate challenge and interesting design.  Why not have it all?   I think some of the ODG thought enough to make it happen and left us some time-tested greats.  Fortunately, there are architects today that care about the same concepts and are providing more great golf with "feelings, auras or atmospheres" to match.

[Michael Dugger]

You hit a home run, George, amen.

[TEPaul]

"What is the difference (to each individual) between "Natural" and "Weathered"?"

Sully:

Some of the old board supports known as "sleepers" that supported the faces of some of the old bunkers and were perhaps the most unnatural looking element ever used in golf architecture can look remarkably "weathered" but that won't ever make them look like natural earth/grass forms to me.

What the hell, I look really "weathered" these days too but I doubt anyone would accuse me of looking like a really good natural golf architectural feature.

[JESII]

Has the weathering process of your appearance been a natural progression? Or have you artificially enhanced it?

[TEPaul]

Get outta town Sullivan! There's not much more natural than the grape!



Matter of fact, it just may be the most versatile commodity in the history of mankind. Who can deny that this comment from Mae West to her maid might have been the coolest remark to ever pass the lips of a human being?

"Buellah, peel me a grape."

[Mike_Cirba]

George,

Nature is messy, nature is imperfect, nature is random, nature is raw, nature is unexpected, nature is without rules, nature is changeable, nature is intimidating, nature is fierce, nature is adventurous, nature is grandeur, nature is peerless, nature is scary, nature is infinite, nature is every variation, every color, every pattern, every risk, and every harbor of safety.

The best courses succeed in becoming one with nature and the surrounding environment.   The "look" has very, very little to do with some subjective, limited, feeble understanding we might have of beauty and order.   Instead, I believe that what appeals to us about courses that become part of any unique set of natural surrounds is the feeling we have of becoming part and parcel of the larger whole ourselves, and the resultant sense of our place in the proper order of things.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think it is just a fad that may be in response to the high cost of diesel fuel.  To me a natural looking course is no more or less interesting than Stone Harbor. 

[BCrosby]

A course that looks natural is important for a number of reasons. Some were pointed out above.

How it got that way is irrelevant. That was/is the view of the architects I respect most. That's my view too.

What matters is the "naturalism conceit."  We all know that golf courses are the by-product of careful human planning. We accept that and willingly suspend disbelief, and call them "natural," even though we know that's not literally true.

Consistent with the foregoing is that maintaining the naturalism of courses often requires lots man hours and machines. None of that bothers me in the least.

Bob
 

[Adam Clayman]

Isn't this where our other JK sings "Feelings"?

They (Feelings) do seem to be the key to GCA sophistication. Those who understand "sexy" as it relates, feel it.  Don't we all seek some peaceful satisfaction when golfing? IMO, the evidence can be summed up in words once utter by the Mad Armenian Scribe, after a round at Pacific Grove, "Does it ever have to be more than that?"

[George Pazin]

Leaving or enhancing fairway contours is still the most under utilized feature in golf architecture, IMO. I don't know if its a functional deal in that all those ripples are hard to drain or maintain, or if it's a playability thing. But it's sure what is happening out there. Try to naturalize the edges and smooth out the middle...that's what I'm seeing in an attempt to "work with the land".

Couldn't agree more with this sentiment - it's probably one of the biggest differences between new courses and older courses, in my limited experience. I suppose the older courses may have evolved into this, but it seems more likely they were not overly graded to start.

George,

I have made occassional accusations about a "party line" here but I am not sure I'm the guy you're trying to flesh out...maybe I am...
 

Nope, you weren't one of the ones I was referencing.

In fact, this

- and you know who you are

was easily the dumbest thing posted on this thread.

Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts. I didn't get the argument I was relishing , but I did get almost all of my favorite thinkers on the site to contribute on one short thread - not bad....

-----

This

What is the difference (to each individual) between "Natural" and "Weathered"?

deserves its own thread, so I'm off to start it.

[Dan King]

My feeling about natural is that it isn't about the look as much as the attitude. The artificial was an attempt to make an unfair game fair. A more natural looking course is also going to enhance the unfairness inherent in the game. On a natural course, you can hit the drive of your life right down the middle and end up with a sloping lie, with the ball well below your feet. An unnatural course goes out of its way to reward a good shot.

The difference to me is the natural course is a test of golf while an unnatural course is a test of shots.

Cheers,
Dan King

However unlucky you may be, it really is not fair to expect your adversary's grief for your undeserved misfortunes to be as poignant as your own.
  --Horace Hutchinson  (Hints on Golf)

[Sean_A]

My feeling about natural is that it isn't about the look as much as the attitude. The artificial was an attempt to make an unfair game fair. A more natural looking course is also going to enhance the unfairness inherent in the game. On a natural course, you can hit the drive of your life right down the middle and end up with a sloping lie, with the ball well below your feet. An unnatural course goes out of its way to reward a good shot.


The difference to me is the natural course is a test of golf while an unnatural course is a test of shots.

Cheers,
Dan King

However unlucky you may be, it really is not fair to expect your adversary's grief for your undeserved misfortunes to be as poignant as your own.
  --Horace Hutchinson  (Hints on Golf)

Dan

I agree with you.  But what happens when nature doesn't offer up any variety?  It is reasonable for archies to create interesting land in the hope of making it look natural (ie create uncertainty in its beauty)?

Ciao

[BCrosby]

Dan -

Spoken like a true Max Behrian.

Nature messes with your rational expections about golfing outcomes. There is no point at which the concepts of nature and concepts of equity intersect. Which goes to the heart of why Behr thought "natural" golf designs were so important and also why golf was fundamentally different from other "games."  

Bob